Can a Case be Made for a Deistic Christian God?

[Fëanor]

Est modus in rebus.

Well then let me offer you a personal apology.  No personal slight was intended.

My original point was that discourse with religionists is ultimately limited.  That's because, in the end, no matter how compelling the evidence, not matter how impeccable the argument, it can be reject on the basis that it conflicts with faith and the received wisdom.

And here's the truth of the matter:  typically atheists are deadly weary of having to show "respect" to religious opinions.  Perhaps one religionist owes respect to the different opinions of a another religionist; they are on the same playing field after all .  But atheists have left the field.  To them all religion is merely ludicrous.

[drogulus]

This is insulting in the extreme and I do take a lot of offense.

     Of course you do!

There you go again... strawmen clothed in meaningless verbosity.

    You can't really believe this answers my point that you use logic when it suits you but have no intention of allowing any logical objection? What could it possibly matter to you that Deism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, except in the narrowest tactical sense of giving you something to say? Of course they are mutually exclusive in precisely the way that the objections I raise are equally valid logically. There are no omniscient, omnipotent entities because these attributes are self-contradictory. If a particular god is said to possess these attributes, that god is a fantasy. If you want a real god then you must make real choices about what such a thing can be. It appears Christians are unwilling to do this, so like most believers they argue in bad faith and display only sham reasoning. Sham reasoners are only concerned with logic when it supports their case, and then resort to the faith fallback when it doesn't.

   

No personal slight was intended.

    That's not relevant. You're being confronted with a tactic.

   

My original point was that discourse with religionists is ultimately limited.  That's because, in the end, no matter how compelling the evidence, not matter how impeccable the argument, it can be reject on the basis that it conflicts with faith and the received wisdom.

     You can choose not to apply such limitations to what you say. The complaints about insult are like the ink of a squid, meant to obfuscate while the insultee makes a hasty withdrawal. They are conversation-stoppers.

You could say that God could have created the universe in such a way so that, given our own free will and imperfections, we would have made all the right decisions at the right time, but that is a little bit like not having free will at all and we would again not really be responsible for our actions.  So, in what ever way suits you, we do have free will and we are truly responsible for ourselves, even though God is omnipotent and omniscient.

    You could say that, but unless you give some indication that you understand the meaning of what you say you probably shouldn't.  We are responsible for our own actions in a way that is unaffected by empty assertions about unknown somethings. It's simply the case that we are responsible for our actions no matter what. Even if we are robots, we are the kind of robots that give reasons for what we do and do things for the reasons we give. If we have that much freedom then we are responsible.

    I like "even though God is omnipotent and omniscient." If you can't make sense of something, you can always assume it "even though".  

[Florestan]

Well then let me offer you a personal apology.  No personal slight was intended.

Accepted. Actually, I might have overreacted so let's not mention it anymore.

My original point was that discourse with religionists is ultimately limited.  That's because, in the end, no matter how compelling the evidence, not matter how impeccable the argument, it can be reject on the basis that it conflicts with faith and the received wisdom.

I have yet to see compelling evidence and impeccable arguments disproving God's existence.

atheists have left the field.

Really? Almost every thread about religion here was started by atheists; all of these threads, with the honorable exception of this one, were right at the outset bashful, dismissive and supercilious not only with respect to religion in itself, but also to people of faith, with tons of patronising contempt heaped upon "religionists" (itself a term of abuse).

At large, Dawkins & Associates do the same thing, with a conceptual aggressiveness and an ideological fanaticism not unlike those of the Spanish Inquisition.

So, it seems to me that the only field that (some) atheists left is the field of civility, tolerance and open-mindedness.

To them evangelical atheists all religion is merely ludicrous.

And yet they are obsessed with it and wage a relentless war against it. Ludicrous, indeed.

[Florestan]

     What could it possibly matter to you that Deism and Christianity are mutually exclusive [...]?

The real question is: what could it possibly matter to you that I made this distinction? If you take issues with it, feel free to make your case for a God which is simultaneously Deistic and Christian. Actually, this is what the thread is about. Of course, you are entitled to rant as much as you want usually do, but this won't make you appear like you have something substantial to contribute to the topic at hand, except in your own eyes.

these attributes [omniscient and omnipotent] are self-contradictory.

Actually, you've discovered the wheel. Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart, both faithful Christians, knew that long before you.

[Fëanor]

Accepted. Actually, I might have overreacted so let's not mention it anymore.

...

And I might have overreacted.  Sorry for the incivility.

[Florestan]

And I might have overreacted.  Sorry for the incivility.

I'm sure you didn't mean it. AFAIC, the matter is settled.  0:)

[PSmith08]

And yet they are obsessed with it and wage a relentless war against it. Ludicrous, indeed.

This is the most fascinating part of evangelical atheism to me. This inclines me to believe that atheism and faith are really just the same function. I mean, they are in that neither position is logically necessary and both positions use much the same evidence, but beyond that, the proselytizing function seems to be employed in much the same way in the most public examples of either position. In that regard, either position is valid for what it is best used to do, i.e., better understand the human desire to order the universe one way or the other.

[Fëanor]

This is the most fascinating part of evangelical atheism to me. This inclines me to believe that atheism and faith are really just the same function. I mean, they are in that neither position is logically necessary and both positions use much the same evidence, but beyond that, the proselytizing function seems to be employed in much the same way in the most public examples of either position. ...

This is true, and no doubt that is how it must be seem by the true agnostic, (if there is such a beast).

As I've said before, I believe the existence of God cannot be disproven.  But skeptics generally reject the need the to prove negative propositions of that sort:  see Russell's "teapot" argument.

[Catison]

As I've said before, I believe the existence of God cannot be disproven.  But skeptics generally reject the need the to prove negative propositions of that sort:  see Russell's "teapot" argument.

I would agree with you if God were a negative proposition.  There are entirely positive reasons for proposing God, which I have detailed before in other posts, so I won't waste my time here.  To suggest that these reasons don't exist is pretty disingenuous.

[PSmith08]

This is true, and no doubt that is how it must be seem by the true agnostic, (if there is such a beast).

I can't imagine the true agnostic would be drawn into debates such as these. Once one reaches the point where the inability to know is the final result, it becomes inefficient to get into debates about knowing.

As I've said before, I believe the existence of God cannot be disproven.  But skeptics generally reject the need the to prove negative propositions of that sort:  see Russell's "teapot" argument.

Neither position can be disproved, which is why (or, a result, maybe) the question is undecidable on its own terms. You have to add something in both cases to make the arguments work. That is why, finally, while fun, the debate isn't all that interesting. No amount of formal logic will prove one's own position or refute the other's.

[DavidRoss]

Attempting to know God by reason--especially from flawed starting premises, such as the OP's positing God as necessarily having certain attributes (?!)--is like attempting to know what the wavelength of infrared light tastes like by listening to it in a dark, soundproof room.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If you want to catch a fish, you must go where the fish are--and you will need to use fishing tackle, not fortune cookie slogans proclaiming "There are no fish."

[Daidalos]

Attempting to know God by reason--especially from flawed starting premises, such as the OP's positing God as necessarily having certain attributes (?!)--is like attempting to know what the wavelength of infrared light tastes like by listening to it in a dark, soundproof room.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If you want to catch a fish, you must go where the fish are--and you will need to use fishing tackle, not fortune cookie slogans proclaiming "There are no fish."

Actually, I'm not really positing those things at all, I'm mainly expounding what I've read from other people on these boards. I fully realise the futility of assigning attributes to "God", and I would never draw any conclusions based on such premises and expect them to reflect anything concrete. No, these musings of mine are a product of my past discussions with theists on GMG, chiefly Al Moritz, whose opinions I sincerely hope I haven't misrepresented. My ambition, small all as though it might have been, was restricted to investigating possible implications regarding the nature of God, as represented by various theists. Since their arguments were based on logic and reasion, I thought it fair to engage the ideas on those terms; doing otherwise would do the ideas a disservice, I would think.

As always, when discussing things such as god, human modes of thinking and reasoning might be insufficient, or even completely inapplicable, as I've pointed out in the past. I'm not sure if you understood what I attempted to do with this thread, but in part it was exploring the consequences of some of the "descriptions" of God that get thrown around a lot in these discussions. And I make no attempt to know God through reason, and I thought I was pretty clear about that in my post.

Furthermore, did I really say that God "necessarily" had certain attributes? If I did that, it was obviously a mistake on my part. My position was, "given what theists often say about God, what would be the logical consequences?" Do I really misrepresent how most theists view God by describing Him/Her/It as omnipotent, omniscient, timeless and perfectly good? I thought the official position of the Catholic church, for example, was that God does indeed possess those characteristics (as far as any transcendent being can have any characteristics)! However, if I was shown to be mistaken on these issues, I would of course have to rethink some of my positions.

[PSmith08]

Attempting to know God by reason--especially from flawed starting premises, such as the OP's positing God as necessarily having certain attributes (?!)--is like attempting to know what the wavelength of infrared light tastes like by listening to it in a dark, soundproof room.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If you want to catch a fish, you must go where the fish are--and you will need to use fishing tackle, not fortune cookie slogans proclaiming "There are no fish."

Well put. In my view, figuring out what one wants to add to the question to reach an answer by rational thought is the important process -- if you care enough about the question to decide to try to answer it in your own way.

[DavidRoss]

My comments were not directed specifically at your post, Bjorn, but at the general faith in reason's omnipotence expressed by many (most of whom wouldn't know reason if it kissed them on the mouth--with tongue!).  However, the attributes you claim to have derived from various theists' statements are absurd, regardless of their source, and so offer an excellent example to illustrate the absurdity.  Whatever attributes you assign will determine whatever conclusions you may reach.

It's great to "see" you again around here.  We've missed your even-tempered, thoughtful contributions, evincing a mind really trying to work things out instead of just spewing prejudices and proselytizing for a particular set of beliefs.  And it appears from the posts I've seen just on this thread that your command of the nuances of English is continuing to improve, now exceeding that of many native speakers, and the quality of your thought has likewise grown sharper.

Regards!

[Florestan]

No amount of formal logic will prove one's own position or refute the other's.

True. But then again, faith (or lack thereof) is not about formal logic, it's about choice, i.e. will, specifically free will. It has been repeated countless times: if it could be proved with mathematical certainty and beyond all doubt that God exists then free will will be anihilated and we would have no choice but believe. Instead, we are completely free to make our own choices. Based on the same evidence, some choose to believe while some others choose not to believe.

[drogulus]

Neither position can be disproved, which is why (or, a result, maybe) the question is undecidable on its own terms. You have to add something in both cases to make the arguments work. That is why, finally, while fun, the debate isn't all that interesting. No amount of formal logic will prove one's own position or refute the other's.

      I disagree because in the case of a failed hypothesis the issue is decided. The hypothesis is abandoned. Russell's jokey Teapot is an illustration. It isn't taken seriously by serious people. Only an unserious person would think that disproof is possible, and that is the point of the joke. Oh..did I ruin it? 

      It isn't really a logical problem, nor one of disproof. The problem is whether adequate reasons, as opposed to motives, exist to assume a god. There are none, so motives prevail instead. A god is desired and therefore exists. I call this inadequate. There is also the matter that a materialist will tend to argue probabilities and evidence instead of evidence-free certainties, which makes the argument about underlying theories of knowledge. It isn't the conclusions as much as the process by which they are derived that interest me. I already know that the Universe provides no gods, and that human thoughts provide them. The interesting thing for me is how this is so and how our thought processes work to that end.

True. But then again, faith (or lack thereof) is not about formal logic, it's about choice, i.e. will, specifically free will. It has been repeated countless times: if it could be proved with mathematical certainty and beyond all doubt that God exists then free will will be anihilated and we would have no choice but believe. Instead, we are completely free to make our own choices. Based on the same evidence, some choose to believe while some others choose not to believe.

     This illustrates my point that motives replace proper considerations in deciding the issue. If you allow motives to decide for you than you haven't decided, you have given up the ability to decide.

[Florestan]

         This illustrates my point that motives replace proper considerations in deciding the issue. If you allow motives to decide for you than you haven't decided, you have given up the ability to decide.

You're wrong as always. The existence of God is not an issue to be decided. You either believe or you don't. Everything else is post-factum rationalization. I gladly admit that God's existence is a metaphysical axiom for which there is no mathematical proof. Can you do the same with your atheism, or are you going to argue that you have compelling evidence that God doesn't exist?

[Herman]

Oh, for a leaner and cleaner Diner!

Never mind me, genlemen.

[drogulus]

You're wrong as always. The existence of God is not an issue to be decided. You either believe or you don't. Everything else is post-factum rationalization. I gladly admit that God's existence is a metaphysical axiom for which there is no mathematical proof. Can you do the same with your atheism, or are you going to argue that you have compelling evidence that God doesn't exist?

    You made a decision, and now you are providing post-factum rationalization. That you made the decisions irresponsibly doesn't mean you didn't make it. And why do you demand freedom and then claim you don't exercise it when you plainly do?

    Once again, proof is not the issue. You must support your hypothesis or it fails. It failed.

   

There are entirely positive reasons for proposing God, which I have detailed before in other posts, so I won't waste my time here.  To suggest that these reasons don't exist is pretty disingenuous.

    I'm saying the same thing. There are reasons, and they're motives. And because they are motives proposals turn into certainties without ever needing to pass through any test other than the desire to have it so. A god is desired, therefore it exists. These desires are very old in our species and the need for some form of universal agency is ("speculation") probably also related to the growth of our concepts of causality generally. We had to evict the multiplicity of spirits and demons in order to manage our growing ability to trace natural causation in the world. It couldn't be both natural forces and spirits that brought the earthquake. In this sense the dual causality of the Deist/Christian, where natural causes are merely the visible material manifestation of a larger drama could be seen as a retrograde move. However, I also see the rationalist speculation (derived from the Greeks and grandfathered into the Christian world) about hidden causes as an important driving force in the development of science. So our gift for seeing agency that produced spirits ended up producing science.

    OK, I goofed. I said this in response to Florestan:

   

This illustrates my point that motives replace proper considerations in deciding the issue. If you allow motives to decide for you than you haven't decided, you have given up the ability to decide.

     Then I said this:

You made a decision, and now you are providing post-factum rationalization. That you made the decisions irresponsibly doesn't mean you didn't make it. And why do you demand freedom and then claim you don't exercise it when you plainly do?

     Yeow! So I should have said that if you decide about gods based on motives you're not deciding properly, and that neglecting to decide on sounder grounds is a decision.
   

   
   

[drogulus]

Well put. In my view, figuring out what one wants to add to the question to reach an answer by rational thought is the important process -- if you care enough about the question to decide to try to answer it in your own way.

     Answering the question in your own way is what you do when you wish to guarantee the result will come out in a prearranged manner. The idea that objectivity means "no" is behind the need to remove objectivity by claiming that faith is a proper procedure. If faith really was the correct way to acquire knowledge then it wouldn't be fenced off in this manner, used only to justify beliefs that can't make the grade otherwise. What does this odd procedure say about the status of what is believed? Nothing good, that's for sure. And don't tell me that this is news to the believer. It's a case of don't know and don't want to know.

Neither position can be disproved, which is why (or, a result, maybe) the question is undecidable on its own terms. You have to add something in both cases to make the arguments work. That is why, finally, while fun, the debate isn't all that interesting. No amount of formal logic will prove one's own position or refute the other's.

     This is strange coming from you, PSmith08. I expect the fallacy of logical proof from the believers because they can't understand what they read when faith gets in the way. You don't strike me as incapacitated in that respect. How many times do we have to go over this point before the lesson is learned? Nothing is being disproved. You can't disprove nothings, you just move on to somethings, which are more interesting. Except perhaps to me, because I'm interested in how people think, or why they prefer not to.

     There are not 3 positions, there are only yes and undecidable/no, which is why the atheist/agnostic split is more a question of temperament than a genuine epistemic dispute. You may be an undecided, but all undecideds agree that no/undecided does not mean yes. Operationally, it means no.