Ask the Deist Philosophical Stuff

[BL2KTN]

On topic now (since 29 pages of another thread went on without a hitch and my mirrored image of a thread was shut down in 2).

Ask me philosophical stuff in this thread. Please make sure to use the word philosophy or similar at least three times per post... philosophically speaking.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Too tired to be original in my philosophical inquiries. (1) I will make up for it by exceeding the mimimim requirements for the use of the word philosophy.

“My Parents had early given me religious Impressions, and brought me through my Childhood piously in the Dissenting Way. But I was scarce 15 when, after doubting by turns of several Points as I found them disputed in the different Books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some Books against Deism fell into my Hands; they were said to be the Substance of Sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an Effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them: For the Arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough Deist.

[Part I, p. 45 of autobiography]”
― Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

What are the philosophical (2) arguments for and the philosophical (3) refutations against Deism (which spellcheck originally changed to denim) that you've personally encountered? Why are you a Deist?

Philosophize (4), philosophically (5), philosophic (6). Getting bonus points. Oh man you know your first week post spring break coupled with insomnia has completely deteriorated your mind when it's after 4 in the morning, you still can't sleep, and you think carving philosophical (7) quotes on soap and naming the company Philosoapy (7.5) is totally genius. People could search for deep meaning in the philosophy (8) going down the drain and how it symbolizes the ephemeral nature of our mortal existence. I am going to bed to philosophize (9) in my sleep.

 

[BL2KTN]

(1) I will make up for it by exceeding the mimimim requirements for the use of the word philosophy.

This thread may yet survive.

(2) arguments for and the philosophical

Different deists of different ages might answer this differently. However, all arguments for deism come down to a perceived probability (at least more than 50%) in favor of a creator of some sort, a rejection of revelation as acceptable truth, and an appeal to reason/logic as the only sources for actual knowledge.

(3) refutations against Deism (which spellcheck originally changed to denim) that you've personally encountered?

There are very few. Atheists disagree due to a perceived lack of evidence for a creator of some sort and at times because of a personal distaste for calling anything "god" or a "creator", etc. Religious groups disagree because they believe they can define the creator, then build theology and claims off of this.

Why are you a Deist?

Because the probabilities are that the universe is created, and therefore I accept that reality as most likely. At the same time I cling to reason and logic, putting aside revelation as acceptable. I therefore reject all religious claims that put aside reason.

Philosophize (4), philosophically (5), philosophic (6). Getting bonus points. Oh man you know your first week post spring break coupled with insomnia has completely deteriorated your mind when it's after 4 in the morning, you still can't sleep, and you think carving philosophical (7) quotes on soap and naming the company Philosoapy (7.5) is totally genius. People could search for deep meaning in the philosophy (8) going down the drain and how it symbolizes the ephemeral nature of our mortal existence. I am going to bed to philosophize (9) in my sleep.

Here's to some lucid dreaming

 

[True Scotsman]

This thread may yet survive.



Different deists of different ages might answer this differently. However, all arguments for deism come down to a perceived probability (at least more than 50%) in favor of a creator of some sort, a rejection of revelation as acceptable truth, and an appeal to reason/logic as the only sources for actual knowledge.



There are very few. Atheists disagree due to a perceived lack of evidence for a creator of some sort and at times because of a personal distaste for calling anything "god" or a "creator", etc. Religious groups disagree because they believe they can define the creator, then build theology and claims off of this.



Because the probabilities are that the universe is created, and therefore I accept that reality as most likely. At the same time I cling to reason and logic, putting aside revelation as acceptable. I therefore reject all religious claims that put aside reason.



Here's to some lucid dreaming

Here's a philosophical question that I like to ask people. What's your starting point? What's your first principle?

Edit: Oops, meant to quote the OP. Clicked on the wrong button.

 

[BL2KTN]

What's your starting point? What's your first principle?

The logical absolutes, often called the laws of thought. They are neither conceptual nor physical, but a category of their own. Upon them all conceptual reality and fantasy is based.

 

[True Scotsman]

The logical absolutes, often called the laws of thought. They are neither conceptual nor physical, but a category of their own. Upon them all conceptual reality and fantasy is based.

Hi again,

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about axioms?

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes. I didn't use the term "axiom" because I wouldn't say that certain types of axioms are my starting point (specifically non-logical axioms).

 

[True Scotsman]

Yes. I didn't use the term "axiom" because I wouldn't say that certain types of axioms are my starting point (specifically non-logical axioms).

What is the axiom that you start with?

 

[BL2KTN]

What is the axiom that you start with?

There is no single axiom I know of from which other axioms are deduced. So I do not start with a single axiom, nor do I apply axioms in contexts to which they do not apply.

 

[True Scotsman]

There is no single axiom I know of from which other axioms are deduced. So I do not start with a single axiom, nor do I apply axioms in contexts to which they do not apply.

But an axiom is neither induced nor deduced. An axiom is perceptually self evident. Also an axiom is implicit in all knowledge and therefore is not contextual. It is universally true.

I guess you don't want to tell me and that's OK. I don't mind telling you mine. Mine is the recognition that existence exists.

 

[BL2KTN]

But an axiom is neither induced nor deduced. An axiom is perceptually self evident. Also an axiom is implicit in all knowledge and therefore is not contextual. It is universally true.

Correct, which is why I can't start with a particular axiom. They are accurate without hierarchy. However, I disagree that all axioms are universal: quantum axioms do not apply for the classical world.

I guess you don't want to tell me and that's OK. I don't mind telling you mine. Mine is the recognition that existence exists.

But the axiom of identity confirms the axiom of existence (there can be no identity without existence). And the axiom of existence requires the axiom of identity (otherwise we could say existence isn't existence). So that's why I can't start with one or say one is above the others in any sort of hierarchy. I'm not trying to hide my position from you. It's like asking me my favorite color if I honestly have no favorite.

 

[True Scotsman]

Correct, which is why I can't start with a particular axiom. They are accurate without hierarchy. However, I disagree that all axioms are universal: quantum axioms do not apply for the classical world.

I see. I was speaking of philosophical axioms.

But the axiom of identity confirms the axiom of existence (there can be no identity without existence). And the axiom of existence requires the axiom of identity (otherwise we could say existence isn't existence). So that's why I can't start with one or say one is above the others in any sort of hierarchy. I'm not trying to hide my position from you. It's like asking me my favorite color if I honestly have no favorite.

Yes they are really one and the same. To exist is to be something and to be something is to exist. My philosophy holds that existence is identity. I start with existence because it is not until we reach the concept "consciousness" and then the implicit concept "entity" that we can arrive at "identity".

Anyway, I have a better understanding of your starting point. Thank you.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes they are really one and the same. To exist is to be something and to be something is to exist. My philosophy holds that existence is identity. I start with existence because it is not until we reach the concept "consciousness" and then the implicit concept "entity" that we can arrive at "identity".

Anyway, I have a better understanding of your starting point. Thank you.

Thank you for the cordial discussion.

 

[True Scotsman]

Thank you for the cordial discussion.

You are very welcome. It is refreshing to talk to someone who is willing to discuss fundamentals.

 

[Received]

Philosophically, if I'm driving a car at the speed of light and I turn on my lights, does anything happen?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Philosophically, if I'm driving a car at the speed of light and I turn on my lights, does anything happen?

Before your car reached the speed of light it would have ceased to exist as a car so the point is moot.

 

[Received]

Before your car reached the speed of light it would have ceased to exist as a car so the point is moot.

I don't want to work here.

 

[True Scotsman]

Philosophically, if I'm driving a car at the speed of light and I turn on my lights, does anything happen?

That is a scientific question. Philosophically, what would happen is that the entities involved would act according to their natures.

 

[Received]

You guys apparently aren't Steven Wright fans.

 

[agua]

Philosophically, if I'm driving a car at the speed of light and I turn on my lights, does anything happen?

Yes, you will explode.