The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
Topic's author
#211
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
I believe that state isn't sustainable or quite frankly boring. That is why creating mortality to live experiences seems like a genius creation a higher intelligence would manifest to actually live rather than stay all knowing. 
It sounds like your metaphysical framework roughly matches the 2007 movie "The Nines".
#212
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol... it's really interesting... i mean, i think it is probably the one that is most used by Hollywood. Plus, it is really like the simulation type of hypotheses too. Which is now showing up everywhere. The implications, if you keep going down the rabbit hole of my metaphysical belief leads to fictional realism. Think about it... this source is everything, what does that mean? Bc humans have imagined some pretty crazy things, insane realities / universes.. is it all of that too? Well, i personally think it is bc those realities have already been imagined by the source. Why can't everything be true in some other reality / possible world? This is also why i think humans have the ability to imagine these worlds that don't exist bc they do exist somewhere.  

I would say, Fictional realism / Modal Realism plus a little dualism, pantheism and personal solipsism is my overall metaphysical belief. I've really gone done the rabbit hole of what the implications of a source intelligence would be... so far it looks something like the above. I'm learning everyday though so i'm sure things can be added or subtracted from it when i become aware of them.     

#213
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Macro-infinite-non-occupied-space would axiomatically and tautologically obliterate finite-occupied-space.
And yet another claim with no irational, logical common sense to validate it.

I know you can do better, when you put your mind into it. Or maybe you cant do better.

There are limits to arguing against truth.

It is impossible for an infinite thing to co-exist with any other identifiable thing.
Huh?   Again, you make meaningless claims with no shred of rational, logical common sense and your afraid to actually address my comments as stated. Why?

Because you have no rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens.

Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Bru, it is only ego that is in jeopardy. Please do  fear loss of your ego.

Seek truth via rational, logical common sense pathways of thought. I know you can do it. Just place your ego to the side for a while.

C'mon, try and see if you can do that.

 "Nothing" literally doesn't exist. 
Incorrect as always on these cosmic issues.

Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

You refuse to address this rational, logical common sense conclusion because of ego.

You refuse to acknowledge that we live in a finite, occupied space Unviverse. Why? Ego is the correct answer. You can drop your ego if you try.

Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.

#214
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Outplayz
"Infinitely finite maybe?"
  Confused. Very confused. :--O

This like saying Holy War.  War is never holy. They are diametric opposites.

Stick to rational, logical common sense pathways of thought if you seek truth.



#215
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm willing to grant you a hypothetical deistic being for the sake of argument.

Excellent, sounds good.

Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any particular theistic tradition?

Most legit religions are observing a singular yet vast and dynamic reality. On top of this religions operate on various levels, it's also mixed with traditions and opinions, culture ect ect... Some are just more accurate than others but they all have truths within them, as well they all have misconceptions within them. I can draw a straight line at many of the concepts within all these spiritual sources that I've examined.

I mean, for all conceivable practical intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, a deistic belief is functionally identical to atheism.

I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination. Atheists seem to me, to be stuck in a materialists nightmare. Even a deistic God is still an omnipresent conscious reality that transcends the physical experience, out of which all comes from. I don't know of any sect of atheism that accepts the existence of a supreme Being. Can you explain what you mean if you don't mind? if I had to take a guess it would be because there's no religious connotation involved? and therefore not relevant to your personal experience? if so I'd be glad to disagree and explain why.



#216
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain where I can find "nothing".
Have done so numerous times in this thread, others at DArt and with you specifically in DDO.

Your in denial and playing mind games.

Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe ergo;

2} Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.


And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.
More mind  games as Ive done that in this thread and others here at DArt and at DDO with you specifically, when you chose to read rational, logical common sense postings from me.

We live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. You have not ever offered any rational, logical common sense that supports otherwise.

And just as Ive asked you and others the following in DDO and here in this thread, you remain silent to obvious truths.

If we live in a finite , occupied space Universe, then there exists only one rational, logical conclusion. Your ego keeps you from acknowledging the only one possible conclusion.

Please do not go off and divergency tactics as Outplazy likes to do. Place you ego to the side and address commments by as presented to you and not create words or scenarios I did not suggest/state. Thank YOu


I mean, if finite-occupied-space is contained within macro-infinite-non-occupied-space, wouldn't that make non-occupied-space technically occupied???
I didnt say "contained" that is your not quoting me correctly, to best of my knowledge.   Please play fair.

A container is finite and has integrity.  A milk carton is finite and has integrity.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space is not a container and your attempt to suggest such is illogical, irrational and lacks common sense.




Topic's author
#217
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any particular theistic tradition?
Most legit religions [no true Scotsman] are observing a singular yet vast and dynamic reality [syncretism]. On top of this religions operate on various levels, it's also mixed with traditions and opinions, culture ect ect... Some are just more accurate than others [begging the question] but they all have truths within them, as well they all have misconceptions within them [bracketing/fence walking]. I can draw a straight line at many of the concepts within all these spiritual sources that I've examined [appeal to ambiguity].
Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any general theistic tradition?

I mean, for all conceivable practical intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, a deistic belief is functionally identical to atheism.
I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination [appeal to lack of imagination]. Atheists seem to me, to be stuck in a materialists nightmare [straw man]. Even a deistic God is still an omnipresent conscious reality that transcends the physical experience, out of which all comes from [a deistic god is merely a creator, or prime mover. A deistic god does not modify or interact with reality as we know it]. I don't know of any sect of atheism [I also don't know of any sect(s) of atheism] that accepts the existence of a supreme Being. Can you explain what you mean if you don't mind? if I had to take a guess it would be because there's no religious connotation involved? and therefore not relevant to your personal experience? if so I'd be glad to disagree and explain why.
deism
  • n.
    The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.  - https://www.wordnik.com/words/deism

In my experience, many people identify as atheists and yet maintain some ambiguous skepticism about some sort of syncretistic or Gnostic spiritual realm.  There are some naive realists and so-called materialists and even a few "hard atheists" who illogically suppose there is no possible spiritual being or realm, but generally I've found that atheists I've run into are simply unconvinced of both the truth value and utility of any particular spiritual or religious dogma.  The term "non-stamp collector" is a good example of this.  An atheist might be considered a "non-gods collector".  Asking an atheist what god(s) they believe in is very much like asking a non-stamp collector what stamps they collect.  It is also commonly pointed out that most people are atheists when asked about "other gods" that they personally don't believe in, like Nanabozho or Pangu or Marduk.

If someone asks, "Why don't you believe in [my god(s)]??", to an atheist it sounds exactly like "Why don't you believe in Nanabozho??"
Topic's author
#218
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
You might also like the writings of Douglass Adams, the 2001 movie "Waking Life", and the television show "Rick and Morty".
#219
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
I repeat, the problem is not with atheist or theist the problem is with people who choose not to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

If we live in an eternally existent, ---only option see 1st law of thermodynamics--- finite, occupied space Universe, then there can only exist one, rational, logical common sense conclusion.s

Eeternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space is not a container. It exists as a complementary space, that allows for expansion-contraction of the eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe it embraces/surrounds.

SPACE(>*<)  i  (>*<)SPACE

Is rather simple texticonic, or acrconym or logo or whatever to express my thoughts at a fundamental level of consideration.

Fundamental means most basic or primay set of what exists.

SPACE exists as1}  macro-infinite non-occupied and 2} occupied space.

( )( ) = represents horizontal bisection of a torus, associtated with every particle of Universe, not the finite Universe,

>< is representative of inversions from positive shaped geodesic SPACE as gravity ( ) and negative shaped geodesic SPACE as dark energy )(

* * is representative of bilateral creatures in Universe that may have access to more complex, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

i is representative of ego ergo I-verse metaphysical-1 narrative, we tell others and ourselves about our observations of self and enviroement  that surrounds us.

Topic's author
#220
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
Please explain where I can find "nothing".
Have done so numerous times in this thread, others at DArt and with you specifically in DDO [red herring/dodging the question].
Your in denial and playing mind games [red herring/dodging the question].
Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe ergo;
2} Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.
If the macro-infinite-non-occupied-space embraces/surrounds the finite-occupied-space, how can you maintain your protest that the finite is not contained within the infinite?

And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.
More mind  games as Ive done that in this thread and others here at DArt and at DDO with you specifically, when you chose to read rational, logical common sense postings from me [red herring/dodging the question].
We live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe [I agree with finite and occupied but not eternal]. You have not ever offered any rational, logical common sense that supports otherwise ["you can't prove me wrong"/appeal to ignorance]. 
And just as Ive asked you and others the following in DDO and here in this thread, you remain silent to obvious truths [rush to disqualify opponent/negative characterization/straw man/red herring/dodging the question].
If we live in a finite , occupied space Universe [I agree with finite and occupied], then there exists only one rational, logical conclusion [unsupported claim/opinion stated as fact]. Your ego keeps you from acknowledging the only one possible conclusion [dime-store psychoanalysis/ad hominem].
Please do not go off and divergency tactics as Outplazy likes to do [red herring]. Place you ego to the side and address commments by as presented to you and not create words or scenarios I did not suggest/state [demands control over scope]. Thank YOu 
And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.

What you call "macro-infinite-non-occupied-space" would seem to be indistinguishable from what I call noumenon.

#221
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll check them out. I'm not too keen on reading, but i do like shows if they have a supernatural element to them. I'm a sci fi / fantasy hoe. I mean, of course that is what i like with my type of beliefs lol.  
#222
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Save from what and how?
Topic's author
#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
Douglas Adams has a few shows and a movie as well.

The 2017 TV series, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" is worth checking out.

My personal favorite is the 1981 BBC television series, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".



#224
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
You sound as if unlimited and infinite are the same thing, but they are not. Unlimited, if I understand how you are using it, means all-encompassing. Mathematically, that is the set containing all things.

However, something can be infinite but not unlimited. If we represent the universe by the set of all numbers, there you can have many different infinite sets of numbers that do not contain all numbers. For instance, the set of all positive integers. Or the set of all real number between 1 and 2.

Logically, an infinite stack of paper does not logically preclude other things from existing.

Topic's author
#225
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Logically, an infinite stack of paper does not logically preclude other things from existing.
However, an infinite stack of infinitely large paper does preclude other things from existing.

Infinite: Having no boundaries or limits.


#226
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL

If the macro-infinite-non-occupied-space embraces/surrounds the finite-occupied-space, [Universe] how can you maintain your protest that the finite is not contained within the infinite?

I explained that and you did read my lips/text so I have to keep repeating to a seemingly deaf brain.

Containers are finite. And I repeat yet again, containers are finite and have integrity Ex a milk carton contains mile i.e. the integrity of the milk carton does not allow the milk to spill out.

Macro-infinite, non-occupied space embraces/surrounds and  has no finite integrity ergo it is not a container.  Even if we were to accept that terminology ---ergo play your mind game in those regards---  is irrelevant to whether or not macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Your the one who does all the dodging with terminological mind games, so as to avoid/diverge from the rational, logical common sense conclusions presented to you and your ego putting in place mental blockages to my conclusions.

[I agree with finite and occupied but not eternal].
So you finally have come to a conclusion and embed in with quoted my repl text.  More mind game play.

So you agree with finite and occupied, but you do not say what you believe is finite and occupied.  Your embedded bold following my text suggests we should infer your comments are in regards to Universe.

So Bru, you believe we live in a finite, occupied space Universe? Yes?

Great, it was like pulling wisdom teeth but finally were getting you to concede what Ive been repeatedly stating in DDO and DArt to you and others.

What Ive also asked you repeatedly, and you did not answer, is what exists outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe?

Are you finally going to address my question posed to you above?

...."And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space."...
Ive answered that question, many times before you even ask it and/or if you asked elsewhere. Open your closed mind and read my lips/text. Can you do that this time?

If we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, then there can be only one rational, logical common sense conclusion, that what exists outside of the eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space.  Yes? No?

Stat clearly what you believe and please do not embed in bold with my reply text.  And if you want to leave out the word 'eternal' is fine by me. I just want you to commit with a clearly stated answer.  Yes I want control just as you or others want control.

And just as Ive asked you previously I will repeat and ask you once again, if my conclusion above is not correct then supply us with the correct answer? You have never ever done that, except maybe once at DDO you conceded to my conclusion here above.

Eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, because, if not eternally existent then where did this occupied space come from? Bru, are you reading this? Can your answer that question with any rational, logical common sense conclusion? No?

Of course cant because there exists  only one rational, logical common sense answer and that is no, you have no rational logical common sense alternative conclusion.

I will remind once again, of the 1st cosmic law/principle that I believe applies to occupied space, energy [ physical } cannot be created nor destroyed.  Finite, occupied space Universe, that you quasi-concede above, exists,  and does not just poof into being, within and already eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space.

Please do not play your ego based mind games. Please give clear and complete answers and/or responses. Not short/incomplete, embedded in my text. I want clarity, as I would hope you would want. Thank You

What you call "macro-infinite-non-occupied-space" would seem to be indistinguishable from what I call noumenon.
I read briefly your wiki link. What comes to mind is that your hoping to infer that since we cannot sense true, absolute non-occupied space, that, we cannot deduce its existence.  Is  that a fair assessment of what your intentions are? Yes?

Three comments;

1} Ive never claimed that humans sense the macro-infinite non-occupied space, either with biologic five senses, or human devised instruments/technology,

2} humans sense noise, so in a another alternative use of word sense humans sense silence even tho silence does not produce sound waves/vibrations i.e. silience for humans is the lack of audible sounds/waves/vibrations.  Hope that makes sense,

3} Ive always claimed that I deduce the existence of macro-infinite, non-occupied spave via rational, logical common sense, that, the existence of an eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space, embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

So please lay your cards on the table Bru7al, clearly and completely as reasonably possible.  Sorry for any grammar, or incomplete sentences or thoughts i may have posted in past or in this post.  Thank you  for you time and effort, I actually respect you pathways of thought in other areas  of consideration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Topic's author
#227
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
What Ive also asked you repeatedly, and you did not answer, is what exists outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe?
My point this entire time has been that NOBODY can say what may or may not exist beyond our ability to observe.

This is called an epistemological limit.

You can talk about logic and common sense and past conversations and ego all day and all night and it doesn't make a lick of difference.

You cannot violate our epistemological limits.

And before you start ()()()()()()()() all over the place, please take a minute to learn the definition of syllogism.


Topic's author
#228
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
I read briefly your wiki link. What comes to mind is that your hoping to infer that since we cannot sense true, absolute non-occupied space, that, we cannot deduce its existence.  Is  that a fair assessment of what your intentions are? Yes?
You have guessed correctly.

#229
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL


Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any particular theistic tradition?

That's a very long winded answer for me and it may seem a bit unconventional but let me say this...there are collective societies among the higher realms/worlds beyond this physical experience on earth, "spiritual realms" people call them. I like to call them the God-worlds but they are what we term multi-worlds or multi-dimensions. But actually these "realms" are universes, packed with galaxies, stars, planets, creatures ect ect. Now, believe it or not each of those realms or universes is ruled by a demi-god or overlord. These entities as well can be perceived by humans and souls as "god", but they are an incarnation of the first Source, the supreme Reality where all beings and all souls originate. A human soul in this human form is stepped way down from the first Source, it actually undergoes five layers or sheaths that cover the soul to restrict its experience down to tiny, tiny version of Itself. However, the demi-god is actually only individualized to one or two layers that covers it soul. The demi-god/incarnation is much closer to the Divine in form and in knowledge/abilities, they essentially rule over man.

At any rate "Theistic" traditions can be the results of such things, and the results of mans experience of different spiritual realities and societies, it's mans observations and experiences with many spiritual sources. The soul love to do this because the soul naturally desires to associate as well as create and have experiences. Most souls in the lower worlds love to congregate, this happens on earth as well as all the other higher spiritual worlds and it spills over into our experience as well. So you can have more than "one" tradition that draws a line to an actual reality beyond this one. But these realities beyond this one is still not first Source, everything in creation is within the omnipresent ocean of conscious awareness. Heavens are within it, they are actual planets, demi-gods and incarnations exist within It, all souls and essentially all creation comes out of this formless Reality and exist within the multi-worlds.

So to be able to answer your question precisely I need to make you aware of the difference between gods/demi-gods and say....a "Deistic Being"......or what the Hindus would call Brahman, where all incarnations and all of creation come out of. It is basically one eternal awareness expressing Itself through creation and created beings. And because of this souls can have many types of experiences and with many different entities. Some traditions point to lower type entities/gods, other point to higher level incarnations and some even point to what I think we are talking about, is the Ultimate Source, or the Reality beyond all forms and all gods. This is the infinite, ocean of love and consciousness. Out of this love comes the manifestation of created experiences and endless expressions.
What happens as a result of all of this, is that there are many different spiritual paths and expressions of spirituality but that doesn't mean only one is right and all others false. The soul can have many types of experiences, including experiences that transcend all of that, to that which where the soul originated.

The problem with traditions and religions is that they each have their own names and terms they use to express that which they are experiencing. So a religion might use a different name and or term for the same thing another religion observed and coined. This makes things very confusing, but the reality of it all is that many religions are an expression of what they observe from collective societies outside this physical experience. If you want to get into which of these religions or spiritual paths correlate with the ultimate Reality, or a Deistic type Beings we could do that too. Sorry to ramble but some of this needs to be understood to be able to make sense in an answer.
I'll get to the rest below. 

#230
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You have guessed correctly.
My guesses are basd on observations and rational, logical common sense conclusions that you dismiss with out rational logical common sense.

You above was in regards to your attempting to correlate as synonyms or whatever, that macro-infinite non-occupied space is same as your nomenua{SP}.

You dismiss and disrespect  my rational, logical and common sense reply by not including my comments regarding silence. WHy?

Because your ego is on the line here.  You dont want to play fair with me. 

Your ego does not allow to address that facts that silence is a similar analogy to macro-infinite non-occupied space. Neither have a frequency/wave/vibration yet you refuse ackowledge and accept that silence exists and will not concede  to my comments as stated, that,

2} eternally existent macro-infinite non-occupied space also exists an embraces/surrounds the following,

3} our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

You refuse to enter into a more complete discourse of my comments as state because you ego is on the line. You fear loss of you ego.

We observe  and you concede partially, that we live in a eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, yet your ego will not allow you to go further in the lines of rational, logical common sense pathways of thought that ive repeated stated.

Your hope, like some others,  is to cause mustard frustration.  Duh yeah that definity works.

You hope, like some others, you and avoid placing you ego to the side and concede rational, logical common sense givens Ive presented repeatedly to you.  Ego is steering your boat is away from truths and deduced from rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

C'mon Bru, place you ego to the side and engage in fair play not hide and seek dodge  ball.  


#231
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Most legit religions [no true Scotsman] are observing a singular yet vast and dynamic reality [syncretism]. On top of this religions operate on various levels, it's also mixed with traditions and opinions, culture ect ect... Some are just more accurate than others [begging the question] but they all have truths within them, as well they all have misconceptions within them [bracketing/fence walking]. I can draw a straight line at many of the concepts within all these spiritual sources that I've examined [appeal to ambiguity].
Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any general theistic tradition?
Lol, would you like to have a discussion or not? please don't add your opinions to my statements until we've discussed them and whether or not I agree to your adlibs, I could play the same game but it's rude and condescending. Makes me think you don't really want to discuss this, if you do then you will have to be willing to let me explain things and at least consider them before you go labeling things, but whatever you do please ask before you make any assumptions. 

I mean, for all conceivable practical intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, a deistic belief is functionally identical to atheism.
I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination [appeal to lack of imagination]. Atheists seem to me, to be stuck in a materialists nightmare [straw man]. Even a deistic God is still an omnipresent conscious reality that transcends the physical experience, out of which all comes from [a deistic god is merely a creator, or prime mover. A deistic god does not modify or interact with reality as we know it]. I don't know of any sect of atheism [I also don't know of any sect(s) of atheism] that accepts the existence of a supreme Being. Can you explain what you mean if you don't mind? if I had to take a guess it would be because there's no religious connotation involved? and therefore not relevant to your personal experience? if so I'd be glad to disagree and explain why.

Read above, if you have a question about anything I write just ask.


deism
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.  - https://www.wordnik.com/words/deism
We need to come to terms and agree on what we mean by a deistic god, not a deistic belief and what makes sense. This is what I get from the definition and this is what I'll be willing to discuss as a deistic proposition, I agree with everything accept that ANY God could "abandon" or has no "control" over life or the universe, that's nonsensical  and I'll explain why below. Can we come to terms with a deistic Reality/God that all things exist within? I'll concede only to "does not directly intervene" but TBH everything comes out of It so again it is a contradicting concept to the very nature of pure conscious awareness and why creation even exists and what that entails...
deist
"belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
 belief that posits that God exists as an uncaused First Cause ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but does not interfere directly with the created world. Equivalently, deism can also be defined as the view which posits God's existence as the cause of all things"

I'll go with the underlined...
I wrote...."Even a deistic God is still an omnipresent conscious reality that transcends the physical experience, out of which all comes from"
You wrote "a deistic god is merely a creator, or prime mover"
Isn't that the same thing lol, so can we move forward? can we agree that a deistic God is a Creator and first Mover? if yes, then what I want to point out is that it's absurd to say "this first Mover abandoned" It's creation, this first Mover would be omnipresent, not some Being somewhere inside It's creation or outside it, everything is within It. Can we agree on that? it should be common sense but I'll wait for you to answer, hopefully you won't do your game of adding your opinions to what I write. If you disagree make note, and either ague it or ask so I can respond.


#232
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
My point this entire time has been that NOBODY can say what may or may not exist beyond our ability to observe.
You have not had any succinct point.   Yes we can say and even you can say what exists beyond what you finally conceded.

You can say via rational,  logical common sense deduction of a eternally existent, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite non-occupied space. Why you cant say that is a rational, logical common sense deduction/conclusion, is because of your ego. 

Read my lips/text. Your ego will not allow you to state the obvious conclusion.  At least with Outplayz we can allow some confusion on his part.

Not on your part. His ego keeps him in check also.

This is called an epistemological limit.

You can talk about logic and common sense and past conversations and ego all day and all night and it doesn't make a lick of difference.
Doesnt matter what ego based mind games you want to play, there is only one rational, logical common sense conclusion and your ego will not allow you to concede that truth, nor will your ego allow you to state that conclusion.

I'm practicing rational, logical common sense pathways of thought. Your the one is just talking about them.

Place your ego to the side and actually show some spinal chord and practice rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, not just talk about them.

You did that when you conceded to a finite, occupied space Universe.  If it is finite, then what exists outside of it Bru7al? C,mon dude, have some spinal chord give a rational, logical common sense deductive ---or whatever--- conclusion to the presumotion of a finite, occupied space Universe.


You cannot violate our epistemological limits.
I never stated I was violating anything.

I'm practicing rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, and that is not being violated.

What is being violated your ability to play, by allowing your ego to practice mind game ways to not concede to what is an obvious, rational, logical common sense conclusions made by  rational, logical common sense humans.


And before you start ()()()()()()()() all over the place, please take a minute to learn the definition of syllogism.

Yeah, Ive repeated stated my conclusion deduced via rational, logical common sense pathway and your ego keeps you from acknowledging that truth.

You could, and as all others who are not mentally confused, and those who do not allow their ego to put mental mind game road blocks into place, will arrive at same conclusion.

You or none others can state the obvious deductive conclusion, because your ego will not allow you to concede those truths. Go figure, as I have.

Its your ego that refuses rational, logical common sense pathways of thought and their conclusions, deductive or otherwise.



Topic's author
#233
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
This is getting out of hand.

Just tell me what makes you think you can know what nobody can possibly know?

And don't try to tell me "it's the only logical conclusion".

If you have a formal logical statement (syllogism) then show it.

(IFF) there are things that we know and things that we don't know (AND) we have no way of observing or verifying what is currently beyond our ability to observe and understand (THEN) we can only reliably know what can be observed and quantified (THEREFORE) although we can speculate about a hypothetical "infinite-non-occupied-space" we can't have any confidence whatsoever that it is "infinite" or "non-occupied" or even "space".
Topic's author
#234
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ok, you make a good point about deism being logical pantheism.

Let's start over.

Pantheism is functionally identical to atheism.

Please let me know if you can draw a straight line between pantheism and any general syncretistic or theistic belief.
#235
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do you wish to draw straight lines from panENtheism (BTW to be more precise) to any traditional belief? That defeats the purpose of us discussing a "deistic" God. I already said what I have to say about religions, they are an interpretation of the God-worlds. Pantheism however exists in most major religions including Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Vardankar, Eckankar, Native American spirituality and many others. Most people don't recognize the bible uses the term "gods" on many occasions. Hinduism is obviously pantheistic.

Here's the magic though which most people don't get. Pantheism is compatible with Monotheism, because all beings and all gods come from a single Source. 
Topic's author
#236
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
This makes things very confusing, but the reality of it all is that many religions are an expression of what they observe from collective societies outside this physical experience.
Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?

#237
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?

Mixed with my own observations as well. All knowledge is at the finger tips of every soul, not just mine.
#238
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
This is getting out of hand.
Yes because it is an attempt get your away from you ego steering your intellectual integrity.

Just tell me what makes you think you can know what nobody can possibly know?
I dont recally saying I "know", that macro-infinite non-occupied space exists.  Now your sounding like Outplayz and your still allowing your ego to diverge away from three key points, that, rational, logical common sense arrives at.

1} eternally existent macro-infinite non-occupied space exists,

2} macro-infinite non-occupied space is eternal,

3} finite occupied space is eternal via 1st law/principle of thermodynamics.

You have not yet ---nor anyone else-- nor anyone else, will ever will suppply any rational, logical common sense that invalidates those conclusion.

Humans can conceive of and infinite God, Universe, occupied space, non-occupied space, Unicorns that give birth to a Toyoata prius every six weeks, however, some of those concepts can be derived from rational, logical common sense pathways of thought and others not.

You can decide to let your ego steer your show, or you can stop the mind game and begin to follow rational, logical common sense, on those three above issues/points.

And don't try to tell me "it's the only logical conclusion".
I do because it is truth along with rationality. 

When are you going to tell us what exists outside of your more limited concept --because of not being eternally existent--- of a finite, occupied space Universe?

As best as I can recall, you did state to me at DDO once that nothing exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.  And I replied that, that is the correct answer.  Why you ego will not allow you to say that now, is anybodies guess. Genetics and the resultant access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, act in mystery ways.

Thanks for making your feeble attempt to place your ego to the side, as I think Outplayz appreciates some one taking the heat and giving him a new perspective.

If you have a formal logical statement (syllogism) then show it.
"Formal"? OMG, what is formal supposed to mean.  Should I wear a tuxedo when addressing you? Your ego blaring away like a fog horn.

...'Its my ego and I will cry if I want to, cry if I want to, You would cry to if it happen to you....'



(IFF) there are things that we know
1} We observe an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.  When you can begin by accepting that factual truth the move on to the next rational,  logical common sense pathway of thought;

......1`a} a begining of our occupied space Universe is presumed not a known or observed factual truth.....

2} If { IFFFFFF } we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, then there exists only one, rational, logical conclusion as to what exists outside of it { Universe }. The eternally existent, macro-infinite, non-occupied space.  This is such a minimal brainer Bru7.


and things that we don't know (AND)
Already addressed your dont know, above in this post.

we have no way of observing or verifying what is currently beyond our ability to observe
Agreed and I never state otherwise. However, that does not invalidate my givens as a rationall logical common sense pathway and conclusion.

You see Bru7, you cannot even concede that part, and that is all Ive tried to get you to concede.  You know what is causing your mental block.
............................* i *.....................* i *..................................* i *..........................................* i *....................................................

Oh sorry, like many others here you cannot grasp texticonic expression.  * i * 

and understand (THEN) we can only reliably know what can be observed and quantified (THEREFORE) although we can speculate
Ivw asked you to speculate via rationa, logical common sense that Ive presented or any of your own, and your ego will not allow it.
You walking in fear of your ego * i *


about a hypothetical "infinite-non-occupied-space" we can't have any confidence whatsoever that it is "infinite" or "non-occupied" or even "space".
I not can have confidence I do have confidence. Does take any formal tuxedo PhD to use rational, logical common sense and arrive at the conclusions I have. It only takes a desire to seek truth and not let the ego get in the way of the truth when it appears.

SPACE(>*<)  i (>*<)SPACE

Ive celarly laid out what the above means, and your and many others ego  *  i  * repeatedly and continually blocks out truth.

Feynman was incorrect and had to eat his own words ..'.in a pigs eye'......

I am correct and have the rational, logical common sense pathways for others to follow or find on their own.  Truth is truth irrespective of whether we know what the truth is.

It is only a human fact when we observe the truth. Mathematics can produce irrational, illogical dimensions etc that does not exist or certainly not  what humans can ever observe. Rational logical common sense is something any person with reasonable intelligence can do.

That is what scares your ego and some others.  That some one with informal can ascertain the truth, when you did not.
#239
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw

I already said what I have to say about religions, they are an interpretation of the God-worlds.
Oh dear, god worlds are your fantasy dear chap.
Please produce mention of god worlds by any religion.
It's all in your head and nowhere else.
Topic's author
#240
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
When are you going to tell us what exists outside of your more limited concept --because of not being eternally existent--- of a finite, occupied space Universe?
I'm not going to tell you what I can't possibly know.

Besides the fact that it does not and cannot possibly matter in any practical or verifiable sense to us as humans. 

You are describing noumenon.