(October 1, 2019 at 9:42 pm)Jackalope Wrote: To answer the OP's question, at the risk of sounding flippant...

A man that wears fear is as usefull in war as a pregnant woman.

(October 4, 2019 at 9:23 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The alternative to existence is absolute nothingness (no energy, no matter, no space, no time). Absolute nothingness seems to be an incoherent concepts (how long could that state of affairs last w/o time, for instance). There's absolute simplicity for you: existence exists because it has to.

Yes.

What is the alternative to existence, not existing? Absolute nonbeing?

If existence didn't always exist, how do theists even make the statement, 'god exists'?

Deism has no empirical evidence!

(October 7, 2019 at 5:23 pm)Ricardo Wrote: Deism has no empirical evidence!

If it did, it wouldn't be deism.

Tell the truth - you get lost on escalators, don't you?

Boru

Not sure how evidence that deism is true would stop it from being deism....

(October 8, 2019 at 9:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not sure how evidence that deism is true would stop it from being deism....

Because a deistic creator is, by definition, one that would leave no evidence.  If you had evidence of a creator, it wouldn't be a deistic one.

Boru

Ah, I didn't read the part about deism where it requires that there be no evidence that it is the case, just that the creator of the universe not intervene in the universe it has created.

(October 9, 2019 at 8:51 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Ah, I didn't read the part about deism where it requires that there be no evidence that it is the case, just that the creator of the universe not intervene in the universe it has created.

In order for such a creator to leave evidence, it would have to intervene, don't you think?

Boru

Creation is not intervention?

If we accept that creation is like a mechanism capable of independent operation (ie it's more like a clock than a march box car), then there is no requirement for continuous intervention.   In such a case, it seems to me a deist god is just a god that let his creation that runs by itself for a longer stretch of time than other ideas of god.

A Diest is just a theist who doesn't think it is right to cry for mommy whenever the light is turned out, but is still comforted by the notion of a mommy.

(October 9, 2019 at 1:58 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Creation is not intervention?

If we accept that creation is like a mechanism capable of independent operation (ie it's more like a clock than a march box car), then there is no requirement for continuous intervention.   In such a case, it seems to me a deist god is just a god that let his creation that runs by itself for a longer stretch of time than other ideas of god.

A Diest is just a theist who doesn't think it is right to cry for mommy whenever the light is turned out, but is still comforted by the notion of a mommy.

The Abrahamic god routinely intervenes in the Cosmos (at least according to the manuals).  In theory, then, it should be at least possible to find some evidence that this meddling has taken place.  One would not expect to find such evidence if the Cosmos was created by a god who stopped at creation and then went its merry way.

And no, creation is not intervention.

Boru