(September 19, 2019 at 1:10 am)Grandizer Wrote: Theism, according to a definition that I personally wouldn't hold, is the belief in a god that is active in this world.

In that case, deism is not a form of theism but its own category.

Yeah. I've even heard it argued that theism is a type of deism, and not the other way around. I'm not sure how the person came to that conclusion, though, to be honest; I didn't bother to read their entire response (I think it was on Quora).

The most important thing I was trying to get across is that no version of atheism involves any type of belief in god. That seemed to be what the OP was trying to get at in suggesting a deist could be considered an atheist.

The distinction between the two comes to us by way of cultural anthropology and (comparatively) recent western history.  

Ofc theism and deism are different.  One posits a personal and interacting god that revealed something to us.  The other rejects the very existence of such a god. I don't think op was trying to assert that atheists could be deists, only wondering whether any atheists had considered deism, or been deists, before being atheists. We used to have a few who had, and one or two who were still deists.

Wrong. He straight up claimed that deism is be a type of atheism.

Quote:Yeah, in that case a deist is a kind of agnostic atheism too, since it rejects faith and any knowledge (epistemology) for the supernatural.

Good catch, I didn't see that.  Plainly wrong, but I can understand why a catholic would get that item wrong in that way.

My apologies, I thought you were paying attention to the earlier conversation between him and I.

I'm not sure if it was an attempt to discredit atheism, or a legitimate misunderstanding of what deism and atheism are...?

Couldn't yell ya.

Nah, I was focused more on the op q.

(September 18, 2019 at 11:09 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:

---

(September 17, 2019 at 1:45 pm)Objectivist Wrote: "why is there something rather than nothing" is an improper question.  As soon as you offer a reason you are talking about existence.  You can't explain existence by pointing to something that exists.  You'd have to step outside of existence to look for an explanation.  But if something doesn't exist then it can't explain anything.  

If an answer to the question of why anything exists is the basis for your belief, then you're in trouble. You don't get down to an ontological principle by starting with an error.

I'm not sure if I understand you here. Is this the "existence precedes essence" axiom? I think when we get down to what is metaphysically necessary, existence and essence must be the same thing.

---

I'm not familiar with the "existence precedes essence" axiom.  I certainly do think that existence precedes essence since essence is an epistemological term and existence is metaphysical.  I don't think that essences exist metaphysically, as essences are the product of abstraction.  
What I mean is that the concept "existence" is axiomatic.  That means it can't be broken down or analyzed.  It can't be rationally denied and it can't be explained because there's nothing more fundamental than existence.  To what would any more fundamental concept refer, if not to something that exists.  that's why the question "where did everything come from?" is nonsensical.  It seems to be the number one reason people propose the existence of gods, but it's a proposition that answers a question that does not exist or should be dismissed as improper for making use of stolen concepts.  Cause presupposes existence.

Existence exists.

(September 19, 2019 at 12:43 am)Grandizer Wrote: Apparently according to one definition, deists aren't really theists. It's a weird one.

Well, they are. If they believe in a god that's theism. Even if its an impersonal not meddling god. I refer you to the second law of thought as in:

Deists believe in a god.

Deists are not theists. Theists are the general definition of god believers of any kind.

P -> ~P

Yeah weird one. I think Avicenna was the one that said to those that defy the second law: "I shall punch you in the face and not punch you in the face to know the difference"

---

ETA: its like someone saying "I am an atheist and believe in god.

(September 19, 2019 at 12:07 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Existence exists.

Yes, and it logically can't be dependent on anything for its existence.  It's perfectly fine to ask what caused that landslide or what caused that birthday cake but when you get to the universe or existence as a whole there's nowhere and nothing to look to as a cause, hence the stolen concepts involved with asking for a cause of existence.  It's like asking what existed before time existed or what is north of the north pole?