3RU7AL

I would say that is a nonsense definition because in this case God would be revealed through reason and observation of the natural world. An opinion I myself have expressed.

Even if the outcome did have proof, there will be someone who challenges said proof

How is any of this relevant in controlling that which is independent of the mind?

In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.

How does Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to the relation of perception and the mind?

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".

You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,

...where you are still assuming truths.

This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.

Deism does not necessarily exclude theology. In fact, I find that very difficult to believe. Plesse explain.

Kurt Gödel solved this one already.

Reference?

Deism simply means belief that a deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.

[Even (IFF)] Atheism does not believe that a Deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.

Belief in the existence of a deity is not the same as devotion or faith toward a deity.

It takes more than intellectual assent for the belief to do anything. Our scriptures say that  even the demons believe, but thid does not stop them from being demonic. There are many so called believers in God, even ones that claim to worship God that behave in a way indistinguishable from those who are pagans or even deny God outright.

Theism and Deism mean the same thing belief in a god/gods/deity/deities/God. Even the etymology of these words demonstrate this as deus and theos both mean the same thing. 

What is the difference?

Deus is the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theos". They even sound pretty similar!

Deism means the opposite of atheism, because it admits a deity.

Belief in God does effect how some people behave, but to others it may not.

That doesn't make deism functionally the same as atheism. They are opposites.

How does one control for that which is independent from one's mind?

God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.

So God exists?

Scritino-waves exist.  I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.

Okay.

...it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist,"

...while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?

I don't understand how you can imagine that you can formulate a logical statement without rigorous and explicit definitions.

I do not contest a stipulated definition per se, but if we were to have a debate using a "rigorous and explicit" definition, then it would be entirely dictated by that definition. Case in point:

If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary.)

God has real spiritual being. (Holy Texts.)

Therefore, God exists.

That is logically coherent. Debate over, right?

I use broad definitions in order to facilitate a conceptual context rather than one informed arbitrarily/conveniently by selected definitions.

Furthermore, using broad definitions allows each party to challenge the other's premise using argument rather than dictionaries.

I'm not arguing for the correctness of the Moral Argument right now. I'm not arguing for the existence of God right now. I am arguing for the existence of my argument that God exists (you can see how convoluted this is getting!). That's it. Nothing more. I don't know how else to say it. It was nice chatting. Have a great day.

I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.

I would argue the only way to have an objective standard of morality (e.g. stealing is inherently evil) is to have an objective lawgiver outside of humanity. There is the deistic argument.

I would also argue that the moral foundation of the Bible is objectively better than any other moral system, whether religious or secular.

Even our judicial system in America is founded on biblical morality.

There are also health statistics and crime statistics that could be shown in support of this statement.

SUMMARY

Deistic Argument: A god is required for objective morality to exist

Theistic Argument: If the moral principles of the Bible are objectively better than other systems,

...it would follow that the God who gave them is better than all others.

That God claims He is the only God and all others are false.

_________________________________________________________

Now I have not given a fully researched and annotated presentation.

Obviously, there are also debatable points in this argument that I'm sure you disagree with.

However, I have provided an argument that is logically coherent and evidence-based.

I don't see any fundamental laws of logic that I have violated, and that also doesn't automatically make me right.

I have also given examples of evidence that could be used outside myself (logical case for morality, statistics, American judicial system) that support my argument.

Again, my evidence doesn't automatically make me right, it just supports my argument.

Given this example, can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.

Maybe this example will help clear things up:

More specifically, you'd have to draw a straight line from DEISM to your specific god(s)

I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.

When you say that no theist is making "logically-coherent-sound-arguments," what you really seem to be saying is "those arguments for God don't make sense because there is no God." How is that not putting the cart before the horse?

Are you sure? How do abstracts differ from "imaginary things" as it concerns the manner in which they exist?

And there is still, no real evidence of a particular gods existence.

Only assumption.

Substantiate your assertion.

Therefore, all you would have to do is present an argument from a theistic perspective to nullify the first post,

...and then present evidence for your argument to nullify the second post.

I am not saying that you have to believe what I am arguing for.

I am just saying it wouldn't make sense to say that I'm not arguing for it.

I showed in post #31 that I gave an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective in a debate.

The overall point of this, I am using theistic arguments, with evidence, to prove the existence of a particular God.

I am still waiting to hear a good reason why this does not nullify the two claims of these posts...

The particular God I believe is The Ultimate Reality.

Is this your deist God?

So why pretend it is different and I need to prove something else?

You have gone on to a completely different subject.

The original premise is saying that no one is even arguing for those beliefs, not whether they are true.

An argument does not cease to be an argument simply because I disagree with it. The same can be said for evidence because evidence is not proof.

To answer your question, no I don't believe any of those are true.

Do you believe that an argument is only valid if it agrees with your beliefs?

Or is evidence only valid if it matches your conclusions?

The logical incoherence is in asserting that abstracts don't exist [in the exact same way as imaginary things] while simultaneously subjecting existence to an abstract [rigorous definition].

I'm not really trying to set a standard. I'm just saying that I don't believe the premise has any validity if someone can show they are making an evidence-based argument from a theistic perspective. If you can give me a good reason why I might be wrong I would be happy to hear it.

All arguments (that use common language) are by definition, semantic.

I stand corrected. I should have stated lexically semantic.

If you'd like to argue that undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence IS DISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE, please simply present that argument and stop appealing to ignorance.

This is an appeal to ignorance. 

I have no burden to provide an argument for an assertion you made.

I have no intention of arguing over lexicon, and that's my point.

PressF4Respect presented his assertion, and has as of yet to provide its proof, so if there's issue over the meaning of his statements, then he can accommodate your concerns.

Now if I were to press you over that which constitutes logical coherency, I presume it will be reduced to an argument over lexical semantics. As I stated before, I intend only to delve the conceptual nature of being.

Well I'm just concerned about the original premise of the thread. All one would have to do is make an evidence-based argument for a particular god to render this premise void. In the debate I previously cited, I was arguing for the Christian God over all others from the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as an historical document (evidence). Regardless of whether one agrees with me, I have made an argument using evidence.

At this point, it would seem that the original premise would be nullified, or you would have to show why my argument lacks evidence and is not theistic. However, to simply say that you don't find the evidence compelling or logically coherent should not be grounds to say it is no evidence at all. It's just evidence you don't agree with.

Your argument is repeatedly semantic. 

Hence, you've demonstrated a tendency to add qualifications like "indistinguishable" and "functionally" in your arguments (hence, shifts the argument over to definitions of functional and distinguishable.) 

PressF4Respect's argument is that because Theists don't use evidence--qualification notwithstanding, the evidence therefore must not exist. Can you find no flaw in this reasoning?

Does that change in word usage to "logically coherent" somehow make my argument strictly deistic rather than theistic?

An undiscovered, lost, or secret proof is functionally identical to NO PROOF.

No. Good attempt, though.

It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?

We make the choice. It is God that gives movement to everything. We do not move on our own, it is God that gives us the grace to move.

However, the addition of the word "compelling" is subjective since you may not find it compelling but others do. If you dismiss my argumentation for my God on the basis that you do not find it compelling, then we would have to know, what would qualify as compelling evidence according to P2?

Since you've claimed a statement to be true (i.e. therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence) you must substantiate all of your premises,

The fact that you are having an experience is all the scientific evidence you need to know that there is some form of existence.

If there is some form of existence, there by necessity is an existence as it truly is.

I would hope you have all the scientific evidence you require at this point to be aware that the reality you experience is different from reality as it truly is.

The Ultimate Reality is God, there is no other like it. 

I argued that the existence of anything is not contingent on a particular description,

We already agree that god = NOUMENON.

No, I do not agree. This is bad language. It implies that God is a mental construct, not The Ultimate Reality.

You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.

I am certain this is a misunderstanding on your part, because we have scripture and we take it very seriously.

Seriously though, you are using a very narrow understanding of 'evidence' (theistic arguments). A believer might point to anecdotal or physical evidence. Your thread title (as-is) could be shown false by weak evidence like "revelation" or an empty tomb. 

If you go to the debate section and look at all the debates (for whatever reason), you will notice that in some debates, the Instigator waives the first round. The reason people do this is because it would be extremely impractical to BoP a negative claim first round. So in a debate, what I did would be considered valid.

You don't need a holy text to know God exists. The Ultimate Reality by necessity must exist.

What proof? You have not substantiated your premises. There has yet to be any demonstration of evidence by this thread. 3RU7AL's videos at best are subject to interpretation, and the only contribution you've made to the discussion is to assert that Theists use deistic arguments because evidence for their "particular God," outside of holy texts, does not exist. Not to mention, the argument you've used to construct the modus tollens is still an argument from ignorance because you're still placing the referendum on the Theistic argument to inform your assertion. This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:

dime-store-psychoanalysis/appeal to unverifiable motive/ad hominem].

Please explain.

So basically Christians can't go past race biases? 

Deism seems to add the argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance to this.

I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something."

No, they presume God/Supreme Being.

DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

Insofar as they're both riddled with contradiction, yes.

The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.

That's not deistic at all. It would be "logically necessary" initial mover without the sustenance.

Intelligent design is not a deistic argument. It was a concept purported by religious authorities for millennia, even polytheistic ones. Deism didn't emerge until after the "enlightenment."