"Oh, well that's your opinion"

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Aught3, I understand your concern - but, in reality, we're talking about "guided" through the laws of Nature, not God.

At first, yes, they'll think that - but this is closer to Prof. Paul Davies' view than a Literalist - indeed, theists, like Dr. Ken Miller (and the Roman Catholic Church), can accept evolution because of it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Aught3]

So what are these laws of nature wrt evolution?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm saying that evolution - like everything else in Nature - is bound by the same laws (of Nature); there are no "special" laws for evolution.

The climate and soil quality determine what flora can grow and evolve => these determine what fauna evolve (as I've said elsewhere, flora and fauna can develop a inter-dependent relationship: for example, various (sub-)species of hummingbirds and the flowers they visit for food, etc.).

From the Big Bang onward, you've got - what I think of as - "guided probability": the Laws of Nature guide what events are probable at every point in the process.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[nasher168]

The fact is - for theists/deists - the body is to the soul as clothes are to the wearer. Our bodies are just "clothing for the soul".

Not necessarily. Believing in a god does not necessitate believing in souls within us. Particularly for deists-the creator god may have far bigger things to care about than making humans live for eternity or whatever. To a deist, we might simply be by-products of a universe created without us in mind.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The fact is - for theists/deists - the body is to the soul as clothes are to the wearer. Our bodies are just "clothing for the soul".

Not necessarily. Believing in a god does not necessitate believing in souls within us. Particularly for deists-the creator god may have far bigger things to care about than making humans live for eternity or whatever. To a deist, we might simply be by-products of a universe created without us in mind.

In the context of the Literalists ("Fundies" - including Christians, Muslims, etc), this is what a belief in God entails.

Although there are deists who might not believe in the soul, for the most part a belief in God, whether theist or deist, implies a belief in the soul - else, from their perspective, what's the point of a God who hasn't actually included a part of himself within us (hence the question about "if you don't get your morality from God, from where do you get it?").

[In fact, say "A belief in God doesn't mean a belief in a soul" to a Literalist - or even, most theists - and see what is their reaction! = :shock: :? ]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sinue]

In the context of the Literalists ("Fundies" - including Christians, Muslims, etc), this is what a belief in God entails.

Although there are deists who might not believe in the soul, for the most part a belief in God, whether theist or deist, implies a belief in the soul - else, from their perspective, what's the point of a God who hasn't actually included a part of himself within us (hence the question about "if you don't get your morality from God, from where do you get it?").

In fact, say "A belief in God doesn't mean a belief in a soul" to a Literalist - or even, most theists - and see what is their reaction! = :shock: :? ]

Kindest regards,

James

I tend to consider myself a Deist, and I have found really no evidence or reason to believe in a soul. I suppose, though, if I'm going to make an exception for god as an irrational belief... why not a soul as well? Because the soul supposedly interacts with the material world, driving the biological machine. Be that the case, there SHOULD be evidence of that interaction. But it's not there. God, on the other hand, is at the moment unfalsifiable - especially those who don't tinker with routine maintenance on the Universe or meddle in the affairs of the life which emerges from it.

As for theists who claim there is no point to god if there is no soul... to me, that sounds incredibly childish and self-centered. To twist the words a bit, it says to me; "What is the point of believing in god if I can't be the center of it's universe and it's attention as the special little snowflake that I think he specially crafted me to be." Really, I think it would be interesting to see a survey done on this question and see just how many of the "faithful" who "love Jesus so much cause he's so awesome" would still adhere to their faith once the carrot and stick of souls & judgment are removed. How many are truly appreciative of this existence they've been so fortunate to experience... and who is just kissing God's ass to sneak past the velvet rope.

 

[e2iPi]

I tend to consider myself a Deist, and I have found really no evidence or reason to believe in a soul.

Your statement intrigues me. Since you discount the idea of a soul due to lack of evidence, what evidence do you have for your deistic beliefs?

-1

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I tend to consider myself a Deist, and I have found really no evidence or reason to believe in a soul. I suppose, though, if I'm going to make an exception for god as an irrational belief... why not a soul as well? Because the soul supposedly interacts with the material world, driving the biological machine. Be that the case, there SHOULD be evidence of that interaction. But it's not there. God, on the other hand, is at the moment unfalsifiable - especially those who don't tinker with routine maintenance on the Universe or meddle in the affairs of the life which emerges from it.

I don't actually see a valid reason for Deism, in the "purest" sense in which you explain it:

A Deity exists who created the cosmos - has absolutely no interaction with it (is outside of it), ergo, no souls (which incorporate a "spark of The Divine") to survive death and "return to the Creator".

This doesn't make sense to me.

This explanation of Deism implies that our consciousness is purely biologically-based: as such, there's no numinous aspect which would survive biological death (indeed, no numinous aspect to Nature - other than the Deus ex machina - hence, quite literally, "dust to dust, ashes to ashes").

The question then arises...

If we don't have any spiritual connection with The Deity, what's the reason for using a Deity to explain the cosmos?

A quantum fluctuation (leading to the Big Bang, as the Flat Universe Theory proposes) is the only explanation necessary for the cosmos.

Thus, the Principle of Occam implies that we discard The Deity as The Cause of the cosmos.

As for theists who claim there is no point to god if there is no soul... to me, that sounds incredibly childish and self-centered. To twist the words a bit, it says to me; "What is the point of believing in god if I can't be the center of it's universe and it's attention as the special little snowflake that I think he specially crafted me to be." Really, I think it would be interesting to see a survey done on this question and see just how many of the "faithful" who "love Jesus so much cause he's so awesome" would still adhere to their faith once the carrot and stick of souls & judgment are removed. How many are truly appreciative of this existence they've been so fortunate to experience... and who is just kissing God's ass to sneak past the velvet rope.

Most atheists argue that a belief in God is "self-centred" (or ethno-centric/tribal), so there's nothing new there!

The whole point of a belief in a Creator - as I've said - is the fact that we are, at our core, a part of that Being. This implies the soul containing a spark of the Creator. A soul, which - being non-biologically-based - survives death to "return to God".

With all due respect, I think Theists have a far better raison d'àªtre than Deists!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[borrofburi]

I tend to consider myself a Deist, and I have found really no evidence or reason to believe in a soul.

Your statement intrigues me. Since you discount the idea of a soul due to lack of evidence, what evidence do you have for your deistic beliefs?

-1

If I read him correctly, none, except that it makes sense to him that even if a god existed we wouldn't necessarily have evidence, while if a soul existed we would.