Deism!

[EnemyOfReason]

Hey listen up buddy, If Jesus raised the dead then so can I

 

[Ken-1122]

As an agnostic, I'm interested in to what my version of "the talk" is

Are you an Atheist agnostic; or a Theist agnostic?

K

 

[Davian]

Hey listen up buddy, If Jesus raised the dead then so can I

And if he didn't, it looks like this is all you get.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

And if he didn't, it looks like this is all you get.

Well gotta give a dog credit for at least trying to catch his tail . It may be a fruitless endeavor but still an worth it nonetheless

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there an empirical difference between as tri-omni deist god's world, and a tri-omni theist god's world? Conventionally in the latter prayers are answered, but if there is one good universe wouldnt prayers be answered in advance so to speak by a benign deist god? After all if there is an objective truth about goodness, and the world has moral properties, shouldnt there just be one 'best creation' which an all powerful all knowing god would choose?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Is there an empirical difference between as tri-omni deist god's world, and a tri-omni theist god's world? Conventionally in the latter prayers are answered, but if there is one good universe wouldnt prayers be answered in advance so to speak by a benign deist god? After all if there is an objective truth about goodness, and the world has moral properties, shouldnt there just be one 'best creation' which an all powerful all knowing god would choose?

Deists do not believe in prayer yet alone divine morality. Good and evil are not concerned in the Deistic viewpoint. Many things with theism are not associated with Deism actually.
omnibenevolence is irrelevant to Deism essentially and never has applied unless you count earlier French Deists

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Deists do not believe in prayer yet alone divine morality. Good and evil are not concerned in the Deistic viewpoint. Many things with theism are not associated with Deism actually.
omnibenevolence is irrelevant to Deism essentially and never has applied unless you count earlier French Deists

Isn't deism silent on the deity's morality? It might have foreseen prayers and tweaked the universe to 'answer' them, it might not have. If both are compatible with deism, why do deists categorically not believe in prayer?

My knowledge of deism is patchy at best, so I welcome being schooled on the subject

 

[GrowingSmaller]

omnibenevolence is irrelevant to Deism essentially and never has applied unless you count earlier French Deists

I would argue that omnipotence and omniscience imply omnibenevolence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would argue that omnipotence and omniscience imply omnibenevolence.

How so? I can easily imagine an all-powerful being that knows everything, and enjoys nothing more than torturing its creations.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Isn't deism silent on the deity's morality? It might have foreseen prayers and tweaked the universe to 'answer' them, it might not have. If both are compatible with deism, why do deists categorically not believe in prayer?

My knowledge of deism is patchy at best, so I welcome being schooled on the subject

Deism is not silent on the deity's morality. Early Deism like Lord Herbert of Cherbury were noted for strong humanistic and moralistic values which they assigned to god and this was a popular form of Deism in France. This was early Deism and often noted as spiritual Deism.
Modern Deism which was prevalent in America and elsewhere places no such morality or authoritative ethics to the deity at hand.


Deists of all shades and colors though strongly do not believe in prayer like what you said earlier. This is against Deism Basics. By "tweaking" the universe Deists assert that God would change the very nature of reality and break the laws of physics just for a person. Deists do not believe that mankind is God's special creation whatsoever, we are not superior or the "sons of god".

All you need to do to understand Modern Deism is just take Atheism and throw sprinkles on it. Deists are often described as Atheists with pizzazz

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I would argue that omnipotence and omniscience imply omnibenevolence.

This defies logic as you are acquiring a third unknown from nothing.

Omnipotence means all powerful and omniscience means unlimited knowledge of the Alpha and Omega.

Omnibenevolence has nothing to do with either of these. A being with the first 2 traits is entirely neutral. Neither good nor bad. The only way you could have achieved omnibenevolence is to have forced it in in order to try and make a pathetic attempt to disprove god for theists and deists. But you cannot disprove the Deistic god though .

Any being with omnipotence and omniscience is practically emotionless because the love and human emotions you are assigning to it emanate from the brain. So you are stating that God is biological.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Omnibenevolence has nothing to do with either of these...

So moral knowledge is impossible? Or irrelevant?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So moral knowledge is impossible? Or irrelevant?

Knowledge of morality =/= acting morally. If God is omniscient, he knows what is good, but that doesn't mean he acts good. Few murderers are unaware that murder is wrong, yet they do it anyway. Why can't God?

EDIT: Thinking about it, even the premise that omniscience implies knowledge of good and evil is murky, as it presumes an True Objective Morality that can be known by an omniscient being. It could be that there's no objective morality, only we humans and our quaint little subjective moralities. God would know about all these systems, but it's silly to say that he must be bound by one of them.

 

[KCfromNC]

That, and morality as "human opinion on the goodness or badness of an action" isn't in the category of things which are true or false. Since knowledge is justified true belief, moral "knowledge" is no such thing.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

So moral knowledge is impossible? Or irrelevant?

We created morality, morality is not objective. As a humanist I know you have a false interpretation of this but morals are not apart of knowledge, they are apart of survival.

Omnipotent nullifies survivalism

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Knowledge of morality =/= acting morally. If God is omniscient, he knows what is good, but that doesn't mean he acts good. Few murderers are unaware that murder is wrong, yet they do it anyway. Why can't God?

It would depend on this:


Internalism and externalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I add that if the good is known to be the better option, only acrasia or rational inconsistency would hold one back from pursuing it. But I dont think thay would apply to God unless he is a dialethist or something..

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That, and morality as "human opinion on the goodness or badness of an action" isn't in the category of things which are true or false. Since knowledge is justified true belief, moral "knowledge" is no such thing.

So its not true that some things are beter, relative to the pursuit of your interests (what is good for you) than others?
If so, why dont you act randomly, as all actions are neither good not bad, neither better nor worse. If thats true, then live by it. If its not true that random is as good as rational, then accept that there is moral truth. If your opinions are ratioanl, must there not be some truth behind them at least?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We created morality, morality is not objective. As a humanist I know you have a false interpretation of this but morals are not apart of knowledge, they are apart of survival.

I would argue both knowledge and survival. Just as legs and arms are adaptations, and there are truths about them, so it is the case with morality. For instance some things are patently better for you than others.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

I would argue both knowledge and survival. Just as legs and arms are adaptations, and there are truths about them, so it is the case with morality. For instance some things are patently better for you than others.

Better is a relative term without an objective moral law giver that is transcendent. In fact we dont just say that God is the objective moral law giver but that he is morality itself, that he is love itself, that he is justice itself.
These things are very hard for most (including me) to wrap my mind around, but that is how I see God, not just a being that is the objective moral law giver, but morality itself.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Better is a relative term without an objective moral law giver that is transcendent.

But there can still be objective relative truths, even without God. Einstein knows that. Morlality is relative to the subject (insert your favourite organism here "____") whom you are moralising for. But serving their interests (what is good for them) is non random but rational, therefore there are truths, and to me if there is truth there is objectivity.

Value may be accessed subjectively and created subjectively (perhaps by much unconscious noodling), but in my terms it exists objectively. As does the rest of the perceptual sphere, in the sense that it is as real as any rock or stone. In fact reductive materialists pretty much say it -experience - is precisely that.

Rocks and stones.

And if they can be weighed why not the value of certain actionas and states of mind?