-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We are not special
- Thread starter Veratis
- Start date
If we were created to be companions of a loving Creator, then we have a purpose. Finding our purpose is about understanding why God created us. That is how you can find it. Understanding why God created us is found in living a life of loving ones neighbor. It is, contrary to your opinion, not nonsense.
Upvote
0
You have fought this argument by reducing humanity to a mere means to an end. This is a bit like setting your house on fire to save it from a tornado.
Why on earth would God need companions? That which none greater can be conceived certainly wouldn't get lonely.
Upvote
0
I did not say God needed anything. I do think He loves us and being a loving God that would be natural. What are you reducing humanity to if we have no purpose, no reason to exist and face a destiny of meaninglessness? How is my finding a purpose for our existing reducing humanity in any way, especially as a mere means to an end?"
Upvote
0
If humanity has a purpose, then it is a mere tool. If not, then my goodness, what endless possibilities lie in wait for us?
Upvote
0
ExistencePrecedesEssence
Fools seem to ruin even the worst of things!
Nothingness of choice...created by the dasien(spelling?).
Upvote
0
If your children are mere tools, then yes we are mere tools and yes the possibilites are infinite.
Upvote
0
V
very_irreverand_Bill
Guest
Well, my Athiest friend, coming at ya as a Deist; I agree.
We aint so special.
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Upvote
0
Well, my Athiest friend, coming at ya as a Deist; I agree.
We aint so special.
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Deism became irrelevant when Hume and Kant broke the cosmological argument.
Upvote
0
Is having a purpose different from having a use? If, ultimately, we have some sort of final purpose or ultimate use, than we are no more than tools, or, if you prefer instruments. A tool is a thing that is good only for its use. If you think that whether a person is good depends on how well they fulfill their purpose, then you necessarily think that a person is a tool.
Upvote
0
Yes, and conversely - if I'm rude to everyone, then I'm not rude at all.
Erm...yeah, I suppose I'm agreeing with you on that...
Er....bacteria duplicate, sorry, replicate themselves when they divide and multiply.
What do you say about the cloned sheep?
You say that - but to be honest, the Inuits are getting pretty bored of all that snow.
Yes. An atheist. Many of them believe God isn't everywhere - in fact, he's nowhere, apparently.
ok - so if God is everything - what's to say God isn't essentially nothing? In that sense, if he's everywhere and everything, he's doing everything all the time everywhere - which actually means you become redundant as a being (because you're not special if you're part of infinity.) or He becomes redundant as a being.
Upvote
0
V
very_irreverand_Bill
Guest
How is it irrelevant?
Given the mystery of the Universe, if Deism is irrelevant- than so is Atheism. Only Agnostic views on the god question are then TRULY 100% relevant, since a deistic god cannot be proven nor disproven{as of yet}.
Plus, Deism evolves. I am aware of arguments for example that the Universe just ALWAYS WAS, or that it bubbled off from another universe{multiverse theory; which by the way is still theoretical itself; I personally believe it probbale, but it's still theoretical}; however, the marriage of Deism to Pantheism and Panentheism has done wonders for this philosophy{PanDeism and PanenDeism} when it comes to these arguments.
Fact is{as far as we know thus far}- either the Universe was created from a big bang, spawned from another universe, or just always was{and always changing in form; same amount of energy constant}. None of this discredits the deistic theory.
I always say, Athiests and Deists are at a stalemate; snce the evidence supports both propositions as equal probabilities, but neither is disproven, neither goes directly against evidence and sound logic[well, unless a perceptive Agnostic wants to chime in and point out how both Deism AND Atheism are unproven biases, ie: "reason-based/skepticism based/minimal/weak/soft- FAITHS; and I encourage them to do so, because as mcuh as we Deists and you Athiests hate to admit to having "faith"- beeing a dirty word to us, it's intellectual dishonesty for us to not at leats admit to "weak" faith or a reasoned-belief; and yes, Atheis IS a "belief"- it's a belief that NO GOD EXISTS, PROVE IT is all I have to say to the Atheist! You cannot, neither can i prove a deistic first cause source or force, but both our positions are equally valid given what we know and what mystery remains}.
The Cosmological argument has not been broken{disproven}, it's merely had to go through reformation, or re-deifinings; as it currently stands, the cosmological argument is currently if not on exact equal footing with the universe always just was- than it's pretty close; because we simply DO NOT KNOW YET.
But, the evidence for order and design in the chaos is there, it's just a matter of perspective{does this PROVE a deistic "god"? No, it does not; but it makes the belief that such an intelligence exists a valid belief}.
Lastly, I will say this; Deism is irrelevant in in the practical sense; I mean, why worship this "god" or whateve the heck you wanna label it? What meaning does this belief really have? Isn't the belief itself irrelvant to life as is?
SURE, perhaps{perhaps not, I guess that's a matter of perspective}; myself -I'm functionally more anti-theist and agnostic, but my intellectual viewpoint is still deistic; the relevany or irrelevancy of this "god" and the argumetns for it don't really matter; even if it is "irrelevant" in the "practical" sense, that so-called "irrelevancy" does not DISPROVE the viepwoint; if it exists and irrelevant, so what? the evidence for it's existence si still there, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to simply become an Athiest out of reactionarism when the deistic hypothesis makes perfect sense to me, and ir relevant philosophically.
Thanks
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Upvote
0
ExistencePrecedesEssence
Fools seem to ruin even the worst of things!
How does it constitute human individuality, and the personification of human endevours? How does that in any way effect human kind, how does it in any way constitute my life? What does it have to do with anything compaired to life? It is a remote concept, remote from purpose to us. A remote philosophy, and remote belief that neither constitutes, or affects the situation of the individual living existence. This is just my opinion though, i find any concept remote from the life of the individual living in existence totally irrelevent to our kind and our pursuit of essence through free-will.How is it irrelevant?
Given the mystery of the Universe, if Deism is irrelevant- than so is Atheism. Only Agnostic views on the god question are then TRULY 100% relevant, since a deistic god cannot be proven nor disproven{as of yet}.
Plus, Deism evolves. I am aware of arguments for example that the Universe just ALWAYS WAS, or that it bubbled off from another universe{multiverse theory; which by the way is still theoretical itself; I personally believe it probbale, but it's still theoretical}; however, the marriage of Deism to Pantheism and Panentheism has done wonders for this philosophy{PanDeism and PanenDeism} when it comes to these arguments.
Fact is{as far as we know thus far}- either the Universe was created from a big bang, spawned from another universe, or just always was{and always changing in form; same amount of energy constant}. None of this discredits the deistic theory.
I always say, Athiests and Deists are at a stalemate; snce the evidence supports both propositions as equal probabilities, but neither is disproven, neither goes directly against evidence and sound logic[well, unless a perceptive Agnostic wants to chime in and point out how both Deism AND Atheism are unproven biases, ie: "reason-based/skepticism based/minimal/weak/soft- FAITHS; and I encourage them to do so, because as mcuh as we Deists and you Athiests hate to admit to having "faith"- beeing a dirty word to us, it's intellectual dishonesty for us to not at leats admit to "weak" faith or a reasoned-belief; and yes, Atheis IS a "belief"- it's a belief that NO GOD EXISTS, PROVE IT is all I have to say to the Atheist! You cannot, neither can i prove a deistic first cause source or force, but both our positions are equally valid given what we know and what mystery remains}.
The Cosmological argument has not been broken{disproven}, it's merely had to go through reformation, or re-deifinings; as it currently stands, the cosmological argument is currently if not on exact equal footing with the universe always just was- than it's pretty close; because we simply DO NOT KNOW YET.
But, the evidence for order and design in the chaos is there, it's just a matter of perspective{does this PROVE a deistic "god"? No, it does not; but it makes the belief that such an intelligence exists a valid belief}.
Lastly, I will say this; Deism is irrelevant in in the practical sense; I mean, why worship this "god" or whateve the heck you wanna label it? What meaning does this belief really have? Isn't the belief itself irrelvant to life as is?
SURE, perhaps{perhaps not, I guess that's a matter of perspective}; myself -I'm functionally more anti-theist and agnostic, but my intellectual viewpoint is still deistic; the relevany or irrelevancy of this "god" and the argumetns for it don't really matter; even if it is "irrelevant" in the "practical" sense, that so-called "irrelevancy" does not DISPROVE the viepwoint; if it exists and irrelevant, so what? the evidence for it's existence si still there, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to simply become an Athiest out of reactionarism when the deistic hypothesis makes perfect sense to me, and ir relevant philosophically.
Thanks
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Upvote
0
V
very_irreverand_Bill
Guest
I allready conceded that such a point is probably valid.
It serves no direct purpose to any of what you mentioned.
Does'nt make it not so. The validit yof those arguments still does not make it not so.
I could take an intellectually dishonest route{and I've often thought of dooing so; "if my deism serves no practical purpose to me or life, why be deist? why not just be say-Atheist"}- the answer to that question is- because regardless of Deisms or Gods "currently seeming"{as we learn more, this could change in eithe direction} irrelevancy in practical terms- the fact remains that it would be simply reactionaism and intellectual dishonesty of me to just be athiest, because a first cause intelligence answers the question of origen to me{at least- for the time beeing; that may change, if atheism proves itself and disproves the deistic hypothesis-then I'll likly become atheist without any problem, as deism is an intellectual idea to me- I don't emotionally care for NOR HATE natures god,so I can change once it is disproven to me, but the militant atheists and reactionaires arguments against it have alwasy seemed to be well...reactionarism and base don the idea that god is irrelevant, which MAY be so, but it does'nt do a thing to show that this first cause intelligence does'nt exist".
Plus, I'm still open to the possibility that Gd may not exist{I honestly think that we can possible know billions of years down the road, but by then we will likely have destroyed ourselves or beein destroyed by some natural disaster}, I'm also still open to the possibiulity that God is aware of us but remains willingly elusive to leave us to utilize a purposed gift of "reason"{ or "reason" may be accidental; either way....}.
By the way to answer your questions about hos it affects you? IT DOES'NT, unless you want it too; you have to remember that most deists frankly could'nt give to craps about whether someone believes in god or not, what matters is a good ethical life, the power of reason, science and natural law and evidence. Soe of us ARE ANTI-THEISTIC though{myself for example}, so theistic god beliefs are opposed as a threat{at least most "revealed religions" are}. Many of us{myself for example} feel a close kinship with other rationalists,secularists,humanists,etc- such as Athiests and Agnostics; personally have no kinship in thought with the theists, but I do with othe non-theists.
It does'nt affect you, because I could care less, we all could care less, if you don't beleive in the first cause deistic concept. thee's no souls to save by this belief, it is merely that some of us can't shake the evidence from ur own minds that this thing must likely be.
tootles
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Upvote
0
ExistencePrecedesEssence
Fools seem to ruin even the worst of things!
It doesnt affect me for your precise point, no one cares about me other then me. I see your point, and i made the statement on limited skepticism of Deism. Either way, i find the irrelevency of god to my existence as much so as the irrelevency of god not existing in my life. Either way i am responsible for my life, no other can affect me other then my own choice to do so. Though i crave god to exist i find his existence now to be irrelevent, or totally contradictory to what i conceptionalize as my concept of living all-together. I just find such concepts of cosmotology, and universal extremeties devoid of life, which to my philosophy, is the thing that matters most. Though we may not have a purpose and value to the universe, we have purpose and value to our fellows, for our fellows, and for ourselves. Many atheists hold this idea, and that is why you do not see more flocking to these boards to challenge Deism, christianity, and religion all-together. God is a costly hypothesis that will never be answered.I allready conceded that such a point is probably valid.
It serves no direct purpose to any of what you mentioned.
Does'nt make it not so. The validit yof those arguments still does not make it not so.
I could take an intellectually dishonest route{and I've often thought of dooing so; "if my deism serves no practical purpose to me or life, why be deist? why not just be say-Atheist"}- the answer to that question is- because regardless of Deisms or Gods "currently seeming"{as we learn more, this could change in eithe direction} irrelevancy in practical terms- the fact remains that it would be simply reactionaism and intellectual dishonesty of me to just be athiest, because a first cause intelligence answers the question of origen to me{at least- for the time beeing; that may change, if atheism proves itself and disproves the deistic hypothesis-then I'll likly become atheist without any problem, as deism is an intellectual idea to me- I don't emotionally care for NOR HATE natures god,so I can change once it is disproven to me, but the militant atheists and reactionaires arguments against it have alwasy seemed to be well...reactionarism and base don the idea that god is irrelevant, which MAY be so, but it does'nt do a thing to show that this first cause intelligence does'nt exist".
Plus, I'm still open to the possibility that Gd may not exist{I honestly think that we can possible know billions of years down the road, but by then we will likely have destroyed ourselves or beein destroyed by some natural disaster}, I'm also still open to the possibiulity that God is aware of us but remains willingly elusive to leave us to utilize a purposed gift of "reason"{ or "reason" may be accidental; either way....}.
By the way to answer your questions about hos it affects you? IT DOES'NT, unless you want it too; you have to remember that most deists frankly could'nt give to craps about whether someone believes in god or not, what matters is a good ethical life, the power of reason, science and natural law and evidence. Soe of us ARE ANTI-THEISTIC though{myself for example}, so theistic god beliefs are opposed as a threat{at least most "revealed religions" are}. Many of us{myself for example} feel a close kinship with other rationalists,secularists,humanists,etc- such as Athiests and Agnostics; personally have no kinship in thought with the theists, but I do with othe non-theists.
It does'nt affect you, because I could care less, we all could care less, if you don't beleive in the first cause deistic concept. thee's no souls to save by this belief, it is merely that some of us can't shake the evidence from ur own minds that this thing must likely be.
tootles
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
I just dont find the purpose of the universal pandiesm and multi-universe theories so as they may situate themselves in affecting the individuals conception. How in everything can people be affected by a universe they will never see, or stars and constellations they will never travel too. Atleast to absurdist modern society we will never leave this earth in the coming generations, so i find such philosophy and belief inconsistent with the human situation on this earth, which is after all, all we have. Thanks for the insight though.
Upvote
0
How is it irrelevant?
Given the mystery of the Universe, if Deism is irrelevant- than so is Atheism. Only Agnostic views on the god question are then TRULY 100% relevant, since a deistic god cannot be proven nor disproven{as of yet}.
Plus, Deism evolves. I am aware of arguments for example that the Universe just ALWAYS WAS, or that it bubbled off from another universe{multiverse theory; which by the way is still theoretical itself; I personally believe it probbale, but it's still theoretical}; however, the marriage of Deism to Pantheism and Panentheism has done wonders for this philosophy{PanDeism and PanenDeism} when it comes to these arguments.
Fact is{as far as we know thus far}- either the Universe was created from a big bang, spawned from another universe, or just always was{and always changing in form; same amount of energy constant}. None of this discredits the deistic theory.
I always say, Athiests and Deists are at a stalemate; snce the evidence supports both propositions as equal probabilities, but neither is disproven, neither goes directly against evidence and sound logic[well, unless a perceptive Agnostic wants to chime in and point out how both Deism AND Atheism are unproven biases, ie: "reason-based/skepticism based/minimal/weak/soft- FAITHS; and I encourage them to do so, because as mcuh as we Deists and you Athiests hate to admit to having "faith"- beeing a dirty word to us, it's intellectual dishonesty for us to not at leats admit to "weak" faith or a reasoned-belief; and yes, Atheis IS a "belief"- it's a belief that NO GOD EXISTS, PROVE IT is all I have to say to the Atheist! You cannot, neither can i prove a deistic first cause source or force, but both our positions are equally valid given what we know and what mystery remains}.
The Cosmological argument has not been broken{disproven}, it's merely had to go through reformation, or re-deifinings; as it currently stands, the cosmological argument is currently if not on exact equal footing with the universe always just was- than it's pretty close; because we simply DO NOT KNOW YET.
But, the evidence for order and design in the chaos is there, it's just a matter of perspective{does this PROVE a deistic "god"? No, it does not; but it makes the belief that such an intelligence exists a valid belief}.
Lastly, I will say this; Deism is irrelevant in in the practical sense; I mean, why worship this "god" or whateve the heck you wanna label it? What meaning does this belief really have? Isn't the belief itself irrelvant to life as is?
SURE, perhaps{perhaps not, I guess that's a matter of perspective}; myself -I'm functionally more anti-theist and agnostic, but my intellectual viewpoint is still deistic; the relevany or irrelevancy of this "god" and the argumetns for it don't really matter; even if it is "irrelevant" in the "practical" sense, that so-called "irrelevancy" does not DISPROVE the viepwoint; if it exists and irrelevant, so what? the evidence for it's existence si still there, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to simply become an Athiest out of reactionarism when the deistic hypothesis makes perfect sense to me, and ir relevant philosophically.
Thanks
In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
Bill, the first thing you must understand for us to have an intelligent discussion is that there can never be evidence against the existence of something. If there is no evidence for the existence of God and no evidence against the existence of God, this means that the evidence says there is no God. If you do not accept this, then you must seriouslly allow for the existence of fairies, dragons, ogres, orcs, frost giants, Niflheim, and the Easter Bunny. You must grant that odds are even for everything I've named, and so, if you're to be intellectually honest, then you probably also have to say that half of what I named exists. Do you see the problem that develops if you think that the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense?
There are plenty of reasons the cosmological argument is no good, but the most damning one is that for it to be true, you have to establish that causality is a necessary rule for all things in the universe, and even for the universe itself. Do this to my satisfaction, and heck, I'll give you my master sword. It makes evil retreat.
One last thing: don't hop in bed with the IDers. Don't say that the universe looks designed. No one in this forum will take you seriously, that's for the Creation and Evolution forum.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
