there is no rational way to go from deism to theism
Perhaps not everything is rational
>inconsistent revelations
>judaism mk2, mk3, etc
deism can be theism and vice versa if a man is noble
worship can be good acts
the world can be a temple
god is in the world and at the same time, above it
transcendent and immanent
separation in the nature of god is absurd; god is the point of origin
when you say god can't be this and only that, you deny his absoluteness.
>god doesn't exist
the jewish kabbalists would agree; god is no-thing (Ain), literally nothingness, as the everything of the universe is but an emanation of his creative power and can never contain his fullness. a god of the void
>god exists
the hindu pantheists would agree and sah everything is god split into a myriad of forms, that everything is the essence of god divided, the dreaming of boundless divine mind
the mystery of the All-Father is profound and many layered, and once you think you've reached the summit of understanding, another mountain rises out of the mist in the distance. it cannot be known through intellect alone.
>>447465
If by rational, you mean using reason and logic alone, as opposed to using the scientific method, then all you are saying is that you aren't aware of or accepting of any convincing arguments for a theistic reality.
If you want to include science, then everybody is speculating until sufficient data becomes available.
Reality doesn't have to conform to what we consider 'rational' either, for all we know, there could be an indifferent, theistic, infinite being, who created finite reality for its own experience/purposes and we are little more than a vehicle for its ability to experience limitation in an endless myriad of ways.
>>447527
So what's your way of doing it using reason and logic alone?
>>447529
Suggest possible scenarios, like the one I outlined above, but it all depends on what you define as being your version of deism or theism and what you find convincing. The two viewpoints are nebulous enough as it is.
>>447537
Suggesting a scenario doesn't equate to providing a strong piece of reason and logic that allows someone to move from deism to theism on a solid philosophical basis, it's just making something up.
I'm assuming OP is defining deism is the belief there is a god that created the Universe but not necessarily believing anything further than that and theism as something like Christianity, where you have a personal god that actually listens to prayers and cares what you do and makes rules or provides guidance for mankind.
deism - holds the belief that at the very least god exists
theism- what are the characteristics of god?
boom OP
now go back to sucking dicks
>>447550
>and theism as something like Christianity, where you have a personal god that actually listens to prayers and cares what you do and makes rules or provides guidance for mankind.
This isn't the only kind around, and if that is what was meant, then it wasn't clearly stated.
The term 'theism' in a much broader sense was used, not Christianity.
Also the suggestions were made because... like I said, the implication of OP is that it isn't possible to go from one to the other, both are not that simplistic by definition as they encompass a shit-tonne of ideas.
If he meant something specific, he should have been more specific to begin with.
>>447465
the only rational way is atheism
>>447555
I was just using Christianity as an example. Islam could be another one.
>>447465
define your conception of theism first
>>447554
That's pretty shit.
>>447562
Like I said, he should have made that clear if it is what he meant in his opening post.
There are theistic ideas that include an interventionist God who isn't necessarily human-centric, moralistic, etc... take Gnosticism as a great example.
>>447579
I can understand you wanting to complain that OP wasn't clear enough with his wording and argue over definitions, because his fundamental point it one that has eluded the best efforts of religious philosophers for centuries.
>belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism
>the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
>trying to find god rationally
>implying there isn't a level of knowledge beyond the discursive
>implying you can't apprehend the eternal idea behind its ephemeral manifestation right in front of you, dooming you to the shallow non-life of the empiricist, the man who is blind to everything but the surface
>>447589
>because his fundamental point it one that has eluded the best efforts of religious philosophers for centuries.
You mean predominantly Abrahamic worshippers, right?
This is why definitions are important, because theism includes those ideas, yes, but isn't entirely made up of them.
I checked your definitions used, further down the page taken from the Collins English dictionary:
>the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation
>does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation
So it can exist whether or not we are aware of it, or it can intervene in our world, but not necessarily have our interests at heart 24/7 (like the example I listed; Gnosticism).
Your definitions you used leave a huge amount of room, irrespective or not if there is a reliance on something supernatural.
>>447610
Okay. So how are you moving, using solid reasoning and logic, from the many, quite good in some case, or at least hard to refute, philosophical arguments that god exists i.e. deism to gnosticism?
>>447622
I could formulate a number of angles, for example, I could use the Epicurean paradox, a favorite of atheists, to show there is room left in his argument for the existence of a malevolent God who acts in this world and ultimately doesn't care what he thinks, because Epicurus himself didn't rule out this possibility.
Just so happens that is the core premise to Sethian and Nag Hammadi Gnosticism.
Alternatively, I could argue that since this reality is an amoral, massive contrast of naturalistic forces... that whatever created it could be either an extreme version of those two happening simultaneously in one being, or a being who transcends those, who doesn't give a shit, but could still be intervening in this reality somehow. It doesn't need to fit our definitions of good and evil, or be human centric in order to exist.
Just because most of humanity has obsessed over a personal deity, or in recent times, arguments over it being absurd, doesn't mean those two positions are the only ones around, or the only likelihoods.
>>447645
>what he thinks
what we think*
>>447645
But that is all 'coulds' and 'it's a possibility' that is not a compelling argument based on reason and logic.
>>447650
Not all of my response is 'coulds' or 'possibilities' because they list real-world beliefs/philosophical positions past or present, which is becoming clear you're not all that aware of... hence proving my initial point about knowing said positions to begin with before supporting a baited discussion where you automatically declare that going from one to the next isn't logically possible... without even knowing the full breadth and depth of positions and their past examples which I am bringing up.
>>447680
The point is that there are multiple rational arguments for the existence of a creator of the Universe. Aquinas' five ways or the argument from fine tuning for example, leaving aside any counter arguments against them these are rational arguments for deism i.e. the position that God exists, he could be good / malevolent / amoral / whatever.
There are no rational arguments to move from this position to Gnosticism, Christianity, Yazidism, Islam or whatever.
I admit I don't know much more than basic knowledge about Gnosticism however a quick check shows me...
>The first essential characteristic of Gnosticism was introduced above: Gnosticism asserts that "direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings," and that the attainment of such knowledge is the supreme achievement of human life. Gnosis is not a rational, propositional, logical understanding, but a knowing acquired by experience. The Gnostics were not much interested in dogma or coherent, rational theology
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html
I'm not saying the above is correct, it's just an internet source of dubious quality, however would you dispute it and say you can provide a rational, compelling argument based on logic and reason why your brand of Gnosticism is true. And not just might be true or getting unecessarily butthurt that you feel it is getting left out of the debate.
>>447696
>moving the argument now over to Aquinas
In other words, you want me to move over to the Christian camp to make you feel more comfortable in validating your position
>I don't know much about Gnosticism
>There are no rational arguments to move from this position to Gnosticism
In your own mind.
I think its better to just admit you are coming from an atheism/deism perspective versus theism, using a specific definition from a website, which includes other definitions, and ignores other definitions that can be found elsewhere, and that you are ignorant of alternatives in this regard... not knowing or being open to other ideas =/= they are automatically irrational.
This is why I mentioned early on that this is nebulous, and mercurial in nature on the part of OP and yourself, as its obvious its taken you up until now to admit you don't possess an adequate knowledge of Gnosticism, let alone theism in general, and its myriad ideas to rule it out altogether.
That was my position early on, instead you are doing this:
>however would you dispute it and say you can provide a rational, compelling argument based on logic and reason why your brand of Gnosticism is true.
Just because I point out the flaws in your thinking, doesn't mean the examples used are:
1) My own beliefs.
2) The only positions around.
3) Up to me whether or not I should waste my energies explaining all of them to you, AKA spoonfeeding.
>And not just might be true or getting unecessarily butthurt that you feel it is getting left out of the debate.
At the end of the day, your inability to understand where I am coming from isn't my problem.
You can reject or leave an environment of blind faith and erroneous thinking, but that doesn't mean it wont follow you around into your new-found non-religious mode of thinking.
>>447734
>In other words, you want me to move over to the Christian camp to make you feel more comfortable in validating your position
No that is not what I am saying at all, I also mentioned the argument from fine tuning. The point was that there are rational arguments for the existence of God.
>In your own mind.
Give them to me then rather than making a ridiculous strawman claim that you have generated in your own head. Because no I am not trying to force you in a binary argument between non-religion and any given Abrahamic faith.
I am asking what is the compelling rational argument that your faith is true. It's not that hard to grasp what I am asking and whipping yourself up with false accusations isn't going to magic itself into a rational argument for the truth of your faith at any point.
>>447527
>sufficient data becomes available.
it is never enough. or rather, people settle on flimsy consensus after being tired of getting nothing sufficient. it is always 'good enough'. and these people cannot even tell why they want more than speculation.
>>447760
>No that is not what I am saying at all, I also mentioned the argument from fine tuning. The point was that there are rational arguments for the existence of God.
Its irrelevant, because I am not interested in having that debate with you anyway, your mind is made up, its why you are siding with a poorly outlined remark made by OP, and repeatedly bringing up these positions, because you desperately want to make a point irrelevant to what I was saying to begin with.
>Give them to me then rather than making a ridiculous strawman claim that you have generated in your own head. Because no I am not trying to force you in a binary argument between non-religion and any given Abrahamic faith.
Force isn't the word I would use, persistence even when given plenty of hints and obvious statements, including my overall point about the ignorance of OP and yourself on this matter, deciding it cannot ever be rational, while not having a sufficient enough knowledge of theism or any other plausibilities.
You walked into this with your mind made up, which means its not that big of an assumption to make that your repeated insistence in bringing up these other examples is to put me into a specific position you can knock down, rather than just admit you are ignorant, asking to be spoonfed, and with the further assumption in mind that its not a waste of time on the part of the person responding to you.
>I am asking what is the compelling rational argument that your faith is true.
When was it ever stated any of these examples are my faith?
Seems to be an obsessive or perennial theme in most of your replies.
>It's not that hard to grasp what I am asking and whipping yourself up with false accusations isn't going to magic itself into a rational argument for the truth of your faith at any point.
When you know enough about the subject of theism and stop making sweeping statements (or supporting at least) before having knowledge on the subject, I might take it more seriously.
>>447791
>it is never enough. or rather, people settle on flimsy consensus after being tired of getting nothing sufficient. it is always 'good enough'. and these people cannot even tell why they want more than speculation.
Doesn't that depend on the position to begin with, which was the other part of my post?
May be the case that religious fundamentalists try to make the reason or data fit their beliefs, but not all theists necessarily behave this way.
It would be like the same fundamentalists saying all of atheism is anti-theism.
>>447813
All these accusations, false claims about me, quibbling about how poorly OP worded his post and assumptions about what I know or don't know or what I think are not at any time, no matter how indignantly and angrily you make them going to coalesce into a rational compelling case that your faith is true.
And if you don't want to have that discussion with me then you are in the wrong thread in the first place.
>>447834
lol
You admitted in an earlier response you didn't even understand the varied positions within Gnosticism, yet you were agreeing with a sweeping statement that the rational transition cannot be made from deism to theism.
If you don't know about a particular subject enough to make that judgement, its sound advice to hear that you should research about it beforehand, instead of trying to change the subject for whatever dubious purpose you think you were doing.
Nice projection though.
>your faith is true.
wew lad
>And if you don't want to have that discussion with me then you are in the wrong thread in the first place.
Are you OP then? kek if you are
I think your inability to see your own shortcomings, and lack-of-knowledge is why you get the response you do, but hey, its 4chan after all.
>>447871
>You admitted in an earlier response you didn't even understand the varied positions within Gnosticism, yet you were agreeing with a sweeping statement that the rational transition cannot be made from deism to theism etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
So make the rational transition. That's the challenge for you, me, any other poster in this thread.
Go ahead and make a rational argument right now for Gnosticism or any other religion that you want to play devil's advocate for.
>Are you OP then? kek if you are
It's an old question, the dead Hitchens was fond of posing it. I know what he is talking about even if if he could have worded it better for someone like your good self that lacks knowledge of this particular discussion.
>>447914
>So make the rational transition.
Make it yourself, by researching not just Gnosticism, but all of the various theistic philosophies and beliefs out there.
>That's the challenge for you, me, any other poster in this thread.
Said this already, but there is no onus on me to spoonfeed you, especially given your performance up until this point. You've made up your mind, its a waste of time.
>I brought up an example
>therefore its my belief
lel
I'd say you're doing a good enough job being your own devil's advocate, with little help from me.
>your good self that lacks knowledge of this particular discussion.
I'm going to need more than a pick-axe and shovel to adequately fathom the depths of this salt mine.
>>447967
>Make it yourself, by researching not just Gnosticism, but all of the various theistic philosophies and beliefs out there. etc, etc, etc.
The challenge was given to you (or me, or anyone) to make a rational case for any belief system that consisted of a creator deity (short of pure deism) you wanted and the best you could do was tell me to spend centuries learning them all and to disprove them all.
Anon, this is just worthless.
>>448007
>you can only respond if you do what I say
>right after I behave ignorantly, defend a shit premise, and ignore anything that points this out or lists examples that are contrary to them
My sides.
>waaaaah time to exaggerate the time taken and that I have to disprove everything
Erroneous.
>>448103
A question was posited by OP. You had no answer to it, unless you are about to make some rational argument.
It's as simple as that my lad. Feel free to reply to this post with some dodgy green text or "lel" or a terrible metaphor. You are probably one of those people who thinks so long as they make the last post they have "won" what was supposed to be a sensible discussion and I am happy to leave you that shred of dignity if it makes you feel better.
I might check on this thread later to see if anyone a bit less retarded than your good self had anything genuinely fun and interesting to say.
>>448192
The points continue to sail past your head, so... not my problem.
>hurr ur retarded
>I won because I projected hard, engaged in damage control, and knocked over all your pieces
>I'll be pretentious now by claiming to be the bigger of the two and not an assmad faggot
Whatever makes you feel better.
>I might check on this thread later to see if anyone a bit less retarded than your good self had anything genuinely fun and interesting to say.
Bawwwww...
