Design as evidence for the existence of a god - Page 8 - Religion, God, and Theology

But it is not a definition that anyone uses here. I am sure that when stu talks about a deistic god as the intelligent creator he is not talking about a force, if he was it nothing he is saying would make any sense. the laws of physics would be god and that would not solve anything. An intelligent creator cannot refer to a force, this is a conversation about an intelligent creator so bringing up your definition of deism doesn't really make much sense.

And deism as a force is certainly not the standard definition.

I disagree. What is the fundamental difference between "God" and "The laws of nature" under a standard definition of deism?

And, if you'll notice, when stu brought up deism again I clarified what my definition was, if he wants to object to it he can.

I honestly don't know what purpose it serves to use the word deism when you aren't really talking about deism, it seems to me to do nothing but muddy the waters.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 01:54 PM

#177

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

How would you know the creative force is non-involved?

please, lets switch to the word theism, im sorry but this is driving me nuts. A deistic god is non involved by definition

Quote

09-26-2011 , 02:17 PM

#178

luckyme

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,800

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

please, lets switch to the word theism, im sorry but this is driving me nuts. A deistic god is non involved by definition

Yep. Like most labels, Deism has various uses but a term is certainly needed for the basic version and a very common one. The bolds in the quote below are mine. People referring to a different concept would make exchanges go much better if they defined their version of a word, say "Deism II" or "Smooshism" to differentiate it from the basic use of the term.

From Wiki-
Deism : in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world , without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or " the Supreme Architect" ) does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 03:55 PM

#179

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyme

This definition is far from some vague force. This is an intentional mindful creator.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 03:57 PM

#180

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

What is the fundamental difference between "God" and "The laws of nature" under a standard definition of deism?

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:01 PM

#181

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

This definition is far from some vague force. This is an intentional mindful creator.

Also, how is it not vague, what is specific about it?

I really don't see why this should be such an issue. I don't mean this to be overly harsh or hostile, but is it really news to you that if you are using a non-standard definition of a word or a word of ambiguous meaning that you need to clearly define your terms?

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:10 PM

#182

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

Lolz... you are approaching notready status of ridiculousness. The point is fine tuning problems, as you understand them, are just hierarchy problems. The point of the planets example was that you can make any number you want fine tuned if you measure it at an unnatural scale. Add in dark energy and dark matter and you get a ridiculously fine tuned number for the mass of the earth. But even that is irrelevant. I can just make up a scale in which the mass of the Earth is fine tuned to 10^10^10^10 places. Going on about trillion trillion like a 3rd grader misses the point completely. In terms of arguments for design, the cosmological constant is actually much worse than the argument you can make from other parameters because we can compare say coupling strengths without need for some mysterious outside scaling parameter. Anyway, i am likely done with this baring a substantial improvement in your comprehension.

Oh, and of course the most obvious question of all, which cannot be answered, is if the universe was designed why is the CC not exactly 0? Did the designer really care about what distant super nova would look like from earth in the present regime? The landscape multiverse crowd at least has a sensible reason for why the CC is some seemingly random anthropically allowed number....granted I think stu is the only person I've heard specifically claim the CC is evidence of designer.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:13 PM

#183

luckyme

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,800

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

This definition is far from some vague force. This is an intentional mindful creator.

Where in that statement does it disqualify a creator who had no choice in the matter. IOW, if it were to create a universe it would always come out this way.
'Intend' need not apply for the role.
"mindful' certainly not, there does not need to be anything as complex as a mind involved to do a creation.

That said, there's nothing wrong with using 'Deism' with that as a stipulated condition but it must be clearly stated what properties other than "it created X" are being attached.

Then there can be a discussion.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:14 PM

#184

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

The wiki page that luckyme posted shows that my definition is pretty standard and that you are using a fringe definition. At least standard enough to be the definition of wiki.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:22 PM

#185

luckyme

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,800

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

The wiki page that luckyme posted shows that my definition is pretty standard and that you are using a fringe definition. At least standard enough to be the definition of wiki.

My point was that NO definition can be assumed. Minority views abound. Use of the term in an exchange always needs clarity added.

It's important because arguments for "Deism y" can't be brought into a discussion and claim to have an impact on "Deism w". The definition used and the arguments to support it must be built on site.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:22 PM

#186

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

The wiki page that luckyme posted shows that my definition is pretty standard and that you are using a fringe definition. At least standard enough to be the definition of wiki.

what on earth are you talking about? It does not intervene or do anything supernatural. I ask you again, how is it any different from "the laws of the universe." ?

Seriously, would you like to have a poll or do a prop as to "whose definition of deism is fringe."? cmon you just made an absurd statement

What is wrong with asking you to define your terms in an argument? Seriously stop dancing around.

Last edited by Sommerset; 09-26-2011 at 04:31 PM.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 04:29 PM

#187

checkm8

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,495

Dancing ITT

Quote

09-26-2011 , 07:21 PM

#188

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyme

Have you ever heard of someone refer to gravity as a creator or architect?

And I agree that there is nothing wrong with stipulating that you must define your words, but the issue is is that people are using deism in two very different ways in the same posts. If one is to say that something like the design argument only gets you to a deistic god, they cannot also say that a deistic god is only a force as that would make no sense in the context of the argument.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 07:23 PM

#189

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

I am not dancing, you are the one using the term deism to mean two completely different concepts. See the above post.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 07:26 PM

#190

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyme

I agree. But none of the arguments for god are for a mindless purposeless unintentional force but for a mindful, purposeful, and intentional being. So if you are defining deism as a force then the arguments traditionally put forth on this site get you much further than deism.

Also, how is deism as defined as a force different from pantheism?

Quote

09-26-2011 , 07:53 PM

#191

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

I am not dancing, you are the one using the term deism to mean two completely different concepts. See the above post.

Am I? Show me where I did that, and which concepts please. I have corrected you on this multiple times before yet you ignore me so I say again:

I have never said that your arguments get us to Deism, I asked even if we were there, what does that mean for us in terms of theism?

Honestly this is getting irritating, this is at least the 3rd time in this thread that you have made that allegation and I have corrected it.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 08:14 PM

#192

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Also why did you agree here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=194

that you would stop using the term "deism" to describe this conception of god and then come in this thread and start doing it again?

This whole thing is just very bizarre.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:33 PM

#193

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

if you are defining deism as a force, sure. But who cares about a force? If deism refers to an intelligent mindful creator then it is no where near atheism.

This was my original post in this thread. I brought it up because you are using a a different definition of deism than normal, and pointed out that if we are not using your definition then things change significantly. Pantheism=deism is not normal and will only cause confusion.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:36 PM

#194

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

We are never "there" as far as your form of deism, so why would we even ask that question? No one (theist) is claiming that we are "there" so the question is out of place.

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:43 PM

#195

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

And you have yet to answer my question, how is your version of deism different from pantheism?

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:45 PM

#196

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

We are never "there" as far as your form of deism, so why would we even ask that question? No one (theist) is claiming that we are "there" so the question is out of place.

Im sorry I don't know if you are lost or if I am. This response is weird. What I did was offer a hypothetical. Okay, you've convinced me, I'm a deist, now how does that translate to theism? Christianity in particular

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:50 PM

#197

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

And you have yet to answer my question, how is your version of deism different from pantheism?

joking?

A. This is not "my version" of deism, this is what deism is in its most popular usage.

B. This question from you is an offshoot of a question you have repeatedly ducked ITT. I asked you how a deist god under the most popular usage ( non intervening, non supernatural) Is any different from the laws of the universe.

I don't really care how it differs from pantheism, that isn't what is at issue here.

You don't think its a little dishonest to claim I haven't answered your question when you have neglected answering mine for at least 3 pages now? Honestly dude, are you just trying to insult my intelligence or what?

Quote

09-26-2011 , 09:54 PM

#198

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Look, I don't know what you want me to tell you, if you want to know how pantheism differs from standard deism, look it up. That isn't my concern. The only time I ever even referenced pantheism ITT was to say it reminded me of the definition of God I got from deism.com... this thread has nothing to do with Pantheism nor did I ever equate the two... so don't say that I did.