DEISM = ATHEISM
Click to watch 4 minutes,
A maximally great pizza would have to be all powerful (responsible for all events), all knowing (intentionally causing all events), and morally perfect (according to some unspecified moral code or set of principles).
Even if such a thing was defined as "extant" (ontologically) it would still give us mortals absolutely no clue whatsoever regarding a practical, real-world, human code of ethics (Spinoza's GOD).
DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles. copyleft wiki
Use the tag #LOGICZOMBIE if you'd like to participate in a civil debate or have your post critiqued for logical coherence.
Essential sites for (new) steemit users:
check anybody's steemit activity log
check anybody's steemit activity patterns (delegations)
offical steemit etiquette guide
check anybody's re-steems
check anybody's achievments
check anybody's ranking
identify the most influential steemit users
identify the current top 20 witnesses
advice for minnows and plankton
steemit explained (TBHTS)
are you tired of $0.00 rewards? (balance denominated in SBD)
are you tired of $0.00 rewards? also check
important facts about rep
Also, set your rewards to 100% steem-power and you'll get a cool steem logo next to all your posts!!
Also, if you're getting harassed by downvoters, please appeal to @ freezepeach (setting your rewards to "declined" doesn't seem to protect you from loss of rep, although it does dissuade steemcleaners and steemflagrewards). Downvoters with lower rep than you won't bring your rep down.
Please consider delegating a few steem to @ freezepeach to show at least token support for their valiant efforts (just leave a comment if you don't know how to delegate).
Also, you can try to appeal unfair downvotes in @ steemflagrewards' #casulty-care channel on Discord. Then, they might consider evaluating it. **
Protesting without dialogue (with the sole intent to silence opposition) is harassment, not free speech.
I'm not a fan of ad hominem attacks, but I'm even less of a fan of censorship and retaliation.
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue and civil debate).
FROM THE OFFICIAL (UNOFFICIAL) STEEMIT ETIQUITE GUIDE
Perhaps anarchy already exists and government is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – @thoughts-in-time
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Will think on this. I'm not sure I agree with some of the absolutes being used in the video. I've questioned why so many believe God is good (using our standards). Could be God is either not aware of us (in the same way we are not aware of the goings on of ourselves on a molecular structure for the most part), or perhaps we are so far beneath God it is a true gift if this being interacts in any way of kindness with any of us.
The great pizza argument maybe eluding me, as it seems the argument was that a great pizza doesn't exist when I know from experience that it has existed. Now the argument could be that because it was eaten (or spoiled over time) that it's possible there will never again be a great pizza. Extrapolating from that line of thinking, a Deist could argue (playing devils advocate here) that God once existed like the great pizza, but had an expiration like the pizza. Or, not supported here but also possible, grew bored of It's insubordinate creations and moved It's attention elsewhere.
I will need to revisit this video again if/when I have time. Something about it felt off, and I don't think I captured it fully with my quick layout on the great pizza observation.
This video caught my attention because it was played as a paid advert on yo.utube.
William Lane Craig is paying good money to force people to watch this propaganda which William Lane Craig believes supports his version of Christianity (spoiler alert, it does nothing of the sort).
It makes the bald-assertion that "a maximally great god" is a "coherent concept" without any supporting definitions or logical structure to support such a claim.
And yet, it is eager to show the "incoherence" of a maximally great pizza, again, without any supporting definitions or logical structure to support such a claim.
It's a pet project of mine to point out that DEISM = ATHEISM, and I find it interesting that Christians seem to think that "the ontological argument" somehow "supports" their case(???).
By the way, I believe it's worth mentioning that an ontological argument is basically a bald-assertion.
I define a word, and then assert that word represents something that "exists". End of ontological argument.
"A maximally great god" could be any god. It could be Brahman, it could be Ein Sof, it could be The Great Spirit, it could be Magnum Mysterium (the unknowable, NOUMENON).
Nothing about "a maximally great god" suggests "YHWH" specifically.
I'm just trying to make it perfectly clear there is no straight line between DEISM (the ontological argument) and any particular specific god or gods.
Either there is a god or there is no god. I'm fine with either option. I believe in God. But people can say that I am wrong. That is fine. Because I am not saying there is a God. I don't know. Well, I think I know. But I'm choosing to believe in God. But if there was no God, then why does our heart says there is a god? Why do we tell our heart to shut up? As we grow older, we tend to drift from what we believe and our hearts grow colder and colder and harder and harder.
I would think because we come to the rationalization, for whatever reason(s), there is no god.
I would assume it's because our belief in god came from those whose actions come with best intentions for us. Especially if instilled from one's parents. Heart here being implied as our inner being of love and trust, as children that comes with a blind faith as they are incapable to distinguish otherwise, that can be seen with studies done with abused children attachment to their abusers. Individuals are driven by what they come to know, their level of trust is based on that. That changes over the course of one's lifetime.
If you assume there is no god, you do so without knowing everything which means you could be wrong. You could be right and you can be wrong. So, people who say there is no god are making statements they cannot prove. You may wish there was no god. But there is a god. But you choose to reject Christ from your life. You have no idea what you are missing. Children have faith. It seems that you lost your inner faith in eternal principles. Life is full choices. So, as we grow, our trust level can change if we let it in either direction in a variety of ways.
We can posit any god you like as an AXIOM. HOWEver, your (any) god is functionally indistinguishable from NO-god.
You are only "right" or "wrong" when verifiable facts are revealed.
Up to and until that point, you're merely entertaining a hypothesis.
Your god is functionally indistinguishable from NO-god. There is nothing to "prove".
You may wish there was no Santa Claus. But there is a Santa Claus. But you choose to reject Santa Claus from your life.
Why do you hate Santa Claus so much?
You have no idea what you are missing. Children have faith (in Santa Claus). It seems that you lost your inner faith in eternal principles. Life is full choices. So, as we grow, our trust level can change if we let it in either direction in a variety of ways.
Santa:
We can talk about Santa. We can talk about history. People can believe in what they want to believe in. When we talk about Santa, we can talk about different versions to his story and then we can talk about source materials for Saint Nick and/or others.
God
We can do the same thing with God by tracing back the story of the fictional and/or non-fictional character and/or creator through history. We can look at how cultures from all around the world would pass on their own version of some kind of world flood.
Origin
What I would ask you is where do we come from. Was it evolution via the big bang and/or creation through some kind of creator and/or other things?
Are you suggesting you believe in Gilgamesh (flood story predates Abraham's account by a wide margin)?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits. There is no reason to jump to any conclusions without hard evidence or logical necessity.
Look, even if everything was created by some "intelligent designer", that supposition alone provides zero support for any version of "YHWH".
It also provides zero support for any specific human moral framework.
DEISM (intelligent design) = ATHEISM
The two are functionally indistinguishable.
If there is a God, would He want us to be robots or to have freewill which means people doing good and sometimes doing bad?
Well, if you're talking about the mythical "YHWH", it didn't seem to like "freewill" too much for Adam & Eve or for Noah, or for Sodom & Gomorrah.
It all seems a bit slap-dash for something that's supposed to be "all knowing" and "all powerful".
How do you know what you do not know is mythical or not mythical?
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary (like NOUMENON).
Everything else is indistinguishable from pure imagination (myth).
How do you know that? You have nice theories that you call facts. I don't necessarily disagree with you. But you do not if your brain, your logic, your way of thinking, is pure imagination or not. So, you have faith in your God, your Savior, which you call REAL-TRUE-FACTS and you bow down to it. You swear to it. So, you can have fun with your religion.
I'm perfectly willing to consider your definition of "facts".
How do you personally distinguish "fact" from "fiction"?
Does it matter if I can't go with my gut?
"Intelligent Design" = DEISM = ATHEISM
Speaking of Intelligent Design, I watching a video by Answers of Genesis (AIG) and Ken Ham was once my teacher at WOLBI NY. I prefer him over Bill Nye. I prefer observational science over excessive dependency on historical science which relies too much on guessing.
agreed
The greatest opponents of Theism are atheists. To be against something you think doesn't exist is like saying there are no apple trees. In principle you could use any placeholder and say that there is nothing good under the sun or that there is no stupidity. If I negate God, it doesn't mean that I am very different from the view that says that God exists.
Actually, the atheists are the best friends of the theists because they assure each other of the subject. The theme is what unites them in their enmity. You cannot argue about something you do not get satisfaction from. The eternal dispute is not about whether God exists or not, but about whether one is willing to understand the other. It actually means: Grant me my kind of worldview, although I do not grant you yours. An absurd contradiction. Or more directly: Agree with me even though I don't agree with you. It is an attitude that demands maturity from the other, but is not aware of it. The extreme, which is loud about this, thinks of the other rather as an enemy, but overlooks that the other is much more of a friend than it appears to be.
There is the reproach to the theists: Is it not enough that I admire a beautiful garden? Must a fairy also live under every leaf?
The answer of the Theist might be: What's wrong with the idea of a fairy under every leaf?
I suspect that behind the mutual rejection is the assumption that people who believe in God are retrograde or anti-progressive, and the few extreme examples where this seems obvious are enough for the atheist to flush all the theists down the toilet at the same time. The theists accuse the atheists of ruthlessness by claiming that an unbeliever has nothing to hold on to and is therefore a bad companion for fellow human beings on their deathbed.
Neither of them realize that they represent the majority of human views that try to agree on something on which they have long since agreed. That there is an issue worth arguing about.
One can offer the other some mental surprises and after all everyone is looking for that. For intelligent suggestions. So anyone who sees himself as an advocate of one side or the other is called upon to argue elegantly. Nothing less is expected of each other than to practice the art of argumentation, to refine it and to remain open to the unexpected. However, insofar as this openness is not encouraged by either one or the other, but rather pessimism prevails from the outset that the other will not be accessible to any suggestion, the prophecy is always fulfilled by itself.
Excellent analogy.