• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism, agnosticism and deism

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, so the intent of this thread is for @Earthtank and myself to have a discussion on atheism, agnosticism and Deism.

I'll leave Earthtank to explain his aim here, but for me this is more exchange of thoughts than debate. In particular I'm very interested in how people deal with the unknown's in life. This is how I ended up atheist, and seems to be how Earthtank has ended up leaning Deist. So different reactions to similar thoughts, perhaps. Well see.

First some basic rules. Only Earthtank and myself to post here, unless we directly invite anyone else.

Secondly, this isn't argumentative in the sense that were trying to change each other's mind, so no 'winner' as such. Or think of us both as winners, that works.

Third, there is no rush on this from my point of view. I'll be active in the thread, but am happy to wait on Earthtank, etc.

That's about it, let's just see where it takes us. I'll leave this here so Earthtank can confirm this is agreeable, or add to it, then I'll post an opening post/questions.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Thank you very much for starting this. I will post a full reply tomorrow as i will be busy for the rest of the day (work and family) and don't want to send a half booty reply.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'll be very interested in this thread.
I consider myself an agnostic deist, but I usually just say I'm atheist. Because it's simpler and nearly always sufficient for the discussion.
Tom
 

Earthtank

Active Member
If anyone cares, for the full thread on how and why this started please go to the link below.

Coming out as a Deist

Quick recap on how we got here, I have been agnostic for most of my life and recently identify as a deist.

The reason this “debate” is taking place was when @lewisnotmiller replied to me saying “I would definitely welcome a 1 on 1 debate with anyone in effort to either find the “truth” or “eliminate” that which is false.” So here we are.

I want to start off by saying I really do appreciate this as I know it takes a lot of time and effort and I effort to help us be more efficient with our time, I will be speaking and using plain English. What I mean by that for example, when I say “red” I mean “red” please do not ask me if I mean dark red, light red, cherry red or whatever. The reason I say this is because this happened with me in the past and we spent more time with silly word play instead of addressing the main issues, so I just bowed out of that conversation. I will address you as a competent, rational and logical person by not asking you to explain every small detail or justify every single position taken and hope you will do that same in return (unless truly needed of course). As we have said, this is not about winners or losers so, if you make a claim that you believe is true, as long as it’s reasonably sound and does NOT deviate from your previous logical and rationale train of thought, I won’t ask you to provide me proofs, evidences and studies to back you up. An example of that is, if you said “Killing is bad” I won’t open up a whole can of worms and start bringing up the whole topic of morality and the rabbit whole that leads us down because, we are just 2 people having a discussion and this is something, for the most part, universally agreed upon. Now, if you said something along the lines of “All religions oppose all of science” or “All we need science and it’s the absolute truth” that would be a different story.

I think a great starting point for us here would be to first establish how we can find or differentiate between the “truth” and “falsehoods”. When I am saying “truth” and “falsehoods” I mean them in the objective and subjective sense. I define objective truth as a truth the does NOT change overtime no matter what. For example, saying the Earth is round is an example of an objective truth, regardless of what any book, scripture, scientist, flat earther, movie or anyone else says or believes, the earth is, always has been and always will be round. Another example would be our biological mothers, they will always be our mothers no what happens, dead or alive, today or a million years from now, that same person will ALWAYS be your biological mother. I define subjective truths such as (well as it sounds) personal truths that (possibly) cannot be quantified or measured for the most part, I am not saying I dismiss subjective truths and experiences however, for sake of this discussion let’s do our absolute best to avoid subjective truths as those tend to get a little messy.



I will list a list of “tools” I think we can use and then, propose a criteria for us to use in order to do our best to find out what makes the most sense and what could be plausibly considered true.

Tools

1) Logic: I think logic is an essential tool for anything, especially in a discussion such as this one because, if anyone builds an argument or takes a stance that defies logic then, they are just wasting their time.

2) Rational: Not to be confused with logic (even though they do overlap), by this I mean looking at the problem/issue/topic and address it without being susceptible to feelings and emotions.

3) Common sense: Unfortunately, I have this not to be so common. An example I use is, if you a phone with a broken screen the most “common sense” assumption would be the owner somehow broke it, not that the phone was manufactured that way. The reason I use this example is because it happened to me in real life when I asked a person “what are the possible causes of that broken screen?” I guess, while that possible it completely lacks common sense.

4) Being Objective: By this I mean being as un-biased as possible, for obvious reasons.

5) Science: I purposefully listed science as the last one and the reason being, if something lacks logic and rational (and sometimes common sense) it would almost always contradict science, or at least it will contradict it in the sense we are attempting to understand it. Also, when looking at the results of a research, if you are not objective to the data and have a certain bias, you might make the data say what you want. An example of this is, through some clever word play and data manipulation, Saudi Arabia was announced (I forgot the magazine) as the number 1 tourist destination on earth. What? Saudi Arabia? How you ask? Well, given their size location in the Middle East, all trucking routes to all the countries around it MUST go through one of Saudi’s many ports and boarders and pay a “tourist fee”. Now, as someone who spent a few years there, I can tell you first hand that outside of Mecca and Medina there is not anything a “tourist” would want to visit but, because of this “tourist fee”, word play, data manipulation and being biased they “earned” this prestigious title.



Please feel free to add anything you want to the list of tools. I have no problem with you wanting to delete or modify a tool. Unless that reason is self-explanatory, please let me know why.



The criteria I personally use

1) The test of time: Like the example I used with the round earth and biological mother, the claim that something is true needs to stand the test of time. I don’t want to keep using the same example but, it’s the most appropriate one. The round earth, no matter what we believed, we know the earth always has been and always will be round not only because some people and some religions said but, we now know empirically, that the earth cannot survive in any of shape.

2) “Prophecies”: I am not sure that is the correct word to use here so please correct me if you have a better term but, what I mean by “Prophecies” is someone saying something a long, long time ago without the help or aid of any reasonable “technology” to make that “Prophecy” or prediction. Maybe prediction or claim might be better words? I have no problem completely deleting this one from the list just to avoid any confusion.

3) Science: This one is a bit tricky as we know that science changes over time, the facts don’t but, our understanding does. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance-era mathematician and astronomer in the 16th century “discovered” that the Sun was motionless and the center of the universe. There are many examples (I assume) you are aware of and how the “facts” changed over time. So, while I appreciate and love science I do not take its findings as the ultimate, unquestioned truths, yes, I know that’s not the goal or intention of science anyway but, I know some people who do.

I think I have rambled off long enough for my opening post. I am looking forward to your reply.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
All right...first off, apologies. As opposed to many of my half-thought through posts which I throw around regularly on this site (hey, do a search, you'll immediately see that it's true!!) I'm attempting to dust off my brain and actually be thoughtful in this thread.

Overall, I have very little to respond to in your OP, since it was neatly organised, and your points made sense to me. I have a few comments on the points you've raised, so I'll start with those, and then perhaps ask a question of you. For that reason, I'll leave the 'truths' and 'falsehoods' part until later in this post.

I completely agree about it being preferable to avoid semantics on things. I am supposing this discussion is more a high level personal philosophy discussion than a detailed, technical one, so understanding each other's views and communicating clearly in a lay sense seems the main point here. In any case, if we do have any disagreement on a word meaning, or something, I don't think we need to agree on what the word means...only understand the intent of each other's meaning.

In relation to your criteria, they also make sense. I'm fine with you leaving prophecies in place, and basically I'm happy to respond to any mechanism you use, even if it's outside those listed. In the spirit of full disclosure, I don't tend to find prophecy at all compelling for two reasons;
1) Interpretive factors - reading an ancient prophecy through a modern lens, describing it's exact intent AFTER the prophecised events have occurred, etc.
2) Cherry Picking - if I make a dozen prophecies now, and two of them turn out to be right, looking at those two seems less compelling to me than looking at all twelve, and judging that maybe I just have a good ability to predict likely events.

Still, happy to take any such things on a case by case. Just flagging my general views to avoid surprises.

You proposed starting with 'truths' and 'falsehoods' to get this discussion moving, and that sounds as good a place to start as any to me. It seems like a fairly short discussion point though. All in all, your description of 'truths' as being objective, and regardless of interpretation seems to match with what I would call 'facts'. Happy enough to call them truths in this thread. A LOT of what people call facts are not (in fact!) facts, but instead subjective interpretations they believe to be unquestionably true. One nuance here is that there are facts...the computer I am typing on is black, for example...which are impossible for all parties to independently verify or establish as factual. But I basically agree with your premise. Truths aren't interpretative.

Falsehoods are much more tricky. Objective falsehoods are things like flat earthers, I imagine. People disagreeing with anything we have as 'truths'. I doubt we'll run into much of an issue with them here, though, so perhaps we can hold off on further discussion there for now.

If I can pose a question to you as a starting point, it might be to describe what you see as the key difference or reason for moving from an agnostic to a deistic position. In return, would it be useful if I explained why I'm an atheist (or agnostic atheist really) as opposed to a 'straight' agnostic?
 

Earthtank

Active Member
since it was neatly organised, and your points made sense to me.

Thanks, it took me almost 90 mins to type that up between gathering my thoughts and the many edits.

I completely agree about it being preferable to avoid semantics on things

Great

I am supposing this discussion is more a high level personal philosophy discussion than a detailed, technical one, so understanding each other's views and communicating clearly in a lay sense seems the main point here.

Yes and no, I love and hate philosophy, I love it for obvious reasons but, hate it when people take it way tooooooooooooo far to the point to where you begin wasting. As everything in life, balance is key to everything.

I don't tend to find prophecy at all compelling
That's fine, let eliminate it from the list.

eems to match with what I would call 'facts'. Happy enough to call them truths in this thread.

Either or i fine, i will know what you mean and vice versa

A LOT of what people call facts are not (in fact!) facts, but instead subjective interpretations they believe to be unquestionably true

Trust me i know and its extremely frustrating trying to talk to those people :mad:
 
Last edited:

Earthtank

Active Member
If I can pose a question to you as a starting point, it might be to describe what you see as the key difference or reason for moving from an agnostic to a deistic position.

Sure, that's a good starting point. Similar to what i said in the thread i started, I reached a point to where i can no longer simply and ONLY rely on science (for the reasons i stated before), I noticed that most Atheists and Agnostics i have been privy to seem to hold science in the highest regards, as if it were some undeniably truth. There stance basically is, if science can't explain it enough then our answer is "i don't know" or "anything is possible. I am quite sure you are familiar with these types of people. Science is amazing when its understood the correct way and given its due respect in the proper proportion and NOT taken to the extreme, on either end of the spectrum. Science describes the how, not the why and this is key here because, my questions are not about how rather they are why. For example, Blood clotting, or coagulation, is an important process that prevents excessive bleeding when a blood vessel is injured. Platelets (a type of blood cell) and proteins in your plasma (the liquid part of blood) work together to stop the bleeding by forming a clot over the injury. I copy and pasted the bold part since it describes it way better than i could. So now we know how blood clotting works, and that's it awesome but, why? or maybe how (in a different sense) does our body know to do this? how do the blood cells "Know" to say "hey everyone, stop what you are doing and lets go form this clot". I have asked this question before and i get the same blank statement answer of "evolution" but, if evolution has no consciousness and just "is" or just "does" then how do you explain this? I can give you a plethora or other examples as well but you get the point. My point in that question (among others) is what is it or how does the body/blood cells "know" to take this action? These are not actions of something that simply "is" or simply "does". Another example of something that made me a Deist is the precision of our bodies, physics, biology, chemistry, universe and many other things I am forgetting, can't simply be by chance. I have seen many different mathematical odds in regards to the chance of our bodies forming a single protein, they range from 20 to the 400th and 520th power (some even higher) and that is only for 1 type of protein, our bodies have many different types of proteins, now you see how small the "chance" that happening really is yet, your body (and mine) is are constantly doing this 24/7 till the time we die, can you really call that "chance"? If that is the position you hold then, using the tools above, please explain how this is a rational position to hold. I have a WHOLE lot more i can say and ask but, for now, i think this is enough.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry i forgot to answer this previously. Yes, please do. I do not mean to bombard you with posts so, please, take your time and answer at your own convenience.

Awesome. My time is a little hit and miss, as I do a lot of posting on my phone. It's fine for quick responses, etc, but painful to extrapolate more complex points, so I'm only really posting here when I have some laptop time.

I'll roll in both how I came to my current position and a response to your questions/proposition, but I'll tackle my position first. I'd expect a bit of overlap between the two.

MY POSITION
So I describe myself as an atheist, or more accurately an agnostic atheist. I was raised in a loosely Christian home, our school (a public school in Australia) had Religious Education classes run by the local Church of England, and I attended that same Church (which ran a boys club called CEBS...effectively church scouts). We got badges for camping, first aid, and accurate prayer recitals. That was in primary school, so say upto 12 years old.

My initial move to atheism was around this time, I guess, though I wouldn't have called myself an atheist. Basically I was rejecting the CofE teachings. I saw the biblical stories and teachings as no more true than Greek mythology (which I loved, and read a lot of). It wasn't a judgement on whether they held value. It was a judgement on how consistently they seemed to match with the world around me, and even moreso how consistently people who professed belief (including the church leaders) seemed to actually live these teachings.
At the time, the concept of Greek Gods being literally real seemed incredibly unlikely to me, but their personality and inconsistencies seemed to line up much more with humans and the world than teachings about God. Simplistically, if I had believed literally in the God I was taught about by the CofE I daresay I would have wanted to be a priest, and having other people who professed belief but didn't seem to live in a manner consistent with that made it seem somewhat akin to a shared secret no-one really thought was true. Remember, I was pretty young.

Over time I found I had a real interest in religion. I think the inconsistency between claimed belief and action was part of that, really, but also my understanding of religion...as opposed to CofE style Christianity...spread and became more nuanced. Initially I became very interested in the diversity within Christianity. How did Christianity splinter (as I saw it) into a myriad different beliefs, and how important were the differences? I was (still am) very interested in political turmoil in a global sense, and Ireland in particular was of interest, so you can perhaps imagine how understanding religion and culture, and the intersection of those was quite interesting to me.
University was a time for me to really round this out by meeting people of diverse views, and to spend time working with them. It was also my last really serious attempt to 'try' Christianity. I had no belief and was an atheist at that point, but I had plenty of Christian friends, and some of them were quite well-read religiously. Some rejected teachings, but knew in great detail why they were doing so. Some were quite devout. I also had a couple of Muslim and Jewish friends at the time, which was informative to me. I reread the Bible (perhaps not the most effective way of approaching things, but the effort was there!) and attended church, and even some discussion groups after it.

I was pretty clear along the way where my beliefs were. In some sense it was quite intimidating to attend church, then go for a coffee with a group of people around my age who knew where I was at, and then try to defend my position against their points. However, they were earnest and good intended people.

Still, nothing I saw caused the least stir in me in terms of belief. Instead, I started to judge religion more as a part of a world view, neither more nor less unique than any other philosophical factor feeding into a world view. So...if a religion was helping people to do good, I could see it as a good thing. I could not believe in it, though. And increasingly over time I've come to value truth and transparency more than other aspects of my world view, since in the long term I see them more commonly leading to positive outcomes.

I'm still there, really. Nothing too much has changed in terms of my religious views between then and now (I'm mid 40s). My knowledge of religions has continued to develop, and I've also invested a solid amount of time in studying the history of Christianity and Islam, and have a pretty good home library built up. Less so on other religions...there are only so many hours in the day.

The other key position I hold, I guess, is that I'm a methodological naturalist. That's more a position of utility than anything. Science has limits, basically. Over time, those limits expand, but the pool of available knowledge is effectively infinite I think, so it's not like we're reaching the end of our search for knowledge. What sits outside our current science is enormous, and something sometimes lost in the discussion of 'science vs religion' is that all people search for truths that are not hard scientific truths. Even those who say they don't. I'm a psych major who studies religion despite being an atheist. People and their rationales are fascinating to me. I also write fiction, and think narratives are incredibly powerful. Religion combines both narrative and philosophical considerations with culture in a way I guess nothing else really does.

Ooof. Enough ramble. I'll answer any questions on my background, but in simple terms that's me. I'll do a separate post to address your points. No need for you to respond to this one, though, unless you really want to.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
So, know, let me more directly address your post.

Similar to what i said in the thread i started, I reached a point to where i can no longer simply and ONLY rely on science (for the reasons i stated before), I noticed that most Atheists and Agnostics i have been privy to seem to hold science in the highest regards, as if it were some undeniably truth. There stance basically is, if science can't explain it enough then our answer is "i don't know" or "anything is possible. I am quite sure you are familiar with these types of people.

In some ways, I am one of these people. Certainly not that I hold science in especially high regard (it's a useful tool), and I don't think it holds much in the way of 'truth'. But it does provide a lot of utility. If science can't explain it then my answer is 'I don't know'. Quite often even when science can explain it, my answer is 'I don't know'. Newton's Law of Motion and Gravitation was true, until it was improved on. So, I guess it was never really true in any ultimate sense. But it took our knowledge forwards. It was more true than what we 'knew' before, I guess. And it held utility. So now it's the Theory of Relativity that holds more utility. But using it is complex. It's both beyond my understanding in any real sense, and something that often doesn't give better information than Newton's Law. Right up until it does. So it's more right, I guess. Probably still not right. And it holds less utility than something which is less right in many circumstances.
Science isn't a straight forward march to knowledge, that's for sure.

I should note here, I am a big believer in creativity and the the subjective truths therein. Equally, for me, philosophy and worldview is important, and I spend a lot of time considering these in terms of my beliefs, and how new experiences fit with these. There are lots of things I can't prove scientifically that I believe. Even some things I suspect aren't true scientifically which I have chosen to believe (eg. that people have free will) for reasons of utility.

Science is amazing when its understood the correct way and given its due respect in the proper proportion and NOT taken to the extreme, on either end of the spectrum. Science describes the how, not the why and this is key here because, my questions are not about how rather they are why. For example, Blood clotting, or coagulation, is an important process that prevents excessive bleeding when a blood vessel is injured. Platelets (a type of blood cell) and proteins in your plasma (the liquid part of blood) work together to stop the bleeding by forming a clot over the injury. I copy and pasted the bold part since it describes it way better than i could. So now we know how blood clotting works, and that's it awesome but, why? or maybe how (in a different sense) does our body know to do this? how do the blood cells "Know" to say "hey everyone, stop what you are doing and lets go form this clot". I have asked this question before and i get the same blank statement answer of "evolution" but, if evolution has no consciousness and just "is" or just "does" then how do you explain this? I can give you a plethora or other examples as well but you get the point.

I do. And, as we agreed, I'm certainly not here trying to change your mind on anything. Both my position of agnostic atheist and methodological naturalism are me nodding to the broad expanse of things we don't know. The thing is, as unsatisfying as 'not knowing' might be, it seems a simple truth to me that we will never know everything. As mentioned, I like history. The amount of things we have 'known' or 'believed' over time we now know to be wrong is enormous. From this, it seems clear to me that there will always be a lot we don't know. Educated guesses are our best bet, as is admission that they are educated guesses.

My point in that question (among others) is what is it or how does the body/blood cells "know" to take this action? These are not actions of something that simply "is" or simply "does". Another example of something that made me a Deist is the precision of our bodies, physics, biology, chemistry, universe and many other things I am forgetting, can't simply be by chance. I have seen many different mathematical odds in regards to the chance of our bodies forming a single protein, they range from 20 to the 400th and 520th power (some even higher) and that is only for 1 type of protein, our bodies have many different types of proteins, now you see how small the "chance" that happening really is yet, your body (and mine) is are constantly doing this 24/7 till the time we die, can you really call that "chance"? If that is the position you hold then, using the tools above, please explain how this is a rational position to hold. I have a WHOLE lot more i can say and ask but, for now, i think this is enough.

Yep, I get the main thrust. And I see how that can be an argument against atheism (even though I personally don't see it that way). I am struggling a little to see why that promotes Deism in your mind over agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism or some other form of Creator race, polytheistic Gods, or similar.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
If science can't explain it then my answer is 'I don't know'.

Why? Why limit yourself to only science? Why create mental block and impose self limitations on yourself simple because "science" does not have the answer? This was the reason i made the list of tools. Should we not use those tools in the absence of scientific evidence and or conclusion? Let me ask you this, do you think we can reach an absolute truth in the absence of science? Personally, i think we do. And i am glad to provide an example once you have answered this, the reason being is, I do not want my answer to effect yours.

Quite often even when science can explain it, my answer is 'I don't know'.

Interesting, can you please give me a non-scientific example? The reason i tend to not like putting too much stock in "scientific examples" is because we know science and its findings change over time (as you have shown) which is why i do not use science beyond its own understandable limits thus, not understanding why some people take science as their "religion".

Certainly not that I hold science in especially high regard (it's a useful tool), and I don't think it holds much in the way of 'truth'. But it does provide a lot of utility.

This is why i say those trying to use science to prove/disprove God or a particular religion are using the wrong tool. Science, given its own limitations will never prove nor disprove either way however, science can be used to validate a certain holy book/text/scripture.

Science isn't a straight forward march to knowledge, that's for sure.

Once again i ask, then why say i don't know if science does not provide the answer? You seem intelligent enough to understand its limits, strengths and weaknesses yet, seem to willfully impose limits on yourself by not using the tools we all have (logic, rationale, common sense and being objective). Ben Shapiro (which is someone i do not like very much) once said something i really liked and agreed with he said "I don't need to be an expert in something to know when its bs" (or something very similar to that). For example, I don't need to be an human biologist to know human's can't shoot lasers from their eyes, so if the most renowned human biologist (or whoever) came to me and through the magic of PowerPoint put together the most awesome presentation and said "in conclusion, that's how we can shoot lasers (like superman) from our eyes". I don't need a PHD in anything to be say to him "that bs and you are crazy", why? Because based off everything we know about humans, whether its little or a lot, where you believe in evolution or not, Atheist or theist, we can use the tools we have (outside of science) and simply say "nah that's bs"

There are lots of things I can't prove scientifically that I believe.

Would you mind elaborating on this and providing an example or 2? As a Deist, we have this in common.

The thing is, as unsatisfying as 'not knowing' might be, it seems a simple truth to me that we will never know everything.

At what point in your life to do tell yourself, "I don't know is no longer enough until i have exercised every possible alternative"? And i say alternative because, most atheist and agnostics I know (even myself at one point) automatically and out rightly eliminated the possibility of a higher power/God. Now, i am not telling you to go research a religion or anything what i am saying is, by ONLY taking "God" and having him as a possible answer, does that change your conclusion? Forget what the book say, forget the rules of any religion, forget about all the good and bad you think that particular god has done and simply take God, all alone, and see what conclusion you reach. Of course, applying the tools to those thoughts as well. I really do not want to turn this into a discussion about God but, i think with an Agnostic Atheist and a Deist that topic was somewhat inevitable.

As mentioned, I like history. The amount of things we have 'known' or 'believed' over time we now know to be wrong is enormous. From this, it seems clear to me that there will always be a lot we don't know.

Completely and 100% agree however, in addition to that i believe there has to be some constant truths throughout time. As one of my criteria for judging the truth is that is to stand the "test of time". Whether we know its true at the point or not is irrelevant (insert round earth example). I personally, have seen many good things about religion and science and how they have come together to give us some great things. Look up Medieval Islamic Astrologers and Astronomers or even some recent Christian Biological Scientists. NOTE: I do not know how much some of the Christian scientist attribute their research to their faith but, i do not many of the Muslims ones do.

I am struggling a little to see why that promotes Deism in your mind over agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism or some other form of Creator race, polytheistic Gods, or similar.

Long answer coming lol sorry but you asked for it.

Instead of me keep saying "supreme being" or anything similar i will just say God, just to make it easier. This is not me saying i subscribe to a god or a religion but just for speech's sake.

Agnosticism: As i said before, i reached a point where i do not know was no longer true to me.

Pantheism: I do not know enough about the "divinity" to claim or believe that the universe is a manifestation of god.

Polytheistic Gods: After listening, watching and reading about every and all possible descriptions of God or Gods, and the arguments for and against other forms of multiple Gods or a 3 in 1 god (trinity) and anything else i have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is that by necessity you cannot have more than 1 "ultimate being" aka God because if you have more than 1 "ultimate" then, you have no "ultimate". Why? because for God to truly be God then he is the final and ultimate authority, you cannot have 2 gods as which god is the more powerful god? They can't be equal since they are different (one of my issues with Christianity), what does the other god do when one god wants it to rain and the other wants it sunny? Using the tools I mentioned, it makes the most sense that there will ultimately only be 1 God.

With all that said, i have chosen the Deist position. Now when i say i have chosen, I did not really choose it, I was taken their based off the evidence that was presented to me, I have done and continue to do my absolute best to follow whatever I find to be objectively true only AFTER i have considered every possible answer and those possibilities do include God. However, i do not use include God as the "God of the gaps" in the sense that, "oh science does not explain it therefore, GOD". No, similar to the Blood clotting example, Similar to how water knows to go up a tree or the tree knows to pull it up (fighting gravity), similar to how we can't explain the origin of life (sorry but, Abiogenesis does not do it, more on this later), similar to how we can't scientifically explain how a shepherd in the 6th century detailed embryology to the world (look up Quran on Embryology - Professor Keith L. Moore), similarly to how our body knows to take in exact portions of oxygen otherwise, it could be toxic for us. The list can go on and on but, I hope you understand where I am coming and see how i can logically, rational and objectively say all this can't be random or simply left up to "because evolution". Some of these processes depict "consciousness" or understand of what is going on, others present precision and accuracy against all odds, to me, simply "I don't know" no longer made sense and after exhausting every "Godless" option I decided to try and use God and all of a sudden not only did these things make sense but, so much more did as well because, for me, this was the most logical, rational and objective conclusion i could reach.


A little follow up on the Abiogensis comment i made. The definition is the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. Remember the Ben Shapiro quote i used? Yes, of course you do lol. Well, i apply that here because,

1) Rationally speaking, you can't give someone something you do not have. An inorganic substances, which does not have life, cannot give life to anything. I have done my "research" on this topic ,I am by no means an expert, but from what I read and heard from the experts for and against it, sorry, but i am not buying this 1 bit.

2) I discussed how astronomically unlikely it is for our bodies to produce a single protein by chance let alone to do 24/7 without a problem. For argument sake, let's assume its pretty easy and the odds of this are in are our favor (even though they are not) since it already has other proteins to "copy" from (even though that not how it works). Logically asking, how does, an inorganic substance, without consciousness, purpose or even understanding of life give life? Let me clarify and simplify, if you do not understand the basics of math, can you teach anyone math? if you do not speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin how can you teach someone else to speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin? This is why i liked that quote from Shapiro because even though i am not an evolutionary biologist or whatever abiogensis specialists are called, i can use my "tools" in the absence of science to know whether its bs or not.

3) And from a common sense stand point, isn't it just common sense that you can't give off or even breed that which you do not even know of?

4) Test of time: Do we have anything today that we know of and can observe and empirically test that is truly and 100% "inorganic or inanimate substances" that can give off life?

5) Putting all what you know and believe aside, and being objective how can one logically and rationally think that an "inorganic or inanimate substances" give off life?

OK sorry about but 3 and 5 i was trying to find ways to creatively used the rest of my "tools" lol

OK i think i gave you enough of insight as to my train of thought and enough questions to answer.

Apologies in advance for any typos, I need to get some work done and don't have time to proof read the whole thing but, i am hope I made enough sense.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
I hope this does not go against the rules however since @lewisnotmiller is no longer replying (hopefully all is well with him) i would invite like to invite @columbus to join and continue this "debate" with the same rules and start off by replying to my last post.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I hope this does not go against the rules however since @lewisnotmiller is no longer replying (hopefully all is well with him) i would invite like to invite @columbus to join and continue this "debate" with the same rules and start off by replying to my last post.
I wouldn't give up on lewisnotmiller. Your posts are obviously well considered, but intense. He has a demanding job and a family with children, Christmas is in the offing. He'll be back. But probably not right away.
It'll be worth the wait.

You and he did agree to rules, and although the RF staff isn't going to bother enforcing rules you and he came together on yourselves, I'm uninclined to break them in any serious way. But I also know that he's a pretty laid back dude. He won't care if we chat a bit while he's busy. So I'll pick a few bits from your posts and respond to them.
Tom
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I hope this does not go against the rules however since @lewisnotmiller is no longer replying (hopefully all is well with him) i would invite like to invite @columbus to join and continue this "debate" with the same rules and start off by replying to my last post.

Hi mate,
Sincere apologies in the vanishing act. December gets hectic.
Give me a day or so and I'll reply properly.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Apologies again. I've started a new job, and it's a pretty senior position, so that's been taking a lot of my (admittedly limited) brainpower. Last think I've felt like doing in my limited down time is thinking...lol
Totally understand if you're frustrated with my inactivity of late.
Might have to split up my answer here, as there is a lot to respond to!

Why? Why limit yourself to only science? Why create mental block and impose self limitations on yourself simple because "science" does not have the answer? This was the reason i made the list of tools. Should we not use those tools in the absence of scientific evidence and or conclusion? Let me ask you this, do you think we can reach an absolute truth in the absence of science? Personally, i think we do. And i am glad to provide an example once you have answered this, the reason being is, I do not want my answer to effect yours.

I reread what I wrote, and I would say I was a little clumsy in wording it. There are a lot of things I would hold as subjective truths (for want of a better term). And these aren't reached by any scientific process, per se.

So, in suggesting that science is the means of obtaining truth, I am really talking about hard facts. What shape is the earth? How do we build a strong structure? How do we generate power, and how do we do so efficiently and without destroying the planet?

But I would say the vast majority of 'what I believe' is not scientific in origin. It needs to fit with my understanding of science (eg. some religious beliefs I find incompatible, regardless of utility or attractiveness) and I prefer these beliefs to be what you might term 'strong beliefs, loosely held'. In other words, if I've invested thought and effort into them, I may be quite passionate about them. But if presented with a position I deem to be more compelling, I should be willing to shift. Again, some of the more dogmatic religious positions become automatically incompatible for me because of this.

Interesting, can you please give me a non-scientific example? The reason i tend to not like putting too much stock in "scientific examples" is because we know science and its findings change over time (as you have shown) which is why i do not use science beyond its own understandable limits thus, not understanding why some people take science as their "religion".

Not sure if I'm understanding what you want, so feel free to tell me if I'm off base. What I was referring to was science that is beyond my understanding. I have no ability to fit it into my understanding of the world, and no ability to use it effectively (since I don't understand it). Whilst allowing for the fact that my scientific understanding is always going to be superficial when compared to experts, where things are incomprehensible to me I either need to invest heavily in understanding something, or simply not assess it, and not try to build it into my world view. Everyone does the latter, of course, to varying degrees.

In terms of non-scientific examples, though...well...there are all sorts of things around inter-personal relationships, or how I treat myself which are based more on experience, gut feeling, or how my parents raised me than any sort of scientific process. They are my 'subjective truths' for want of a better description. My brain is as prone to twisted logic, etc, as anyones...well...maybe not ANYONE'S...and I know there are things I believe which are more self-serving than accurate. Science would suggest to me that this is pretty universal, but it wasn't science that lead me to the conclusion...merely that it didn't seem to contradict what I already thought when I became aware of it.

This is why i say those trying to use science to prove/disprove God or a particular religion are using the wrong tool. Science, given its own limitations will never prove nor disprove either way however, science can be used to validate a certain holy book/text/scripture.

Yes, that makes sense to me. I would say that God can't be disproven by science...that really forms part of a methodological naturalist belief, to be honest. But religions can be, depending on their beliefs and dogma.

Once again i ask, then why say i don't know if science does not provide the answer? You seem intelligent enough to understand its limits, strengths and weaknesses yet, seem to willfully impose limits on yourself by not using the tools we all have (logic, rationale, common sense and being objective). Ben Shapiro (which is someone i do not like very much) once said something i really liked and agreed with he said "I don't need to be an expert in something to know when its bs" (or something very similar to that).

Knowing something is not correct is far easier than knowing that something IS correct, though.
In any case, perhaps this is a where our use of words is causing some misunderstanding.
I believe many things. If using the term loosely, I 'know' there is no God. But I have tended to adjust my language over the years to 'I don't believe there is a God'. My thinking on that hasn't changed in a long time, really. Not at a macro level.

It's a tangent, but I would say Shapiro's statement is both true and false. People commonly misjudge things, and 'common sense' is often wrong. But similarly, I do my best to make sense of the world around me, and act according to what I 'know' anyway, so not like I'm going to cede control of my beliefs to others.

For example, I don't need to be an human biologist to know human's can't shoot lasers from their eyes, so if the most renowned human biologist (or whoever) came to me and through the magic of PowerPoint put together the most awesome presentation and said "in conclusion, that's how we can shoot lasers (like superman) from our eyes". I don't need a PHD in anything to be say to him "that bs and you are crazy", why? Because based off everything we know about humans, whether its little or a lot, where you believe in evolution or not, Atheist or theist, we can use the tools we have (outside of science) and simply say "nah that's bs"

It is interesting, though, to see how beliefs change over time. There was a point where the common understanding was that our emotions literally came from our heart. Or that our eyes emitted light beams (not laser as such, but it's kinda on the same path, right? It was called Emission Theory) and that was how we saw, and why our vision could be blocked by physical objects.

Science, eventually, replaced these beliefs. And whilst I don't need to be an expert about vision to disregard Emission Theory now, it's worth remembering that in SOME cases, it's science that has changed 'common sense'.


Would you mind elaborating on this and providing an example or 2? As a Deist, we have this in common.

They can be both big and small in scope, but a big example is 'I have free will.'
Do I? Buggered if I know, and what little science I've been bothered to review on this seems mixed at best. But it would be a major philosophical challenge for me to adjust my world view to one where I don't have free will. And I don't see the positive in doing so.

At what point in your life to do tell yourself, "I don't know is no longer enough until i have exercised every possible alternative"? And i say alternative because, most atheist and agnostics I know (even myself at one point) automatically and out rightly eliminated the possibility of a higher power/God. Now, i am not telling you to go research a religion or anything what i am saying is, by ONLY taking "God" and having him as a possible answer, does that change your conclusion? Forget what the book say, forget the rules of any religion, forget about all the good and bad you think that particular god has done and simply take God, all alone, and see what conclusion you reach. Of course, applying the tools to those thoughts as well. I really do not want to turn this into a discussion about God but, i think with an Agnostic Atheist and a Deist that topic was somewhat inevitable.

I think this is a valid point. I've tried to do this. Slight tangent but one person who's theories I have found sometimes useful (and often over-blown, but anyway...) is Edward de Bono. One of his theories is around a concept of 'po'. This is basically a tool to try and prevent oneself from getting to the 'right' answer and stopping.

Effectively, it encourages a person or group to find as many possible answers to a proposition as possible. Don't evaluate them, and don't judge them. The intent here is to promote lateral thought, and to separate creativity and judgement.

It's a tool I have used very informally, and very consistently through my working life, and it's been quite effective. In terms of God, I have definitely applied it, and that means spending time working from the assumption that there is a higher power, etc.

It gets difficult to separate that higher power from the belief systems humans espouse, but I completely agree that they are different things. Every human belief about God can be wrong, yet God could still exist.

Ultimately, though, my rejection of this very non-specific form of Deism has to do with the following;
1) Whilst I can't disprove this sort of God, nor do I believe I can prove them. At best, I'm accurately identifying an agent without understanding it's particular elements. At worst, I'm preventing myself from the type of 'po' thinking I mentioned earlier by thinking I have some sort of answer. Concepts like pantheism and panentheism would be similarly impacted.

2) If I was correct about this sort of God, what impact would that belief have on my behaviour, and what impact on my understanding of the world? Ultimately, I think none (which I can get into if you like). So to me the line between declaring myself atheist, or declaring myself Deist becomes less impactful in a practical sense. I don't see any reason to think there is a God, so atheist. But a Deist with similarly non-specific beliefs to those I've outlined here would seem to have no religious reason to disagree with me. Of course, they can disagree with me for all sorts of other reasons.

Hmmm....here I might split your post up, and respond to the rest in a fresh post...
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Completely and 100% agree however, in addition to that i believe there has to be some constant truths throughout time. As one of my criteria for judging the truth is that is to stand the "test of time". Whether we know its true at the point or not is irrelevant (insert round earth example). I personally, have seen many good things about religion and science and how they have come together to give us some great things. Look up Medieval Islamic Astrologers and Astronomers or even some recent Christian Biological Scientists. NOTE: I do not know how much some of the Christian scientist attribute their research to their faith but, i do not many of the Muslims ones do.

Isn't that an argument from utility, rather than truth? I'm not saying that makes it a bad argument, by any means. I kinda think that it's actually an underutilised means of debate, but still...

Long answer coming lol sorry but you asked for it.

Instead of me keep saying "supreme being" or anything similar i will just say God, just to make it easier. This is not me saying i subscribe to a god or a religion but just for speech's sake.

Agnosticism: As i said before, i reached a point where i do not know was no longer true to me.

Pantheism: I do not know enough about the "divinity" to claim or believe that the universe is a manifestation of god.

Polytheistic Gods: After listening, watching and reading about every and all possible descriptions of God or Gods, and the arguments for and against other forms of multiple Gods or a 3 in 1 god (trinity) and anything else i have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is that by necessity you cannot have more than 1 "ultimate being" aka God because if you have more than 1 "ultimate" then, you have no "ultimate". Why? because for God to truly be God then he is the final and ultimate authority, you cannot have 2 gods as which god is the more powerful god? They can't be equal since they are different (one of my issues with Christianity), what does the other god do when one god wants it to rain and the other wants it sunny? Using the tools I mentioned, it makes the most sense that there will ultimately only be 1 God.

Okay, that makes sense. Does the supreme power need to be 'ultimate' though? Does your belief mandate omnipotence? If it does, then I get your point. If not, couldn't there be a number of supremely powerful beings, all of whom fall short of 'ultimate' power, but all of whom are so much more powerful than us as to be Gods?

With all that said, i have chosen the Deist position. Now when i say i have chosen, I did not really choose it, I was taken their based off the evidence that was presented to me, I have done and continue to do my absolute best to follow whatever I find to be objectively true only AFTER i have considered every possible answer and those possibilities do include God. However, i do not use include God as the "God of the gaps" in the sense that, "oh science does not explain it therefore, GOD". No, similar to the Blood clotting example, Similar to how water knows to go up a tree or the tree knows to pull it up (fighting gravity), similar to how we can't explain the origin of life (sorry but, Abiogenesis does not do it, more on this later), similar to how we can't scientifically explain how a shepherd in the 6th century detailed embryology to the world (look up Quran on Embryology - Professor Keith L. Moore), similarly to how our body knows to take in exact portions of oxygen otherwise, it could be toxic for us. The list can go on and on but, I hope you understand where I am coming and see how i can logically, rational and objectively say all this can't be random or simply left up to "because evolution". Some of these processes depict "consciousness" or understand of what is going on, others present precision and accuracy against all odds, to me, simply "I don't know" no longer made sense and after exhausting every "Godless" option I decided to try and use God and all of a sudden not only did these things make sense but, so much more did as well because, for me, this was the most logical, rational and objective conclusion i could reach.

That's interesting to me, and thanks on explaining. Just to get a handle on your beliefs, though, it seems increasingly important for me to understand at a very basic level what you see as the properties of God. Is God sentient, for example? And is God omnipotent? Is God benevolent or not. That type of thing.

A little follow up on the Abiogensis comment i made. The definition is the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. Remember the Ben Shapiro quote i used? Yes, of course you do lol. Well, i apply that here because,

1) Rationally speaking, you can't give someone something you do not have. An inorganic substances, which does not have life, cannot give life to anything. I have done my "research" on this topic ,I am by no means an expert, but from what I read and heard from the experts for and against it, sorry, but i am not buying this 1 bit.

2) I discussed how astronomically unlikely it is for our bodies to produce a single protein by chance let alone to do 24/7 without a problem. For argument sake, let's assume its pretty easy and the odds of this are in are our favor (even though they are not) since it already has other proteins to "copy" from (even though that not how it works). Logically asking, how does, an inorganic substance, without consciousness, purpose or even understanding of life give life? Let me clarify and simplify, if you do not understand the basics of math, can you teach anyone math? if you do not speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin how can you teach someone else to speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin? This is why i liked that quote from Shapiro because even though i am not an evolutionary biologist or whatever abiogensis specialists are called, i can use my "tools" in the absence of science to know whether its bs or not.

3) And from a common sense stand point, isn't it just common sense that you can't give off or even breed that which you do not even know of?

4) Test of time: Do we have anything today that we know of and can observe and empirically test that is truly and 100% "inorganic or inanimate substances" that can give off life?

5) Putting all what you know and believe aside, and being objective how can one logically and rationally think that an "inorganic or inanimate substances" give off life?

OK sorry about but 3 and 5 i was trying to find ways to creatively used the rest of my "tools" lol

OK i think i gave you enough of insight as to my train of thought and enough questions to answer.

Apologies in advance for any typos, I need to get some work done and don't have time to proof read the whole thing but, i am hope I made enough sense.

We probably need to prod at this last part more, since I think my response here will be inadequate. But given how long I've been dormant, thought it worth getting something back to you at least/at last!!

But in simple terms I have no idea about abiogenesis, and haven't seen much in the way of compelling science around it.
It is, however, an area where I am loathe to trust 'common sense'. We have been consistently wrong about biology when science has been left out of the equation. We have been consistently 'somewhat correct' when it's been included, but it has generally involved a lot of mistakes and false paths.

I think science on abiogenesis is rudimentary and in it's infancy, in short. But I don't think religions have been very consistent in how they've answered this either. So whilst an individual religion....or even a set of related religions...might show some consistency of belief over time, I think this is largely due to the lack of cognitive dissonance presented to believers in this area.

I'll leave it there for now, just in the interests of seeing if you're still invested in this. I can't guarantee quicker responses, just doing a lot of work on laptop at the moment, and struggling to find downtime (or at least, struggling to find downtime on the laptop...I am managing to keep family time and my sports pretty much intact, happily!!)

Cheers, and thanks for your patience in advance.
 
Top