(December 10, 2012 at 2:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: -I- make it sound like that? Didn't you just propose that an immensely powerful cosmic force set everything the way he wanted it, and that we're a product of those desires? Further, I wasn't putting anything forward from my own point of view in that response, just extrapolating on your own. Deism (at least the deism you've proposed) absolutely can answer that question. Godwilledit™
This is true. Godwilledit™ seems to be a part of Deism whether it cared for what it created afterwards or not.
Quote:I'd be interested to know why you think so (the order of the universe and "how it works" being evidence for a god). You want this to be more than a recital of bullet points yeah?
Well, as I've been saying, my brain interprets the majesty of all that is in a way that makes me presuppose a creator.
Quote:Isn't? See how you keep smuggling things in at the outset? Nevertheless, I don't personally deal in certainties (you'll have to purchase those on your own) but I do have a habit of asking questions like "why do you thgink that it -is- in the first place. Gut feelings.......if our gut feelings were more reliable Bubba would have survived that brawl he got into with an alligator armed with nothing other other than a spatula and a "kiss the cook" apron.
I'm not saying my gut feelings prove Deism. I know better than that
Quote:Sunsets (and sunrises) are pretty, I'm from Florida. Google "Sunshine Skyway Bridge". That was part of my daily commute for years. Here's the trouble with your example. It's not convenient to have a giant bomb so close to you at all. It sends things off alright, deadly things - all day everyday. The main requirement for life I'm guessing being energy? Maybe if it threw off just enough, and in a manner that wasn't harmful (let alone the manner of it's production being apocalyptic...no other word applies) - then I could be onboard.
It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Water is essential for life, but even that is fatal if too much is consumed (and I'm not vaguely referring to drowning but
literally properly consuming water until you die. My dad told me someone at his university got bullied to that extent. Anyways..). I don't think it's reasonable to say that (and therefore conclude) that it's actually inconvenient to have the sun. You wouldn't be here to say that if it wasn't for the sun so I beg to differ that it's "inconvenient" for us.
Quote:There's nothing convenient about being tethered to our sun, btw. It's essentially a clock, ticking down to our demise. If nothing else kills us, and we remain here - it will.
Relative to our species' lifetime, the sun's countdown timer has been set to "eternal". I would have thought that someone with your intellect had already heard some of the Four Horsemen talk about how evolution isn't perfect and we will eventually die out from the very process that refines us.
Quote:We don't actually stay "basically the same distance" away from it at all times. Our orbit is elliptical and it has an amusing effect on our world.
The elliptical orbit was what I was referring to when I said "
basically the same distance". It's clearly a negligible triviality because the extra distance isn't fatal to life on Earth.
Quote:
A large portion of it was licked to us for a very long time for thuis very reason - and once we learned how to hunt and kill other living things so we could drape their skins over us we still had trouble dealing with that effect. Even today we struggle with it -even though we have the skins, and we burn portions of this rock just to keep warm- as those areas that spend time "too far away" are not productive enough (from the point of agriculture" for example) to sustain life.
I can't make sense of this because I don't know what you mean by "licked to us".
Quote:Speaking of distance, just to preempt any goldilocks shenanigans.....have you ever goggled just how large the "goldilocks zone" is btw? It's immense, vast beyond imagining. Look, I appreciate that I don't live on the surface of the sun, or on Pluto...but I wouldn't actually be alive to "not appreciate it" if I didn't.
Agreed.
Quote:Wat about being happy to have avoided a bullet lends credence to the idea of a god though?
The "bullet dodging" simply means we were able to become this collective consciousness in this random part of the universe that was able to experience the universe. The bullet dodging itself doesn't mean a thing. Save that for the theists.
Quote:It;s not like a god is required to explain any of these things you've mentioned....and again...we don't see any evidence of a gods hand in these things. Unless...we're proposing that a god placed the sun here, the earth there, like a child with so many marbles.......
I think it's the fact it all works so well. I mean, I can agree with all the stuff you've said about how imperfect/blunt it all is, but as a mechanism it works -- from the exploding ball of gas to the terraformed planet.
Quote:Could it? Why would you have to know the plan at all? I may not know my opponents plan in a game of chess, but as soon as they sacrifice their queen It's a pretty good bet that they wont be putting me in checkmate with her on the next move. It's possible to determine things about a conscious entity without complete knowledge or ESP.
The only thing I could think of that would give a fallible human some sort of idea about an infallible creature's plan is along the lines of nailing a criminal to a plank of wood. Aside from the theistic response that would satisfy your query, I don't really know what to say.
Quote:Sure, np. You're still going on about things that where "never meant to be", which wouldn't mean much unless there was a "meant" to begin with - evolution having been "random" (in truth it isn't) what does it mean to have "meant" something? You've excused the usage of the word "never" where it didn;t apply, but that particular word isn;t the one that puts the two statements at ods. However, since you brought it up..... Never? No matter what the circumstances? Clearly you've used the word never when it didn't apply, but are you proposing that if we changed the circumstances (could there have been other circumstances, what with god at the wheel willing shit btw?) that drugs would still be bad? Why? Suppose the circumstance was - human beings, due to a quirk of biology, show no adverse effect to any known narcotics? Sounds to me like the situation would have been changed a great deal. I appreciate that you're attempting to express that -due- to our biology (and assuming it remains unchanged) that certain chemicals will have a similar effect on all of us, but the way you've chosen to word it (conceptualize it) appears to have been selected precisely because it allows you a hook with which to claim communication with the divine. Your mind may be fucking with you on this one.
I think my mind has only thought of the "superficial" aspects of Deism. I can see what you're saying about the "never" stuff and I agree that maybe subconsciously my words came out in a way that satisfied the level of thinking I was at before. Like I said though, I'm pretty new to Deism and it's not something I've thought about extensively. This is why I'm finding our discussion good.
Either way, I don't really know how to answer in favour of Deism as I need to ponder your argument here so that I can better understand the problem.
Quote:Quote:I know that science isn't a conscious mind or anything and that the "should" comes purely from us (or me I guess), but personally I find that knowing something scientific and then assuming this Creator leads me to think "it knows best" and I therefore want to conform to what "works best". It's almost as if this Creator was a buddy at school who gave me the answers to a test and it would be silly for me not to utilise that to my advantage. It might not be the best example because it has some negative connotations, like not being honest, but it's the closest way I can describe why/how I feel like there's a "should" for me.
Is the assumption of a creator required for this?
It's like if I had a car but no car company told me it was to get from A to B, I could eventually deduce (from it's internal workings) that I can use it to my advantage to travel great distances, but I could also come to the conclusion I could use it to chop down small trees by driving into them. Now, the car company wouldn't advice that, so I'm inclined not to do that. But the person who doesn't believe in the creator of this car I would think would be more inclined to use it in whatever manner, because they don't acknowledge the company's suggestion(s).
I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here, but maybe you can answer your own question. I say this because I sincerely believe it's up to the individual whether it's necessary or not.
Quote:Quote:It's all about the mindset:
Atheism - no purpose to our existence.
Full stop...atheism is not a position with regards to "the meaning of life".
I guess I was concluding what can be deduced if one doesn't believe in a deity. Of course, what I wrote isn't the end of it. Clearly meaning can be made from life without believing in a deity.
Quote:You're flirting with the "if there were no god,..it's 50/50 that I'd OD". I doubt that this is so. Whether there are good reasons to do drugs (or not do them) has nothing to do with a god. God is not required for nor does god provide a compelling case for or against either position. I don't see how the assumption of a creator (but no mandate for or against drugs) leads you to either position - nor do I see anything you've offered here having originated from the assumption of a creator, which might explain why you can't explain it from that angle. You seem to have made a decision for yourself, for reasons you find semi-easy to explain without the need of any creator. Drugs are harmful. Could I nitpick that conclusion, sure..but in all honesty, I can't think of a good reason why I would given that its a personal decision you've made for yourself.
Back when I had a more atheistic mindset, I would occasionally smoke at parties even though I perfectly knew what the science had to say. Now with this new mindset that's more on the Deistic side, I just won't smoke even one cigarette because I've decided to take the advice from the universe that came from my presupposed Creator.
Quote:You agree? What happened to the 50/50 shit above? I still don't understand how it changes the way you interact (but how would I know how you interacted before?). Coming to a conclusion without knowing why isn't exactly uncommon. It doesn't make for a very compelling argument in favor of the existence of a god though, you can understand why I might be dissatisfied?
I was agreeing to this
Quote:Belief in a creator is not required to hold the position that one might not want to mainline a lethal dose (or any dose) of heroin.
which is in line with what I say about an atheist having a 50/50 chance of doing/not doing drugs. Of course you don't have to believe in a deity not to do them. Those people exist.
Yeah, overall in our discussion, I can definitely see some problems with Deism and why you're not convinced. I don't mind if you're not convinced because I don't think I'm required to go out and convince the world of a god. I'm not saying that the burden of proof isn't on me, but rather that I don't have any motivation to hand out the "proof" in the first place.
Quote:Positive and negative charges aren't conferred by assumptions. I know it might seem like I'm just picking on you here, but bear in mind that from my end this whole god business just seems to be a flowery way of describing the world and how happy you are to be alive. That's not exactly a creator god...... The "the right direction" is heading towards a place where you seem to be incapable of explaining yourself. You, by sheer power of assumption, just float along "the right way". Meanwhile I tread water. What does this even mean? Ah, again, can't put it into words. In the end, your feelings are your own. I'm not going to give you too much shit for your feelings except to say that they don't require any "creator" except yourself, and that as evidence (or arguments) for a god, they fall horribly short.
I guess the agnosticism of it all is what makes it possible.
