LOL

Strict deism is rare, but many people are a form of semi-desim/pseudo-deism. They believe abstractly in a God (or a higher being of some type, or spiritual something or another). They don't really take quite the rationalist approaches, but still end up in the same realm for their conclusions.

Some of those people spill into a pantheism sort of thing, so the distinction isn't exactly clear all the time.

Too late...

Mocking you for following mightyboosh around for two years replying over and over explaining just how terrible he is when he wont read or reply back is orders of magnitude less weird than the act itself. especially since you actually respond.

Yes, it would depend on your assumptions and presuppositions. I mean that deism might be a sufficient explanation, but can you show that it is a necessary one? If you can't, then it is not justified.

Hmmm, this is not my understanding. Deists can even refer to god as the Great Watchmaker, the creator of the universe. To differentiate between an atheist and a deist, one need only ask them whether they believe the universe was created. So I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Explanations can be rejected without substituting an alternative. Otherwise you might be edging towards argument from ignorance. I don't think universe origin questions can be answered - science certainly cannot tell us capital T 'Truth'.

It's difficult to address in a general way, perhaps I could do better with someone's specific position. But I doubt I'd say anything you are unlikely to have heard from atheists already. A rambling list: as I said above, an explanation might be sufficient but if you can't show that it is necessarily so, it's a kind of ad hoc position. Or an explanation that is itself much more complicated than the phenomena you are trying to explain, in fact it sounds more like a placeholder for an explanation rather than an actual explanation (disparagingly referred to as "God-did-it"). Which in turn can lead to a kind of theological non-cognitivism (if you ever want to expose yourself to a barrage of Deepak Chopra-isms, ask certain theists "But what IS God" )

Ultimately it comes down to the root of being skeptical: what reasons are there to believe something is the case?

I'd add that I would generally consider deists to have somewhat of a better starting point than theists because deism is supposed to be based on reason + observation, not faith / special revelation / personal relationships etc.

PS I'd be interested to read the views of any deists that post here.

NR and I have been round the houses with this discussion and where we ended up, as I recall, was that justification is subjective, and if you think you have good reasons for something then it's justified whether anyone else agrees or not. What are your thoughts on that?

Same. It's simply a possible cause for the universe without all the trappings that seem so obviously of human origin. But, it has less credibility for me than alternatives offered by science because other than being possible because we can imagine it, there's nothing to suggest that it's true other than that we're here asking the question. Science has given us a partial explanation and evidence to support it so I hold greater expectation for a scientific answer than a supernatural one.

Aaron has made it clear that he posts for his benefit not MB's so whether MB reads or responds or not is irrelevant. I don't see how you benefit here.

MB to be honest you've matured and I think it would be better for you to take Aaron off ignore. I've had a number of people on ignore and usually it's because their posts annoy/frustrate me, this happens less frequently now because I choose whether or not to let a person's posting have this effect. I think your posting has improved, you've been honest and corrected yourself and you've let go a number of positions you would have argued previously.

Given that I agree with Aaron in that we should be posting for our benefit rather than anyone else's I actually think it would be to your benefit to accept the challenge that Aaron may present while focusing on the content rather than the tone. You have put me on ignore previously and I suspect if you took Aaron off you'd find yourself better able to tackle some of his points.

As for Aaron if he comes off as nasty you can choose either to ignore those posts or ignore him.

You gotta wonder what his benefit is though.


Well thanks. Between you thinking I've matured and Uke classing me as a mid-stakes fish, I'm having a good day

I honestly don't think it would be any different. I tried focusing only on the tone last time, in the end he was causing me too much stress and I simply wasn't enjoying our exchanges on any level at all. I only had you on ignore for a short time and it was as much to stop me replying and continuing 'hostilities' as anything else. Aaron is a different kettle of fish.

If your criteria for justification are only conclusions which are necessary, there are no theories in this conversation which are justifiable. Deism does not deal with necessary conclusions, it deals with observation and reason, I don't see the need to burden the view with necessary conclusions.

I don't think this is right, at the very least the deist will claim a creator God, and nothing more. This is the only requirement which I can see for God. However, since we can't perceive him by definition, we can only infer his existence by looking at the universe.

You have just advocated for an agnostic-only approach.

You can reject God and not posit other theories, but I don't think this is intellectually honest, it's not what most people do, whether unconsciously or consciously. Everyone has some theory as to how and why we are here, most atheists I've spoken to attribute it to something like "chance". So they don't know exactly how it works, obviously, but they do substitute for God. They don't just reject God and not posit other thoughts. If they didn't, why reject God as an explanation in the first place? Seems odd to say, "I have no idea how anything got here, but I know it wasn't God."

If one admits that we cannot know, they are putting forth some form of agnosticism, so there is no real reason to reject God. The belief that God is not a good explanation is no different than the deist saying otherwise. Unless you want to say we can't know, which is plain agnosticism, as you seem to be suggesting.

I don't see a reason to put God in another category of possible causes for the universe. If I say I believe the universe just began by chance, or is in an eternal state of repeated Big Bangs to Big Crunches, all of which are not necessary conclusions, would you reject these views as being mere placeholders?

I'd also like to hear from a deist in this conversation.

This is sort of what I mean when I say that when one rejects God as an explanation, they adopt another explanation, even if vague in nature. It's weak-atheism, but you're still observing the universe and putting forth a conclusion based on your observations.

Having someone to disagree with forces me to construct better arguments, although I can find an argument in an empty room it isn't as much fun.

If you can ignore the tone and focus on the content it will help you, the thing is this is a pretty quiet forum, which also encourages Aaron to respond to you, and if you are going to derive a benefit from it I think you have to be open to all of it. I do think you've benefited from the forum, by engaging with views and posters you disagree with, I also think if you can find a way to disregard the stuff you aren't enjoying without it stressing you then you will derive more from the forum with Aaron off ignore than you will while he is on.

It's none of my business, but there is also the idea of taking him off the ignore list, reading his posts, but not responding to him if he irks you. A middle-ground sort of solution. Like I said, none of my business.

Doh, I didn't mean to say that I only focused on the tone, I meant that I tried only focusing on the content..... I wasn't able to do it and it didn't work.

It's tough, I've lost count of the times I've read a post I've disagreed with, both tone and content, and had to get up from the PC to walk around and calm down. However it benefits me most of all if I can do that, if I can focus on the content rather than the tone and decide whether it warrants a response,

I think my point is that having posters on ignore generally is to the disadvantage to the poster that has an ignore list not just the ones on it.

In any case you're perfectly entitled to decide who to engage with and it's largely none of my business.

This is a good, short description that matches my thoughts too.

My tuppence: I've never used the ignore list, I don't expect I will on 2+2. The worst kind of posters will get banned, anyone else can either be skipped over partially or completely, or read for entertainment (as petty as drama can be, it can be a source of entertainment).

I'm seeing both sides (what a surprise...), it is fascinating to me that Aaron replies to so many of your posts, especially since they are very often specific to you and your history, and so are unlikely to spark any side conversation. Armchair psychologists could have all sorts of fun things to say as to why someone behaves like this!

On the other hand, there is no actual harm in responding to a non-responsive poster, and occasionally something is said of benefit to the overall conversation. I'll go so far as to say that there have been a few times I have wanted to suggest that you read particular comments.

I'll correct what I wrote about justification in a reply to NR.

But people clearly do disagree about whether something is justified or not, so there is subjectivity involved.

Maybe your posts bug him and he needs to get it out.