-->
@ethang5
I have not refused to support my claim,
And yet, somehow you're just making up more excuses instead of supporting your claim.
I have not refused to support my claim,
I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.
I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.
I have a hard time seeing how it matters...
Back and forths like this make everyone involved look bad,...
You are missing the point. I don't care about the squabble you guys are having.
I am simply trying to untangle a knot.
Take it or leave it.
It doesn't matter who is to blame or who is guilty.
What matters is that the course is corrected.
If that means overlooking offense, that is the right thing to do.
Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.
The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
**But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**
Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.
Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods. Intelligently designed.
Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.
Basically, we're back to square-one.
I have a hard time seeing how it matters if they are functionally the same if you are debating for a God. Either he exists or does not is what matters in that argument, even if he does exist as how deists imagine
Try instead maybe to describe what you think the other person is saying to the point that they are satisfied with your explanation. Simply working towards that will bring about good discussion that fleshes out the subject. More importantly, it brings people together in understanding.
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.No it isn't. It can be, but we have yet to establish that. God would be necessary for a created environment. That would be the first step. Then we could argue about which God interpreted is the most accurate, however not necessary.
Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).No not at all, this is where you fail over and over.
Because beliefs are everything, they form the very foundation of what you can actually experience. It's not just about beliefs but application.
So the experiences differ dramatically from atheism, this should be obvious.
What you believe in is a reflection of your own experience.
If you want transcendent experiences you have to apply that reality to yourself.
Why do you think Jesus distinguished great faith from little faith?? because one produces more than the other.
Please be more specific.Even in Deism, the change should be dramatic, the difference lies in application.
A universe created by a deistic god is identical to the universe imagined by an atheist.
Adding a deistic, "intelligent designer" does absolutely nothing to inform the concept of human-morality (which preoccupies religion).I think it is just philosophical asking unanswerable questions like whether god exists.
People only care about morality in so far as how much certain morality benefits them. Usually the weak wanting to place rules on the strong
I think you just went off course.
The point is that, it isn't an insult to say deism is similar to atheism or proof that no gods exist.
I think you stated that it is functionally the same as atheism in order to feel good that you disproved god by noticing that.