Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 8:02 pm
(September 15, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: Atheism is an amorphous description of a lack of belief in a god or gods. It could mean that someone has no faith in a religious idea about what a god or gods means, or it could be a philosophical conviction of some kind.
Something I'm curious about is why deism is virtually non-existent nowadays. There are arguments for the existence of "God", that actually, in the end, don't amount to much more than a hypothetical Prime Mover, or "something" — we don't know what — that is the source of reason, volition and material phenomena.
Is deism pointless or even dishonest, because it's asserting something as knowledge that we cannot know? Did you ever seriously consider it instead of atheism? Or is there any practical difference?
Deism only avoids some of theism's intellectual problems. It does not avoid others. In the end it fails to address the question of why one should put up with it.
Posts: 58
Threads: 2
Joined: September 15, 2019
Reputation:
0
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2019 at 8:23 pm by Inqwizitor.)
(September 30, 2019 at 8:02 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: (September 15, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: Atheism is an amorphous description of a lack of belief in a god or gods. It could mean that someone has no faith in a religious idea about what a god or gods means, or it could be a philosophical conviction of some kind.
Something I'm curious about is why deism is virtually non-existent nowadays. There are arguments for the existence of "God", that actually, in the end, don't amount to much more than a hypothetical Prime Mover, or "something" — we don't know what — that is the source of reason, volition and material phenomena.
Is deism pointless or even dishonest, because it's asserting something as knowledge that we cannot know? Did you ever seriously consider it instead of atheism? Or is there any practical difference?
Deism only avoids some of theism's intellectual problems. It does not avoid others. In the end it fails to address the question of why one should put up with it. I guess it depends on your perspective. While atheism doesn't put up any intellectual problems (because it doesn't really put up anything at all), naturalism does, and reductive or eliminative materialism do.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 9:43 pm
(September 30, 2019 at 8:19 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 8:02 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Deism only avoids some of theism's intellectual problems. It does not avoid others. In the end it fails to address the question of why one should put up with it. I guess it depends on your perspective. While atheism doesn't put up any intellectual problems (because it doesn't really put up anything at all), naturalism does, and reductive or eliminative materialism do.
Naturalism validated itself with a unique track record that affords increased probability that its apparent intellectual leaps really coincides with an existent if as yet not fully articulated foundation in reality. Other approaches do not provide anything to suggest any of their leaps are nothing more than totally unfounded wishful fancy.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm
(September 30, 2019 at 7:48 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 3:34 am)Grandizer Wrote: "God exists" in this context means a maximally great being exists, one that is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessarily so in all possible worlds. God is not simply the ground of all existence here.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Visit the link above and scroll down to the bit about Platinga and his MOA.
OK so you would agree then that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible properties?
I do think so, yeah. But that's besides the point anyway. The person making the argument still has the burden to show that such a being is logically possible in the first place. I refer you back to my math analogy.
And if the person making the argument responds back with how do you prove such a thing, well, tough luck, buddy ... you're the one trying to make a supposedly compelling argument here.
Quote:The self-contradiction may be inherent and assumed by dividing an unlimited being into these properties, which is then delimiting, and not, unlimited. Unlimited being is unlimited being, simply, no parts, no separation into knowledge, power or goodness. Pure act, as Aristotle put it (I think). On second glance I might be conflating Malcolm and Plantinga.
Yeah is what they tend to say ... until it becomes about Jesus and the Trinity.
Posts: 58
Threads: 2
Joined: September 15, 2019
Reputation:
0
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 10:08 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2019 at 10:16 pm by Inqwizitor.)
(September 30, 2019 at 9:43 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 8:19 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: I guess it depends on your perspective. While atheism doesn't put up any intellectual problems (because it doesn't really put up anything at all), naturalism does, and reductive or eliminative materialism do.
Naturalism validated itself with a unique track record that affords increased probability that its apparent intellectual leaps really coincides with an existent if as yet not fully articulated foundation in reality. Other approaches do not provide anything to suggest any of their leaps are nothing more than totally unfounded wishful fancy.
Naturalism works, absolutely. No argument there. It's when we say that naturalism is a complete metaphysical explanation that we encounter some issues with it. The easy thing to do is simply swipe aside metaphysics as impractical word-play. But our epistemology for naturalism is based on metaphysics, that our senses are reliable, that reality is intelligible, and our reasoning veridical, so that's not entirely consistent
(September 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 7:48 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: OK so you would agree then that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible properties?
I do think so, yeah. But that's besides the point anyway. The person making the argument still has the burden to show that such a being is logically possible in the first place. I refer you back to my math analogy.
And if the person making the argument responds back with how do you prove such a thing, well, tough luck, buddy ... you're the one trying to make a supposedly compelling argument here.
If we switched sides on the theism chessboard, say, just for fun, how do you think one could show that such a being is logically possible?
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 11:07 pm
(September 30, 2019 at 10:08 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I do think so, yeah. But that's besides the point anyway. The person making the argument still has the burden to show that such a being is logically possible in the first place. I refer you back to my math analogy.
And if the person making the argument responds back with how do you prove such a thing, well, tough luck, buddy ... you're the one trying to make a supposedly compelling argument here.
If we switched sides on the theism chessboard, say, just for fun, how do you think one could show that such a being is logically possible?
I don't really know. I've thought of it a lot, and ultimately, the best way to prove God is really to show that it is the best explanation for what we observe in this universe, not by appealing to its logical/metaphysical possibility as a central premise of our argument.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
October 1, 2019 at 5:07 am
Plantinga himself admits:
Quote:the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it “victorious”? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974, 221).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol...arguments/
Posts: 46361
Threads: 540
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Why not deism?
October 1, 2019 at 5:58 am
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2019 at 5:58 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
Quote:OK so you would agree then that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible properties?
Even if they were not, the ontological argument would fail because another requisite (according to Anselm, at least) of maximal greatness is moral perfection. Since we aren't privy to what makes a being morally perfect, we cannot imagine a being with this quality. It is as if we are asked to imagine a crotrable with intreverbinged ertnuschkes.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
October 1, 2019 at 10:14 am
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2019 at 10:15 am by GrandizerII.)
(September 30, 2019 at 10:08 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: (September 30, 2019 at 9:43 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Naturalism validated itself with a unique track record that affords increased probability that its apparent intellectual leaps really coincides with an existent if as yet not fully articulated foundation in reality. Other approaches do not provide anything to suggest any of their leaps are nothing more than totally unfounded wishful fancy.
Naturalism works, absolutely. No argument there. It's when we say that naturalism is a complete metaphysical explanation that we encounter some issues with it.
If you're going to keep going with this narrative, then why not admit that theism as a complete metaphysical explanation also encounters some issues with it? Theism is extraneous and raises more questions than it answers in addition to the fact that [traditional] theism doesn't sufficiently answer such metaphysical questions as why this world rather than another. Based on what do know and observe, it's just easier for rational atheists to stick provisionally to naturalism until/unless some clear and conclusive answer comes along.
Posts: 67284
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Why not deism?
October 1, 2019 at 10:25 am
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2019 at 10:27 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Full knowledge is an irrational concept, and an irrational requirement.
It has to be understood that when we say naturalism provides a complete accounting of x y and z, we're making that statement to the best of our knowledge and/or ability. Any comment that can be reduced to "but what about what you may not know?" is utterly worthless in the absence of some example to consider.
It's particularly worthless if god is supposed to be the example. As if, in the "unknown" box....a person can know that it contains a "god". Begging the question, in the process, of whether gods are in the unknown instead of known box in the first place.
In the end, the idea that we don't know everything is a deepity, and doesn't advance an argument for god, or even the possibility of a god. No more so than it would advance an argument for santa or the possibility of santa's existence.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
