Why I'm a Deist.

[tuxbox]

One cannot be absolutely certain of anything because one is as much an emotional being as a logical one and emotional reasoning can be and
indeed is employed as a means of interpreting so called reality. But I still have to have some foundational basis to interpret it regard less of how
accurate that may be. I am therefore certain beyond reasonable doubt that I exist and that others exist too. Although if for the sake of argument
that is not actually true the illusion is so powerful my brain shall still convince me of it anyway. However I am not certain beyond all doubt of any
thing at all. So one has to suspend some degree of disbelief otherwise one would never accept any thing as true including the evidence of ones
own senses and the reasoning of ones own brain. And therefore upon the basis of probability some things are more likely to be true than others
And that is the basis upon which one should ideally interpret so called reality and the best disciplines for doing so are science and mathematics

I'm 100% certain that I exist, along with reality. However, I am not 100% certain that a Creator exists. Which is where this thread seems to be going at the moment. That said, the rest of what you posted went way over my head.

 

[surreptitious57]

Your brain has convinced you that you exist but you have no actual basis for independently and objectively determining that however. Now I am
convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you do indeed exist though I can not be absolutely certain that you actually do. Neither can you or any
one else. So called reality is not what it appears to be for a multiplicity of reasons and so what you experience is not so much reality but instead
an interpretation of reality which is not the same. Your eyes for example which are usually the dominant sense have a very limited range across
the light spectrum. As what you can see with them is not the sum total of all that is actually there. Most of what is can not be seen by them at all

 

[tuxbox]

Your brain has convinced you that you exist but you have no actual basis for independently and objectively determining that however. Now I am
convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you do indeed exist though I can not be absolutely certain that you actually do. Neither can you or any
one else. So called reality is not what it appears to be for a multiplicity of reasons and so what you experience is not so much reality but instead
an interpretation of reality which is not the same. Your eyes for example which are usually the dominant sense have a very limited range across
the light spectrum. As what you can see with them is not the sum total of all that is actually there. Most of what is can not be seen by them at all

Even if I did not exist, like my father did not want me to, then reality would still exist. Nature is not an illusion. What I will agree on is reality differs from person to person, based on perception, however that does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Visaki]

Even if I did not exist, like my father did not want me to, then reality would still exist. Nature is not an illusion. What I will agree on is reality differs from person to person, based on perception, however that does not mean it does not exist.

I wouldn't mind if you explained your solution to hard solipsism in more detail. Not that I disagree that Nature exists, or at least that we must behave like it does because there is no reasonable alternative, but as I understand there is no real way of being certain that I am not a brain in a vat.

 

[tuxbox]

I wouldn't mind if you explained your solution to hard solipsism in more detail. Not that I disagree that Nature exists, or at least that we must behave like it does because there is no reasonable alternative, but as I understand there is no real way of being certain that I am not a brain in a vat.

There does not have to be a solution to solipsism because it is made up by over thinking people who have possibly dropped too much acid in their lifetime.

I know for a fact that I exist. I have the emotional and physical scars to prove it. I know for a fact that I exist because I have family and friends. I know for a fact that I exist because I am responding to this forum on a regular basis just as you all do. None of these things are possible if we are “brains in a vat”, or if just one of us, me for example happens to be one mind in a vat. It is inconceivable to think that one mind could come up with everything that occurs in Nature. If we are “brains in a vat”, where did our brains come from, where did the vat come from, and who or what put our brains in the vat?

With all due respect, if you question your own existence or the existence of others then you have taken you skepticism too far and now I question your logic and reason.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I wouldn't mind if you explained your solution to hard solipsism in more detail. Not that I disagree that Nature exists, or at least that we must behave like it does because there is no reasonable alternative, but as I understand there is no real way of being certain that I am not a brain in a vat.

There does not have to be a solution to solipsism because it is made up by over thinking people who have possibly dropped too much acid in their lifetime.

I know for a fact that I exist. I have the emotional and physical scars to prove it. I know for a fact that I exist because I have family and friends. I know for a fact that I exist because I am responding to this forum on a regular basis just as you all do. None of these things are possible if we are “brains in a vat”, or if just one of us, me for example happens to be one mind in a vat. It is inconceivable to think that one mind could come up with everything that occurs in Nature. If we are “brains in a vat”, where did our brains come from, where did the vat come from, and who or what put our brains in the vat?

That sounds like an argument from personal incredulity. If we are brains in a vat then clearly everything we think we know about the natural world -- including what is possible and what our minds are capable of coming up with -- is irrelevant.

With all due respect, if you question your own existence or the existence of others then you have taken you skepticism too far and now I question your logic and reason.

It's not that we should question our own existence -- there is no evidence that we are brains in vats -- it is just that we should accept that there are limitations on what we can know for certain.

But also, to what extent should we care whether or not we are brains in vats? Just because we are in the Matrix it doesn't mean that we can become Neo. The evidence is that our universe is comprehensible and we should act as if it is real.

 

[tuxbox]

If solipsism is true, then I have been arguing with myself this whole time. What a bummer.

 

[surreptitious57]

There is absolutely no way to disprove solipsism since other minds could simply be an extension of ones own. And for all I know everything
that I experience is simply a mental construction which does not exist independent of myself. Now the fact that I do not actually think that is
completely irrelevant for what one thinks is real and what actually is real are not automatically the same. So when I see the external world I
think I am seeing one which is independent of my mind. But there is no way I can objectively prove it however. And the reason is because I
cannot experience anything outside of my mind as everything I do experience is filtered through it. So consequently I have no idea if what I
think I see is actually real. The only way I could determine that would be to experience outside of my mind. But that is physically impossible

 

[Deleted member 619]

If the position is not defined by information from encyclopedias or dictionaries, then how does one come to a conclusion on what their position is? The information/definition has to come from somewhere, correct?

As long as you tell me what you mean when you use a word, I tell you what I mean when I use a word, and we both agree not to use redundant or nonsensical definitions, then we're all good. Ultimately, it's about communication. Dictionaries are fine, as lone as you're aware that they aren't authorities on definitions, they describe usage. If your argument hinges on a given definition found in a dictionary, and falls when that definition is not agreed upon, then your argument rests on a fallacy.

This confuses me?

What in particular?

even though I don't necessarily have a lack of belief in god/gods?

Well, lack is the wrong word anyway, IMO. I define atheism as the non-acceptance of a specific class of truth-claim with regard to the existence of a specific class of magical entity, which is a bit of a mouthful, but it conveys accurately my position. I have no particular position on the question of any entity that I might reasonably regard as a deity, but I do not accept any of the truth-claims with regard thereto.

I certainly wouldn't descri9be myself as agnostic because, if anything that5 could reasonably be described as a deity axctu8ally exists, and definitely if it intervenes in any way in the operation of the cosmos, then it';s possible to know it. Here you can see that I'm using 'gnostic' in a way that directly reflects Huxley's coining of 'agnostic', yet differs from how others might use the term in general. I hope that sheds some light on the earlier confusion as well.

I should note that I sometimes do use terms slightly differently precisely to motivate thinking about how others use terms (often nonsensically, as in the case of the general usage of 'agnostic', which is thought-free pap, in my opinion).

 

[Dustnite]

I know longer consider myself a Deist. The arguments against that position, that have taken place in this thread, have convinced me that it is not a logical position to hold.

As far as that chart inferno posted, well I believe that does not encompass every possible position. For one, it leaves out Deism, Pantheism and several other positions that one might hold.

Deism is not God of the Gaps, if one sees evidence in Nature that a Creator exists, especially if that evidence that they see is inline with current scientific theories. At the most, it makes it an unreasonable position to hold. Where I'm I going wrong here?

Not really, that refers to the belief in god or gods. A deist would still believe in a deity or god and a pantheist would believe in gods or the Force or whatever. It still applies.

 

[tuxbox]

As long as you tell me what you mean when you use a word, I tell you what I mean when I use a word, and we both agree not to use redundant or nonsensical definitions, then we're all good. Ultimately, it's about communication. Dictionaries are fine, as lone as you're aware that they aren't authorities on definitions, they describe usage. If your argument hinges on a given definition found in a dictionary, and falls when that definition is not agreed upon, then your argument rests on a fallacy.

Understood, and that also clears up my confusion about why they are considered fallacies

What in particular?

No longer confused. See above.

Well, lack is the wrong word anyway, IMO. I define atheism as the non-acceptance of a specific class of truth-claim with regard to the existence of a specific class of magical entity, which is a bit of a mouthful, but it conveys accurately my position. I have no particular position on the question of any entity that I might reasonably regard as a deity, but I do not accept any of the truth-claims with regard thereto.

I certainly wouldn't descri9be myself as agnostic because, if anything that5 could reasonably be described as a deity axctu8ally exists, and definitely if it intervenes in any way in the operation of the cosmos, then it';s possible to know it. Here you can see that I'm using 'gnostic' in a way that directly reflects Huxley's coining of 'agnostic', yet differs from how others might use the term in general. I hope that sheds some light on the earlier confusion as well.

I should note that I sometimes do use terms slightly differently precisely to motivate thinking about how others use terms (often nonsensically, as in the case of the general usage of 'agnostic', which is thought-free pap, in my opinion).

Understood. If Agnosticism is not considered a valid position then I guess I'm considered an Atheist.


**Edited**
I seriously need to proof read my posts. I make no sense sometimes due to poor sentence structure.

 

[tuxbox]

There is absolutely no way to disprove solipsism since other minds could simply be an extension of ones own. And for all I know everything that I experience is simply a mental construction which does not exist independent of myself.

Nor can it be falsified! It also seems self refuting to me, since we are having this conversation and I 100% sure other minds exist. Furthermore, a Creator cannot be disproven or falsified either.

 

[tuxbox]

That sounds like an argument from personal incredulity. If we are brains in a vat then clearly everything we think we know about the natural world -- including what is possible and what our minds are capable of coming up with -- is irrelevant.

That maybe, however, solipsism also goes it against logic and reason.

It's not that we should question our own existence -- there is no evidence that we are brains in vats -- it is just that we should accept that there are limitations on what we can know for certain.

I agree that there are limitations on what we can be certain of, but the existence of other minds and bodies should be self evident

But also, to what extent should we care whether or not we are brains in vats? Just because we are in the Matrix it doesn't mean that we can become Neo. The evidence is that our universe is comprehensible and we should act as if it is real.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[tuxbox]

Not really, that refers to the belief in god or gods. A deist would still believe in a deity or god and a pantheist would believe in gods or the Force or whatever. It still applies.

Understood!

 

[tuxbox]

Albert Einstein versus Chuck Schumer

A political article from a Deist perspective. Not sure I agree with Einstein being a Deist though.

 

[Deleted member 619]

He wasn't. If you take all his writings on the subject together, it's pretty clear that he was an atheist, although a fair bit of what he said would put him in the pantheist camp, but mostly he was just waxing lyrical, in the same way that Hawking did in the famous last line of A Brief History of Time, 'for then we should know the mind of God'. Hawking is a confirmed atheist, yet he uses god as a metaphor an awful lot in his writings. Einstein wrote similarly. The quotation that sums up his position most completely is:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I think that's pretty unambiguous.

 

[surreptitious57]

I think of Einstein as more of a pantheist than an atheist because of that quote. Although one could argue that the difference is
academic as one can still see beauty in nature without ascribing that to a metaphysical being. So just because I do not believe
in God does not mean I am a Philistine who can not comprehend the wonders of the observable Universe. And understanding
it in no way detracts from my appreciation of it. And so theists do not have a monopoly on awe in regard to this. Absolutely not

 

[tuxbox]

I So just because I do not believe
in God does not mean I am a Philistine who can not comprehend the wonders of the observable Universe. And understanding
it in no way detracts from my appreciation of it. And so theists do not have a monopoly on awe in regard to this. Absolutely not

Indeed!

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Which is why I identify myself, if pressed, as an Agnostic - since knowledge trumps belief - not just on the issue of the existence of gods (agnostic).

As I've said before, we're all born without consciously knowing anything, and spend the rest of our lives trying to find out what's true or not. Even then, we can't be absolutely certain of anything - our senses may be misinforming us about "reality".

Kindest regards,

James

I know Hackenslash's position on the matter of Agnosticism and that is it is not a valid position. Am I reading you correctly that you think that it is a valid position. I only ask because I'm in limbo on what position that I hold. I want to say that I am an Agnostic but if it is not logical I would like to know why?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I know Hackenslash's position on the matter of Agnosticism and that is it is not a valid position.

I've never said that. I've said it isn't a position on the existence of deities.