World with Deism vs World with Christianity?

[essentialsaltes]

An irrational process cannot suddenly become rational.

Can a nonliving process give rise to a living process?

I think BigV's point about evolution is apt. If conscious, rational creatures can arise from creatures without those mental faculties, then there is no need for any being to personally 'inject' this property.

It is up to you to show how the rational could arise from the irrational; as there is literally no example of this ever occuring anywhere (barring a priori assumption)

A fertilized embryo is not rational. It develops naturally into a rational being.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Can a nonliving process give rise to a living process?

I think BigV's point about evolution is apt. If conscious, rational creatures can arise from creatures without those mental faculties, then there is no need for any being to personally 'inject' this property.

How is it apt? Did conscious, rational creatures arise from creatures lacking that faculty? This is the a priori assumption I was talking about. This is merely assuming it did, not showing how it was possible - the difficulty of doing so, is why so many deny we are 'really conscious', with ideas like hard determinism. Evolution adds nothing to the argument, which is about the phenomenological being able to create what is not just that. Besides, we cannot demonstrate that consciousness is materially derived currently, only having Neural Correlates of Consciousness, so even if I fully grant human evolution, we still have no evidence of an evolutionary origin for consciousness, let alone Reason.

A fertilized embryo is not rational. It develops naturally into a rational being.

No, a rational creature begot a rational creature. An irrational creature begetting a rational creature would be different, but we have no such examples, now do we?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did conscious, rational creatures arise from creatures lacking that faculty?

Yes, the history of life on earth shows this. If people are rational and fish are not, then it's a fact.

Flying things arose from nonflying things.

No, a rational creature begot a rational creature.

Okay, the Demiurge begot rational things that had to go through a long period of nonrational eggness.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, the history of life on earth shows this. If people are rational and fish are not, then it's a fact.

You are ignoring the operative part of the argument. There is no evidence in the 'history of life on earth' that rationality arose from the irrational. Certainly you could argue that men arose from irrational animals, but the consequence of that is to either discard rationality and reason as essentially true as many Naturalists do; or to see a difference in kind rather than degree, which simply cannot be satisfied without invoking the metaphysical. As I said, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Okay, the Demiurge begot rational things that had to go through a long period of nonrational eggness.

Which is then no longer Deism; rather creatures derived from the divine, an Image of it, or imbued by it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are ignoring the operative part of the argument. There is no evidence in the 'history of life on earth' that rationality arose from the irrational.

There was a time when there were no rational living things on earth. And now there are. The one came from the other.

Certainly you could argue that men arose from irrational animals, but the consequence of that is to either discard rationality and reason as essentially true as many Naturalists do; or to see a difference in kind rather than degree, which simply cannot be satisfied without invoking the metaphysical. As I said, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Certainly I don't feel any more informed after reading that.

Which is then no longer Deism; rather creatures derived from the divine, an Image of it, or imbued by it.

Demiurge set it up and left. That's deism. It didn't leave any gods behind.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We know from all of human experience that only personal beings can reason and can create rational machines, ie computers. Do you have an example of something impersonal doing such things? Which is more rational to believe? That something personal created the ability to reason since it already could or something impersonal could do so? My argument may not prove it, but it shows it is extremely unlikely and is the only scenario that makes sense.

bv: Well, humans are rational, and yet a Deist God (if Deism is true) created us. Are you suggesting it is impossible for Deism to be true?

Pretty close to impossible because reasoning is not the only thing that can only come from personal beings. Language is another and morality. Why are humans able to use language? If our creator was the deist god then it is unlikely we would have language. Because as far as we know it has never communicated with language but the Christian God has, so he knows what language is and since He created us in His image we also use language. Then there is also morality, the deist god has not revealed any morality therefore probably does not have one since it is not a personal being. Therefore, there is no objective morality and moral relativism would be true and humans would not have a moral conscience, so that earth would be hell on earth.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, genocide is the wiping out of a group because of WHO they are like the Nazis did to the jews. God commanded the destruction of Amalkites because of WHAT they DID, ie evil. This was capital punishment for sin. Not genocide.

bv: This is genocide because it's talking about wiping out Amalekites throughout generations. Bible is not just talking about killing those who have caused Israel harm, but killing them in a future, people's kids and then their kids. This is what a textbook genocide is.

No, they have all rebelled against God, the adults were worshipping false gods and the children were born with a sinful nature. According to the universal law of justice all humans deserve to die at birth because of sin, so actually by allowing people to live any length of time after birth, God is being merciful. But because children under the age of accountability have not knowingly committed sin they are allowed into heaven after death and dont die spiritually.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, rape was covered in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. It was a capital offense.

bv: You stopped short of one verse:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

No, in a better translation the ESV, it says "and seizes her and lies with her and they are found out, he shall pay her father....." The phrase they are found out, plainly implies that this was consensual. So it was fornication not rape.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
By voluntarily becoming a slave, and accepting a wife from his master, he loses some control of his famly. And his wife did lose some of her freedom. But this of course, did not apply to free women. And even though the text says forever, he and his family could be free in the next year of Jubilee in six years. Also, if he didnt like this master he and his family could escape to a sanctuary city and not be sent back to his master.

bv: They would have to be able to make it to the sanctuary city first, however, the laws as dictated by God, placed slavery over the institution of marriage! Let that sink in.

Only in the case of where the man gets his wife from the master. God was actually discouraging that by this law.

bv: And this is only talking about Hebrews. These rules did not apply to non-Hebrews who could be enslaved without an opportunity to go free.

No, they DID apply to the stranger/non-Hebrew, read Exodus 22:21-24. Involuntary slavery is plainly oppression.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Demiurge set it up and left. That's deism. It didn't leave any gods behind.

Well no, it isn't Deism as defined in the OP. You are confusing Deism and a High God. Setting up a rational principle within creation would be a form of pantheism, or alternatively seeing a continuation from creation till rational creatures arose would require some form of henotheistic panpsychism.

I think the confusion is arising because the idea of Deism as current today or found in the OP, differs from Enlightenment Deism - the latter having reason as a semi-divine faculty endowed and that could impart religious knowledge in lieu of revelation. To historic deists God did not just set up the universe and leave, He still endowed reason within it, even if it was set up to essentially run by Naturalistic laws.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well no, it isn't Deism as defined in the OP. You are confusing Deism and a High God.

Even the words are practically the same
OP: (i.e. a Creator God who set things in motion and then left us all to our own devices)
me: Demiurge set it up and left

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Even the words are practically the same
OP: (i.e. a Creator God who set things in motion and then left us all to our own devices)
me: Demiurge set it up and left

The whole exchange was about a demiurge who begot rational creatures - that is not Deism as defined in the OP, as it is not just setting things up and leaving, as it sets up a rational principle within creation. Such a principle, begotten, is divine or semi-divine now matter how endowed - as it was seen by Enlightenment deism. Please reread our exchange.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The whole exchange was about a demiurge who begot rational creatures - that is not Deism as defined in the OP

I will allow @BigV (the OP) judge which of us better understands how deism in the OP is defined.

I note, however, that the OP does not discuss setting up "a rational principle within creation" which seems to be a particular preoccupation of your own that doesn't seem to mean anything to me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I will allow @BigV (the OP) judge which of us better understands how deism in the OP is defined.

I note, however, that the OP does not discuss setting up "a rational principle within creation" which seems to be a particular preoccupation of your own that doesn't seem to mean anything to me.

You responded to my post 40, which was about the Deism in the OP not allowing valid reason. If it means nothing to you, why on earth did you respond?

I am done wasting my time when clearly you have not been paying attention at all.

Good day.

 

[childeye 2]

What could we expect in a world where Deism is true (i.e. a Creator God who set things in motion and then left us all to our own devices) vs a world where a Christian God is in charge?

This deity, at what point was the deity finished creating and with what was the creation endowed with?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If it means nothing to you, why on earth did you respond?

I avoided the part that sounded like presuppositional gibberish to me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I avoided the part that sounded like presuppositional gibberish to me.

You had the gall to call a point made apt, when you admit you didn't understand the argument? Really now. How delightfully absurd.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You had the gall to call a point made apt, when you admit you didn't understand the argument? Really now. How delightfully absurd.

I understood BigV's argument.

 

[Ed1wolf]

He absolutely IS eager for killings. Numbers 15, the penalty for gathering sticks on a Saturday resulted in a death penalty. So, by your own admission, the judge could have created a fine or any other punishment short of killing someone, and yet, this judge resorted to killing.

This was prior to the formation of the judges. But as I explained the ancient Hebrews were held to higher standard in the Old Covenant. They had to live almost perfect lives to show that they represented the True God to surrounding pagan tribes who were engaging in horrific behaviors. The New Covenant under Christ is more merciful.

bv: In some ways, you are right. We can work on a Sabbath and no punishment will be due for it. However, we cannot be raping virgins and paying their fathers 50 shekels. And we don't typically commit genocides, killing everyone while keeping the virgins for ourselves. And slavery is illegal too.

Also, we don't venerate people sacrificing their kids to God, because God asked them to.

See my previous post where I refuted your claim that rape was condoned and that genocide occurred. Involuntary slavery was not allowed in ancient Israel either, except for POWs and criminals as I demonstrated in my last post. No one actually sacrificed their kid to God, Abraham had faith that God would not do so even when all the evidence appeared to point in the other direction. That is what he was commended for.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I understood BigV's argument.

Which was irrelevant to anything I was saying. You were both being very silly indeed. Thank you, this thread now raises a chuckle and a smile from the sheer pythonesque absurdity, while before I was getting mildly irritated.