Why not deism?

[Simon Moon]

Some people believe in a god. Other people believe in a personal god who intervenes.

That's not the part I am disagreeing with.

[Inqwizitor]

---

I'm not sure if I understand you here. Is this the "existence precedes essence" axiom? I think when we get down to what is metaphysically necessary, existence and essence must be the same thing.

---

I'm not familiar with the "existence precedes essence" axiom.  I certainly do think that existence precedes essence since essence is an epistemological term and existence is metaphysical.  I don't think that essences exist metaphysically, as essences are the product of abstraction.  
What I mean is that the concept "existence" is axiomatic.  That means it can't be broken down or analyzed.  It can't be rationally denied and it can't be explained because there's nothing more fundamental than existence.  To what would any more fundamental concept refer, if not to something that exists.  that's why the question "where did everything come from?" is nonsensical.  It seems to be the number one reason people propose the existence of gods, but it's a proposition that answers a question that does not exist or should be dismissed as improper for making use of stolen concepts.  Cause presupposes existence.

The question is nonsensical if it's meant like: where did existence per se come from? But it's not nonsensical if it's meant like: where did everything in existence come from? It's a rational search for something that simply exists, necessarily, without metaphysical contingency. Take our epistemology for the natural world: it is based on complex observations and looks for a simpler explanatory principle: how does this work, or in other words, how does this come to be? At some point, say, the four fundamental forces, our ability to observe and measure reality becomes irreducible, but we can still reason logically that there must be something even simpler than the physical phenomena we can know, or any physical phenomena that could logically exist.

---

Wrong. He straight up claimed that deism is be a type of atheism.

Yeah, in that case a deist is a kind of agnostic atheism too, since it rejects faith and any knowledge (epistemology) for the supernatural.

I was following the train of thought re: theism/atheism refers to faith or no faith in a divine revelation. The OP was a question about whether atheists here had considered deism, and treating them as distinct. Deism could be a third way that is neither theist nor atheist.

[EgoDeath]

I was following the train of thought re: theism/atheism refers to faith or no faith in a divine revelation. The OP was a question about whether atheists here had considered deism, and treating them as distinct. Deism could be a third way that is neither theist nor atheist.

Well, faith is certainly not necessarily the same as belief. And deists believe a god exists, even if they came to that belief through "reasoning." Therefore, deists are not atheists. They may not have the same "faith" that the classical theist has, but they certainly have a belief that god exists, so they're not atheists.

Technically, we could classify them as agnostic deists or gnostic deists.

[Simon Moon]

I was following the train of thought re: theism/atheism refers to faith or no faith in a divine revelation. The OP was a question about whether atheists here had considered deism, and treating them as distinct. Deism could be a third way that is neither theist nor atheist.

The word 'faith' has several definitions.

Several of you may be talking past each other, because you may be using different definitions.

I consider deism to be a subset of theism. Others consider them separate beliefs.

[Inqwizitor]

Inqwizitor:
"If theism requires faith, and atheism is a lack of faith: deists claim to acknowledge a causally necessary being with no faith or revelation, so on that score, it isn't a kind of theism but a kind of atheism, unless atheism means more than just a lack of faith."

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Atheists could still have faith in something, faith being a belief unsupported by evidence. Not all atheists are sceptics.

This is a key semantic point, and warrants its own thread (I'm sure you've had many already and I'm reluctant to start another). It is not a complete theory of justification to categorically deny that faith is unsupported by any evidence: there can be either direct evidence via authoritative testimony, and circumstantial evidence, or both. Faith is belief that is unsupported by empirical or logical proof.

[EgoDeath]

The word 'faith' has several definitions.

Several of you may be talking past each other, because you may be using different definitions.

I consider deism to be a subset of theism. Others consider them separate beliefs.

Well, he's claiming that deism could be a type of atheism, not a type of theism. Strange. Never heard that one before.

[Inqwizitor]

I was following the train of thought re: theism/atheism refers to faith or no faith in a divine revelation. The OP was a question about whether atheists here had considered deism, and treating them as distinct. Deism could be a third way that is neither theist nor atheist.

Well, faith is certainly not necessarily the same as belief. And deists believe a god exists, even if they came to that belief through "reasoning." Therefore, deists are not atheists. They may not have the same "faith" that the classical theist has, but they certainly have a belief that god exists, so they're not atheists.

Technically, we could classify them as agnostic deists or gnostic deists.

OK that makes sense.

[chimp3]

Inqwizitor:
"If theism requires faith, and atheism is a lack of faith: deists claim to acknowledge a causally necessary being with no faith or revelation, so on that score, it isn't a kind of theism but a kind of atheism, unless atheism means more than just a lack of faith."

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Atheists could still have faith in something, faith being a belief unsupported by evidence. Not all atheists are sceptics.

This is a key semantic point, and warrants its own thread (I'm sure you've had many already and I'm reluctant to start another). It is not a complete theory of justification to categorically deny that faith is unsupported by any evidence: there can be either direct evidence via authoritative testimony, and circumstantial evidence, or both. Faith is belief that is unsupported by empirical or logical proof.

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.

[Inqwizitor]

This is a key semantic point, and warrants its own thread (I'm sure you've had many already and I'm reluctant to start another). It is not a complete theory of justification to categorically deny that faith is unsupported by any evidence: there can be either direct evidence via authoritative testimony, and circumstantial evidence, or both. Faith is belief that is unsupported by empirical or logical proof.

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.

Alright... but just to clarify: the only thing you consider evidence warranting belief is direct and empirical? You're entitled to that; but then on a practical level (and not to get semantically messy) how would you trust someone is telling the truth about a claim?

[Belacqua]

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.

You seem to have a clear and precise idea of what evidence is.

Just so the rest of us can understand you, what exactly must something be to be considered evidence? 

These days you can watch real court testimony on YouTube. Lots of authorities give testimony and this is considered evidence in the trial. Then the jury has to weigh the evidence. 

Are you using a different definition than the court system?