Deism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Freethinker43
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:18 pm

Deism

Post #1

Post by Freethinker43 »

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Post #51

Post by American Deist »

Anyone else have any thoughts or questions? If not, hopefully this thread taught you something about deism, and how it supports science while maintaining a belief in God as the Creator!
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #52

Post by Divine Insight »

American Deist wrote: Anyone else have any thoughts or questions? If not, hopefully this thread taught you something about deism, and how it supports science while maintaining a belief in God as the Creator!
Science does not support that there exists two distinct kinds of matter; living and non-living. So your previous explanations of deism are not compatible with science. Therefore either your explanations of deism are wrong, or deism itself is wrong.

It's still not clear which is true. I'm willing to guess that deism does not decree that there exists two different kinds of matter classified as living matter versus non-living matter. So until that is cleared up, I'm not convinced that you understand science or deism.

Can you point to an article on deism that supports your assertion that deism decrees there are two distinctly different types of primal matter?

If you can, then this would indicate that deism is not in harmony with known science.

If you can't, then I question why you would have made that decree on behalf of deism if deism doesn't hold to that claim.

I think the readers are entitled to some clarity here. After all, if you are going to claim to be a spokesperson for deism in the sense that you are teaching people about deism isn't it important to get it right?

So does deism decree that there are two distinctly different types of primal matter in the universe or not?

Science most certainly doesn't support the claim that there are two distinctly different types of matter. To the contrary, science asserts with confidence that the only elements that exist in the universe are those listed in the well-known periodic table and none of those elements are recognized to be "living matter".

If you are claiming to teach deism, then I am simply requesting clarity on this point.

Does deism proclaim that there are two fundamentally different types of primal matter in the universe that can be clearly classified as living versus non-living matter?

Can you answer that question with a clear yes, or no?

And if you answer "yes" can you also point to a reputable source on deism that explains and verifies that deism does indeed decree this to be the case?

I'm certainly not new to the concept of deism and I have never heard that deism decrees that there are two different types of primal matter that can be clearly recognized to be living versus non-living matter. So this would indeed be news to me. Also, if true, I can then rule out deism as being clearly incompatible with known science.

Thanks.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Post #53

Post by American Deist »

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

Maybe you missed this part:
American Deist wrote:
Prove otherwise. If you can, I'll renounce my belief in deism right now. If you can't, then this conversation is over and needs not go any further.
You failed to disprove the deist position. Thus, our conversation has come to a close.

Now, for anyone else out there interested in learning about deism, I'll start an appropriate thread in the next day or two.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #54

Post by Divine Insight »

American Deist wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

Maybe you missed this part:
American Deist wrote:
Prove otherwise. If you can, I'll renounce my belief in deism right now. If you can't, then this conversation is over and needs not go any further.
You failed to disprove the deist position. Thus, our conversation has come to a close.

Now, for anyone else out there interested in learning about deism, I'll start an appropriate thread in the next day or two.
I don't know what you are claiming the deist position to be on this. So I'm asking for clarity. Surely you aren't going to refuse to clarify your position since you seem to be claiming to be teaching deism?

Does deism decree that there are two distinct types of primal matter in the universe that can be clearly defined as "living" versus "non-living" primal matter?

This is a very simple question you should be able to answer with a simple yes or no.

You ask me to disprove deism. Well, that can indeed depend on what you claim deism decrees.

If deism holds that there are two distinctly different kinds of primal matter in the universe that can be recognized to be "living" or "non-living", then I hold that science has already proven deism to be false.

On the other hand, if deism isn't making this decree then clearly I cannot say anything about a decree it hasn't made.

So which is it? :-k

All I'm asking for is clarity.

I can't "disprove" deism if you refuse to even clarify what deism decrees.

In fact, I have no desire to disprove deism in any case. Although if deism makes claims that are scientifically demonstrably false, then I would indeed point that out.

So can you please clarify which it is?

Does deism decree that there are two distinctly different types of primal matter that can be clearly classified as "living" and "non-living"?

Also, if the answer to this is indeed "yes", can you then point to any evidence to back up that claim?

This isn't about anyone trying to "disprove" deism. That's non-sequitur anyway. I never stated that it is my desire or purpose to disprove deism. That seems to be a totally defensive reaction invented by you entirely.

All I'm asking for is CLARITY on what you claim deism decrees in terms of your previous claim that there exists two different kinds of primal matter in the universe that have always existed from the beginning and that those two different kinds of primal matter can be clearly separated into two classes; "living" and "non-living" primal matter.

As a "teacher" of deism you don't seem to be very interested in clarifying what deism stands for or actually decrees.

So stop asking me to "prove" deism to be false until you can "clarify" what the philosophy even stands for. Only then could I have something to actually work with.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Post #55

Post by American Deist »

Some people don't seem to understand the phrase, "our conversation has come to a close."
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #56

Post by Divine Insight »

American Deist wrote: Some people don't seem to understand the phrase, "our conversation has come to a close."
So are you refusing to clarify where deism stands on the question of whether or not deism decrees that there are two primal types of matter that can be recognized as living versus non-living primal matter?

It's a simple question. Can you not answer this simple question about deism?

Why would you want to end a conversation when someone asks you a simple question about a belief system that you appear to be supporting and even supposedly teaching? :-k

Most people would be glad to have an opportunity to clarify what their belief system stands for.

In your first post to this thread you stated:
American Deist wrote: Just...wow! This thread does not cover deism very well. Allow me to clean it up...
Well, here's your chance to clean it up.

Does deism decree that there are two primal types of matter that can be recognized as living versus non-living primal matter?

If you don't know the answer to this question, that's fine. You can just say, "I don't know". That's a valid reply. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #57

Post by otseng »

American Deist wrote: Some people don't seem to understand the phrase, "our conversation has come to a close."
Moderator Comment

You are free to not respond to any posts. And others are free to reply to any post. But, it's unnecessary to say what others don't seem to understand.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Post #58

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

To say that Deism supports science does NOT mean that science supports Deism nor that you "instantly" know everything about science by adhering to Deism. Please, see "Believing in Deism" or thereof.

Deism as I see it is more of the kind that holds something extra to science as well as science itself, usually to the point that science never, provably, comes to contradict Deism.

Besides, souls may be scientifically proven by Van Lommel studies, the research into Near-Death Experiences or Out-of-Body experiences or research into phantom feelings of amputees.

Daryl Bem and the research of ESP is also used to support "souls", the dualistic view, no matter how close we are into scientific abiogenesis or the "living metal" for the crystals that seem to live under the microscope. That is, it has become difficult to tell where the boundary is between "living" and "dead" matter.

Good? :)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #59

Post by Divine Insight »

Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

To say that Deism supports science does NOT mean that science supports Deism nor that you "instantly" know everything about science by adhering to Deism. Please, see "Believing in Deism" or thereof.

Deism as I see it is more of the kind that holds something extra to science as well as science itself, usually to the point that science never, provably, comes to contradict Deism.
That's all fine and dandy. I have no problems with what you just said concerning either science or Deism (as I currently understand Deism).

However, American Deist had suggested that Deism supports that there exists two types of primal matter in the universe; Living and non-living primal matter.

That specific claim does indeed contradict what is scientifically known. And so if Deism actually holds this to be true (which I personally don't believe that it does) then Deism would be in conflict with known science.

It's not my intent to argue against Deism. It has always been my understanding that Deists typically don't make claims that can be demonstrated to be in conflict with known science. But if deists are going to start claiming that there are two distinctly different types of primal matter that can clearly be classified as living versus non-living primal matter, then they are indeed in conflict with known science.
Aetixintro wrote: Besides, souls may be scientifically proven by Van Lommel studies, the research into Near-Death Experiences or Out-of-Body experiences or research into phantom feelings of amputees.
May be scientifically proven? I think that's a bit of a stretch. To the best of my knowledge there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any "soul" that can actually survive the death of the brain.

I realize there are claims made by some researchers in that regard. But to the best of my knowledge those claims have not been able to pass the peer review of the vast majority of respected scientists.
Aetixintro wrote: Daryl Bem and the research of ESP is also used to support "souls", the dualistic view, no matter how close we are into scientific abiogenesis or the "living metal" for the crystals that seem to live under the microscope. That is, it has become difficult to tell where the boundary is between "living" and "dead" matter.

Good?
Saying that it's difficult to say where the boundary is between "living" and "dead" matter is not the same as decreeing that there are only two types of primal matter and that life can only emerge from "living matter".

In fact, when we start to question whether crystalline substances might qualify as "life" then we are suggesting that there may be types of "life" that do not require DNA, and other organic large molecules. That's a whole other topic entirely.

Plus, I don't believe that Daryl Bem has been able to establish any conclusive or compelling arguments for "living metals" etc. In fact, I just looked this up on Wiki and found the following information:
From Daryl Bem on Wiki

Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman (1999) who discovered errors in Bem's research carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, the results showed no effect greater than chance from a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70
So it sounds like this line of "research" has already been shown to be flawed. Perhaps overly-zealous on Bem's part? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Post #60

Post by American Deist »

Aetixintro wrote: To say that Deism supports science does NOT mean that science supports Deism nor that you "instantly" know everything about science by adhering to Deism.
Correct.

Deism supports science and does not conflict with it. Deists accept evolution, biology, chemistry, physics, other planets, aliens, etc. We are not bound by primitive writings of uneducated men.

Science does not have to support or prove deism to be true, but neither will it normally prove it to be false.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

Post Reply