Are you a deist or a theist? — Tom Storm

Theist all the way, although the degree of his involvement in his creation is sometimes questionable.

Problem with that is the pudding is used to prove either argument. — Tom Storm

Existence itself buddy where did we come from…poof pops the universe out of nowhere don’t you find it interesting. Bigger question…who created god how did existence itself come to be why is there something rather than nothing. How did it come into existence out of nowhere ? Very interesting questions to me

Is that so? I had been told he loves us. Doesn't that involve his taking on some obligations towards us? — Banno

Who told you that ? He’s a funny guy got a wicked sense of humour I tell you. If he told us he existed all scientific progress would come to a halt and we would be to dependable on him…this is the reason why there are so many atheists it’s all a bit hush hush. What’s love gotta do?

So......let's get back to the intelligence of intelligences. — skyblack

Yes let’s! An omnipotence owes nothing to us especially proof to its existence…the proof is in the pudding.

I gather this thread is not going the way you thought it might. — Banno

Is it not ? I don’t delve into the nature of the almighty his ways are mysterious. As to how a human being should conduct himself well that’s up to them … although compassion should be valued highly. Do good deeds not for the sake of reward and just remember Santa knows if you’ve been a good boy! Above all though do not preach nobody likes that.

and how one ought to act — Banno

An adult should have realised this by now, respect all. Value life recognise virtue do not feign affection be on good terms with all. Forgive mistakes give praise when it’s merited…enjoy life we only live it once.

And we would do well to steer clear of the evolution debate, for fear of rendering the thread impotent. — Banno

Good idea let’s stay clear of it … I have no further arguments to present here for my theistic beliefs without sounding silly I guess it boils down to faith and personal opinion whether you believe in God, are a smart arse Atheist or a Prudent Agnostic.

The Agnostics will never know, the atheist simply doesn’t and the theist is damn sure.

That's the god of the holes; invoking god to explain something for which there is at present no scientific explanation. — Banno

Did not wish to invoke God but life arising from mere inanimate matter is a big leap for sure…and secondly thermal vents which started all sorts of wonderful chemical reactions to lead to simple organic life…these conditions were not there earth early on was full of lava. Yet planetary conditions allowed transformations to earths surface to happen. Where am I going with this?…Yes back to thermal vents…the odds of going from non organic rock to an organism that is able to self replicate …huge I tell you … so where does God come into this ? He doesn’t! What’s my point ? Exactly …just odds from rocks (non-life) to human beings all because of those thermal vents without invoking God at all, yet the atomic interactions between the different molecules ! Science …but how did this happen in the first place you ask…no God? Surely these elements were designed in such a way by a higher power to bind together and create something useful. Hydrogen and Oxygen combining together to form water? That’s useful … still though … God ? Nahhh

Did not wish to invoke that.

If your faith is based on science, then to be consistent your would be obliged to reject your faith. — Banno

Big Bang! We will never know nor have the capacity to know what happened before it. It’s not unreasonable to invoke a first mover.

Not dogmatic at all although I have made clear my position where I stand in the spectrum not the question I’m theist and proud but wish to learn more about the differing opinions and what stance people take on it. Atheist ? No problem at all same for all other positions when it comes to the question…just want to know the logic behind it without being combative…

Folk tend not to come to discussions about god in order to have their ideas tested. More often they are looking to have their prejudices reinforced. — Banno

I’m all up for listening to different viewpoints respecting differing opinions and ideas of course. As for having my faith tested … go ahead I’m willing to entertain all arguments without being zealous or evangelical in my attempts. Above all I’m up for a good debate and the intellectual challenge such a topic poses of course. Whether I have the ability to do so is another question but I do wish to improve my debating skills :) …

You’ve hit the nail on the head though, the theist does not want their ideas tested but I’d like to think I’m a better breed of theist than that

Although you state that most professional philosophers dismiss the god claim their best bet is really agnosticism or at least it should be rather than hard atheism…it’s more shall we say open minded and foolproof…

If you understand that God exists on rational grounds, then one's belief is as robust as those arguments and does not depend on one's own psychology and experiences to the same extent. — Bartricks

Oh I have some grounds based on non-psychological experience. For instance the emergence of life or abiogenesis which is poorly understood to this day and age. Feel free to read

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

So far science has not been able to replicate the origin of life (abiogenesis) using the bottom up approach for the emergence of life but perhaps one day we will understand at least how life formed from inorganic matter to having the ability to self-replicate and pass on information using RNA. The chances of this happening by accident are astronomical but not 0. Then there’s the beauty of evolution itself with all its diversity predator prey and then us the toolmakers, hunters, farmers with that slice of divine spark. The evolution of consciousness itself - that huge gap from simple chemical reactions in thermal vents to consciousness - sure it took a few billion years yet here we are…then go before that to the formation of stars before life…it didn’t have to happen but it did so that’s why I lean towards theism this rise in complexity of life … there just had to be an intelligence agency that set the rules and laws in motion before backing off.

I started off as an atheist that’s for sure but then some events happened in my life that convinced me that there was a higher power/intelligence which no philosophical argument could. But for the sake of this topic I just wanted to get a feel of this site which of course veers towards the sceptical and analytical approach when it comes to the God question.

What interests me and what I expect would interest atheists equally is understanding how someone could not believe in god and to the atheist how someone could. Then you have the agnostics right down the middle. I respect all three positions equally as they’re of equal merit and equally rational.

In my opinion the agnostic position makes the most sense and is the strongest out of the three even though I believe in God myself.

Faith in supernatural things is not real belief — Gregory

What is real belief then? Belief that Mars is the 4th planet from the sun? That’s not belief that’s evidence. Scientific evidence. Belief is for another way of putting it faith…there’s nothing wrong with it…

Nor does it rule out the infinity of other ridiculous ideas we can come up with. Are we supposed to entertain them all, or just the ones that were popular between three- and one-thousand years ago? — Kenosha Kid

There are a few ideas definitely worth entertaining not because of implications but curiosity as to whether God exists which cannot be proven scientifically or theoretically…other interesting concepts which are worth entertaining is do we live in a simulation? It’s what philosophy is for.

They only claim to be theist.

Why would they do that ? In my experience I’ve come across individuals with real faith who really believe in God that not even the sceptic in me would question it.

You entirely missed the point of what I posted. Notice that I said That there was no practical difference.

There isn’t, you’re right! Not practically, however there’s a conceptual difference or the difference in definition which I am still trying to understand so bear with me.

I have now realised I should have made this post about what the differences actually are before attempting to tackle which position is more prudent rather than better that I used in my original post.

To believe in God is something that can't really be done.

Sure it can there are theists everywhere of all denominations just goes to show you that it can be done.

It’s not a preference I actually don’t care! :wink: although I have to admit Pascal had an interesting take on it with his Pascal’s wager although personally I wouldn’t go that far.

Forget God? No, because it’s such a loaded concept and comes with many assumptions about its nature. This is the thing though I appreciate what you say if the big guy really wanted to give us clues about his existence he easily could do that throughout the universe with the laws of physics and the maths that drives it which through science we as humans are starting to unravel and discover and describe using maths as a language. Think about the forces that hold a nuclei together or the electrons around it…the beauty of this design that holds matter together to form larger structures … without these scientific laws surely there would be nothing … so it is these laws built in the universe which makes me a believer of course but it’s more than that it’s unquantifiable personal experience which I will of course try to ignore for the sake of being unbiased.



Interesting, so let me add a further statement to further the analogy of Aliens/God and allow you to tell me what the difference is…

“There are no Aliens”

“I believe there are no Aliens”

There’s no difference in the two above statement as far as I am concerned it’s just that the second statement inputs belief which is not based on evidence. The first statement qualifies it or turns personal belief into fact which of course is ridiculous in this example as nobody knows if life exists elsewhere in the vastness of this universe or we are the only ones. As far as our scientific apparatus we have not been able to detect them but we cannot claim they do not exist. This is the issue with God too for atheists, hard atheists especially…there is no God is equivalent to there are no Aliens.

The Agnostic would holding the softer atheist position comes perhaps closer to the truth than the hard atheist. What I mean closer to the truth is that their position is truer or true.

There is no god or there is no aliens could also be true but it’s just more unlikely

why would I ? I do not rule it out even if everybody told me it’s behind me …it could all be part of a ploy. Never rule anything out especially God, ok I understand you exaggerate to make a point.

I acknowledge that I do not know but I do not believe in the existence god or gods.

How does this work in terms of compatibility between two seemingly contradictory statements…if you acknowledge that you do not know then how could you hold the belief that God does not exist rather than he MIGHT exist.

Well this is one of the issues. The varying degrees of Atheism so it really is a debate between hard atheism and soft atheism (aka Agnosticism?)

there’s a practical difference if in fact God does exist. Death, afterlife, heaven, reincarnation, the concept of the soul which of course in most cases are only confirmed either way when a person dies. IF it turns out that God does in fact exist then there is no problem for either position agnostic or Atheist. It’s not a big deal, it just shows that the agnostic is more open minded to the idea and potentiality of the existence of God whereas the Atheist outright dismisses it. Well most do but let’s use the most commonly held atheist argument which is as per your definition. So let’s turn our attention to that. For the atheist then there are no convincing grounds/evidence to the existence of God. It’s this where the problem I am trying to address lies when comparing the atheist to the agnostic which does cause a slight problem as practically and fundamentally they’re almost identical positions allowing for the way it’s defined…

At the beginning of this post I made sure I used the definitions of what these two positions entail to for the sake of clarity and it is these two different positions that I wish to address when it comes to what atheism is as opposed to Agnosticism

No they don’t as to the agnostic this means that the possibility of God existing is equal to it not existing and they do not rule it out either way.

I don’t know ask them…I’m just going by the definition of atheism as to how they rule it out I have no idea but I guess they rule it out due to lack of evidence.

no I do not.

I think Cheshire is suggesting the simulation theory there which is of course unverifiable at the moment as of course is God.