RE: Deism for non-believers
June 9, 2012 at 11:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2012 at 11:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(June 9, 2012 at 11:40 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Unlike the Most Tangible God, it is plausible because it doesn't contradict anything in the physical world.
How would you determine this, if it were immaterial? How do you know when it is or isn't contradicting something in the physical world?
Quote:Can you elaborate? I know what you mean, but I think it's a pretty grey area where we can't really draw a fine line between a concept and something that exists as described by the concept. The Bohr model of an atom was just a concept.
Yet the concept could exist even if it were completely in error, could it not? Apply the same to your "plausible god" proposal.
Quote:I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. Is the bird divine?? If so, then it would be on the material side of the scale and therefore non-existent because no such bird exists.
Nope, it isn;t divine, its completely natural, and birds do exist, biologically and aerodynamically speaking there is no reason that such a bird could not exist..so, on your scale of plausibility, wouldn't my 80 foot bird be even more plausible than your plausible god? Do you see any 80 foot birds laying about?
Quote:Sports are an invention that do indeed have something in common with evolution. We need exercise to be healthy. But my example is supposed to be of an arbitrary nature. How about this: I stand up and sit back down again. Is there a scientific explanation for my motives?
You'd have to actually provide an arbitrary event for us to explain it scientifically, what you have provided is your concept of something arbitrary, which is not scientific, and therefore not something that we would even ask science to explain for us. In the event that you did, and we could not explain it, as per your musing about truth earlier, that doesn't mean that there is no scientific explanation, simply that it is unavailable to us (for whatever reason).
Quote:I don't claim to be able to perceive the world perfectly and therefore have 'perfect reasoning' but the fact that I know a few useful things that help me stay alive suggests I can make good choices and therefore am able to 'reason'.
That you remain alive isn't exactly solid proof of your possessing any reason, now is it? Unless by "possessing reason" you mean "hasn't swallowed a large crayon and remembers to breath".
Quote:You need 'reason' to be able to kick a ball. If not, then take a soccer player for example. What are the chances that they arbitrarily move in a way that results in a dozen consecutive arbitrary 'bumps' against the ball (i.e. dribbling)? That is highly improbable. It only makes sense that it happens so often because they can reason and therefore move in such a way intentionally.
So you need reason to kick a ball in this statement here, just a few breaths after proposing the existence of an arbitrary act? Which one is it going to be? If you can sit down and stand up arbitrarily then a person can kick a ball arbitrarily.
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!
