I don't understand how one can be Deist. The reason I'm not any sort of theist is because I believe that no religion has got it right i.e. their version of god doesn't exist. But to be a Deist, where do I get my information about God? Where does it all start?

I guess in a way I'm trying to continue on from your conclusion that either choice 1 or 2 are logical. Well, Deism doesn't make too much sense to me.

Deism is essentially the faith that there is a God and He is the true Creator, but He does not interfear with our life now that we've been created. One does not normally go to a church, as churches do more than educate one on God; they also beg God's help and love in their lives. A Deist would then not attend church, but observe his/her belief as they believe and see fit. That is my understanding of Deism. (Correct me if I'm wrong, for I do not observe the belief myself.)

(July 17, 2012 at 10:17 pm)FemmeReasonAndLogic Wrote: Deism is essentially the faith that there is a God and He is the true Creator, but He does not interfear with our life now that we've been created. One does not normally go to a church, as churches do more than educate one on God; they also beg God's help and love in their lives. A Deist would then not attend church, but observe his/her belief as they believe and see fit. That is my understanding of Deism. (Correct me if I'm wrong, for I do not observe the belief myself.)

Yeah I know this much at least, but I don't see how exactly this belief changes anything?

(July 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I don't understand how one can be Deist. The reason I'm not any sort of theist is because I believe that no religion has got it right i.e. their version of god doesn't exist. But to be a Deist, where do I get my information about God? Where does it all start?

I guess in a way I'm trying to continue on from your conclusion that either choice 1 or 2 are logical. Well, Deism doesn't make too much sense to me.

Well I think it's circular to argue for God on a basis of religion. Suppose a Creator exists, and sends a million books from the sky at once, describing whom he is. Why should we believe in him? If he talks to us all together, why should we believe in him? Only if you know he is truthful to begin with, can you know to trust him. But on what basis would you know? Because the books/religion says so. That is circular reasoning.

So Islam for example, has to say we have knowledge of God already.

So I don't think religions can escape knowing God in a properly basic manner and assert religion is the way to know God.

The thing that seems to be at the core of our knowledge about God is that there is Being that is great to the extent he can't be greater. From this we can rationally derive he cannot lack any quality that would make him greater. From this, we can know he must not lack compassion, mercy, love, generosity, power, wisdom, etc.

(July 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I don't understand how one can be Deist. The reason I'm not any sort of theist is because I believe that no religion has got it right i.e. their version of god doesn't exist. But to be a Deist, where do I get my information about God? Where does it all start?

This has always been my stance. Deists annoy me more than theists because their god belief stems from nothing other than wishful thinking.

---

(July 18, 2012 at 2:55 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Well I think it's circular to argue for God on a basis of religion. Suppose a Creator exists, and sends a million books from the sky at once, describing whom he is. Why should we believe in him? If he talks to us all together, why should we believe in him? Only if you know he is truthful to begin with, can you know to trust him. But on what basis would you know? Because the books/religion says so. That is circular reasoning.

So Islam for example, has to say we have knowledge of God already.

So I don't think religions can escape knowing God in a properly basic manner and assert religion is the way to know God.

The thing that seems to be at the core of our knowledge about God is that there is Being that is great to the extent he can't be greater. From this we can rationally derive he cannot lack any quality that would make him greater. From this, we can know he must not lack compassion, mercy, love, generosity, power, wisdom, etc.

And where did people get the idea that there was a great being? From holy books FFS!

Epimethean Wrote:It takes no courage: It takes a decent mental faculty and a lack of credulity.

Acutally, it doesn't even take that. A person in a coma can be an atheist.

Nobody who claims knowledge of God is justified in their assertion.
Just because there is a chance they may be correct doesn't justufy belief without evidence, especially in the case of a God that gets shredded by Occam's razor. There had been no God in the history of the word that is the most likely hypothesis in a set of beings that created worlds.
Oh, and the argument from degree is one of the oldest and most pathetic arguments in the books. We don't "know" there to be a being of ultimate greatness. It isn't necessary for there to be an ultimate being at all.

(July 18, 2012 at 8:14 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Epimethean Wrote:It takes no courage: It takes a decent mental faculty and a lack of credulity.

Acutally, it doesn't even take that. A person in a coma can be an atheist.

De facto, or a priori?

I must have gotten confused at some point during the ramble, so I probably missed a bit.

But it is possible, that the universe is inside the stomach of a quantum spacegoat, but clearly not equiprobable.

It is logically possible we have knowledge that we all exist in the stomach of a quantum spacegoat as a delusion.
It is logically possible we have knowledge that we all exist in the stomach of a quantum spacegoat as knowledge.

This does not mean they are both in a position, despite neither being completely verifiable, of equal status. I am comfortable in not believing in the spacegoats stomach acids.. some people can't imagine life without the great digestion system. Not my problem until someone asserts it as fact, and demands I abstain from goats milk as a sign of repect.

I am not an atheist because I chose one of a myriad of equiprobable alternatives. I'm an agnostic atheist because the claims of a higher being appear to be highly improbable.
Improbability is a bad place to start making absolute assertions I feel.

ps. I abstain from Goats milk because its bloody disgusting.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But even Atheists upon reading it, tend to remain agnostic towards a benevolent Creator. This tells you, that even they are not 100% convinced, even thought it is a very strong argument.

I think you mean "Theists" here.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: One thing I want to come to an agreement is, that if God wanted to be known, it doesn't make any sense to me, that his proof would lie either in the scientific method or philosophy.

Actually, that would make more sense. Throughout history, scientific method and philosophy have shown to be means to gain reliable, certain knowledge. So, if he wanted to be known then that would be the best way to go about it.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Then faith in God would not be spiritual, but it would rather be like belief in a mathematical proof. It would not be a connection to him, but some analytic cold hard proof.

Non sequitur. Knowledge of god's existence has nothing to do with faith in god and spirituality has never been established as a necessary precondition.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What seems to be the case, is rather being a Unique being, this knowledge of him would be a unique type of knowledge, and would be of a spiritual nature.

Unnecessary. Just because it is a unique being does not mean that it cannot be known by the usual means and even is the means were unique, they would not necessarily be spiritual.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The issue is such, such knowledge would not really in the realms of either philosophy or science. It cannot be proven by either.

Your mistake here is the assumption that knowledge is possible outside the realm of philosophy or science. Without a sound grounding in philosophy or science, words such as knowledge or proof are meaningless.

(July 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Moreover, it seems no one would want to ever rely on a argument, no matter how seemingly convincing, as we know arguments time and time again have been debunked.

So it's rather a matter of choice.

Do you believe your belief in God is a delusion?
Do you believe your belief in God is justified or knowledge?

Perhaps if God exists, he doesn't want us relying on rigorous mathematical type proof of his existence, but rather to look upon him with the eyes of the soul.

Now I understand people here don't believe such knowledge or "seeing" is possible.

But really - there is no arguments to prove either way in a conclusive manner. There is a strong argument of evil (different from the classical one), I understand that, but people remain agnostics even with that argument, so if you are not convinced yourself 100%, then sympathize with others not being convinced of that...

Actually, there is a way to conclusively prove it. If we can establish that knowledge "through the eyes of soul" is not possible, then we can establish that any such purported knowledge is a delusion.