I see you don't understand deism very well. A deist believes that some intelligent force created the universe as we know it. In making this creation certain natural laws were setup to govern things. This force is clearly powerful, but not necessary omnipotent and definitely not omnipresent. So no I don't believe in God as a "Supreme Being". Nor do I believe that whatever intelligent force created us, is watching over us and meddling with things.

Lets liken this to a car manufacturer. The manufacturer designed the car, giving it the abilities to perform its tasks. The car is then placed in the hands of a user. The manufacturer, at this point, does not control or watch over how the car is used.

Whether this intelligent force is still around and watching the results of its creation, I do not know. What I do strongly believe is that the God that you believe in as "the ultimate in wisdom, love, mercy..." could not allow the evils that exist in this world. And yes I understand all the rationalizations to justify those evils while still maintaining those beliefs, so please don't waste our time by repeating them. The bottom line is those rationalizations are based on faith. I see the evils as real and factual, I see the rationalizations as blind faith in some sort of grand design. And I cannot accept blind faith in anything.

ScottGem,
I assure you that my faith is not blind.
My life's experiences dealing with God keep my mind and mind's eye very much open to see and witness more.
Also is some intelligence were able to create the universe, then I'm certain that is supreme over any other that we can conceive of.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I don't take anything on faith, I prefer things to be tangible. I need evidence to believe in something.

---

Firstly,
ScottGem, for someone who doesn't take anything on faith and who needs evidence to believe in something you make a lot of statements about what you believe in (see next three quotes). Where is the evidence for any of these beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

In other threads I spoke about my beliefs as a deist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

A deist believes that some intelligent force created the universe as we know it.

---

Quote:

---

What I do strongly believe is that the God that you believe in as "the ultimate in wisdom, love, mercy..." could not allow the evils that exist in this world.

---

Secondly,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

But truth is something that can be proven, not something that you just believe on faith.

---

Actually truth is NOT something that can be proven at all! If you think about it all proofs regarding what is true have at their basis some set of axioms; statements whose truth cannot be proven but just accepted i.e. you need to believe in the truth of the axioms on faith to then be able to prove the truth of the statement that you are interested in.

Thirdly,

Quote:

---

And, if "god is in control" as you said earlier, then how do you have choice? The two concepts are contrdictory.

---

Some would also say that a particle and a wave are two concepts that are contradictory yet light has no trouble being both!

And finally,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

And he's the ultimate only if you believe he is, therefore, his truth imust be true only if you have faith in it.

---

Your argument above is illogical for if an omnipotent God exists, then his existence would NOT depend upon whether anyone believes in him or not. He would therefore be the ultimate irrespective of whether you believe in him or not. His truth, therefore, is NOT, true only if you have faith in it but IS true irrespective of whether you believe in him or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

ScottGem,
I assure you that my faith is not blind.
My life's experiences dealing with God keep my mind and mind's eye very much open to see and witness more.
Also is some intelligence were able to create the universe, then I'm certain that is supreme over any other that we can conceive of.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

OK, I'll grant you that. I understand that your faith is based on what you have experienced. And I am also sure that you have done a good amount of rumination on how your experiences prove to you that the God of your scriptures is real. But it still boils down to taking things on faith not fact.

A child working with Legos (TM) can create some intricate constructs. But they are still a child. Our universe could simply be the creation of a child playing with toys given by its parents. Yes, an intelligence that could design this universe would seem supreme, but there always remains the possibility that they also answer to a higher power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Firstly,
ScottGem, for someone who doesn't take anything on faith and who needs evidence to believe in something you make a lot of statements about what you believe in (see next three quotes). Where is the evidence for any of these beliefs?

---

I've discussed my reasons for being a deist in other threads. I won't go into detail here. I will say simply, that I believe that the complexity of the universe is such that I cannot accept that it happened by accident. So my belief is based on a logical argument. Fact: the design of the universe is extremely complex, ergo it had to be the result of some intelligence.

With the third statement, I again use a logical argument. A being that is allegedly about peace, love, mercy etc. could not (according to my logical thinking) allow the evils of this world. Especially not the evils conducted in its name (the Inquisition, Jihads, etc.).

Now I understand that you can produce a similar logical reasoning. But your rationalization of why these evils are allowed is still based in your faith that your God has some grand design for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Actually truth is NOT something that can be proven at all! If you think about it all proofs regarding what is true have at their basis some set of axioms; statements whose truth cannot be proven but just accepted ie you need to believe in the truth of the axioms on faith to then be able to prove the truth of the statement that you are interested in.

---

Try looking up the definition of truth sometime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Some would also say that a particle and a wave are two concepts that are contradictory yet light has no trouble being both!

---

Frankly I know little about physics so don't know how correct that statement is. But I do know that if someone can control what you do or what happens to you, then you do not have true free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

your argument above is illogical for if an omnipotent God exists, then his existence would NOT depend upon whether anyone believes in him or not. He would therefore be the ultimate irrespective of whether you believe in him or not. His truth, therefore, is NOT, true only if you have faith in it but IS true irrespective of whether you believe in him or not.

---

We can go round and round on this one. The key here is IF an omnipotent being exists. Before you can accept his existence and therefore his truth, you have to believe in his existence. It's a simple Catch-22.

Scottgem,
Thanks for responding to my post. There are a few things that I must point out since my view of God was objectionable to you.

First, you speak of a Christian's blind faith and trust. Can I point out that you too have also used both emtional actions (blind faith and trust) to respond to my post. You trusted that I was very much real based on a set of "words" that "touched" an emotional chord with you. There was no picture of me or voice. All you had to go on was a title that I called myself and my words. And yet, you responded specifically to me, addressing what I had written because you knew and assumed I was real without any doubt---kind of like a blind faith and trust that you accused Christian's of using. You even supposed that I might write back as I am doing. You say you are a deist. Have you truly considered all things? Before you discount a Christian's belief, you need to read God's Word completely while truly asking God to reveal Himself to you. The only thing you have to lose is your view of God. God has never hid Himself from anyone that was looking for Him.

I was not always a Christian and at times thought as you did. So I can very much understand how you see things. But, as you chose to respond to my post, I did the same thing based on the Bible's post. I read it and asked the God of the Bible to be real to me. That is what He did. That was about 30 years ago. It took faith and trust to step across the line of unbelief. But after taking that step, the True God became my Personal Friend, Personal Savior and Personal Father. And yes, on a daily basis He does talk with me, comforts me and even punishes me as well. He is not like the "Santa" we grew up with finding one day to be "not real." I may not see Him, but He is very much real. I may not hear an audible voice, but I do hear the Words He speaks to my heart. I'm sure to the non-Christian, it looks pretty silly, but to the Christians, our "blinders" have been removed from our eyes, and we now see clearly.

I'm not offended by your post, but I do ask that before you judge Christians and their beliefs that you go searching for the God we serve.
Just remember, you can not see the wind, but it is there. You can feel it, you know it's there, and you ONLY see it when it touches someone or something. It also changes everything that it touches i.e. hair out of place, chill bumps, storms, dust, leaves moving etc. Just something to think about.
Rita

Quote:

---

Before you discount a Christian's belief, you need to read God's Word completely while truly asking God to reveal Himself to you.

---

This really doesn't make sense.

I'm a Deist too, I've read the bible, when to Catholic school for 10 years, which is why I'm a Deist.

You say that we have to ask God to reveal himself to us. The fact is that we don't believe that God is present. How can we ask for something we don't believe in?

It would be like asking Santa Claus to reveal himself.

What was your goal when you read the Bible or went to Catholic school for ten years? Was it something you had to do? I also read the Bible and went to church and I did not know God. I did it because I had to and very seldom could understand what it was saying. There were times, though, that I was curious. However, I was not searching for God. Later as a teenager I began to question what I had heard other Christians saying. That is when I went on my search to finding God. It was more than just reading my Bible and going to church. Those "things" didn't save me. They just pointed me to God. I did take that step of "faith" still wondering if the God that Christians were talking about would actually be a part of my life. God did not dissappoint me. I do understand what you are saying. Human reasoning and logic is a road that most people rely. But it is a road that will lead to a lot of dead-ends. Christians do not claim to have all the answers. But we do serve a God who does. The hardest step a person makes when becoming a Christian is letting go of "what they know" and feel comfortable with and placing their faith and trust in the One who created them.

As I said earlier, if you truly go searching for God, you will find Him. You're right, it would be silly to call on Santa, because we know He is not real. But I must warn you, that seeking God will have different consequences. His reason and logic behind what He does is based on His being in total control and seeing the whole picture at all times. His Word says in Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
(9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I am no longer burdened with trying to "figure it out." We do live in a complex universe that even baffles MY mind. But there is a relief in no one longer having to have all the answers.

Altenweg,
By your own adminsion you are not a Christian because of the way you were treated at that school.
Unforntunately that has happened to others as well.
You were not treated as a true Christian SHOULD treat you.
Please do not blame Christianity for the actions of very poor or bad Christians.
I do believe you read the bible with the way you were treated in that school.
Thus it affected the way and attitude you had when reading it.
Cast you hate or dislike aside as if it were garbage of the mind and heart and reread the bible with an open mind and love of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

Scottgem,
Thanks for responding to my post. There are a few things that I must point out since my view of God was objectionable to you.

---

Who said it was "objectionable to me"? It is not what I CHOOSE to believe, but I have no problem if you believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

First, you speak of a Christian's blind faith and trust. Can I point out that you too have also used both emtional actions (blind faith and trust) to respond to my post. You trusted that I was very much real based on a set of "words" that "touched" an emotional chord with you. There was no picture of me or voice. All you had to go on was a title that I called myself and my words. And yet, you responded specifically to me, addressing what I had written because you knew and assumed I was real without any doubt---kind of like a blind faith and trust that you accused Christian's of using.

---

Oh please! What, I'm supposed to think that your post appeared out of thin air? Or that some computer program responded to this thread? I have never seen an AI program that sophisticated to post a response like you did. And I don't believe it appeared out of thin air, so there has to be a person sitting at a keyboard somewhere typing into the box.

And your response did not strike an "emotional chord" with me. Rather, I while I have no problem with what you believe, I feel it needs to be clarified as your beliefs, not some statement of fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

You even supposed that I might write back as I am doing. You say you are a deist. Have you truly considered all things? Before you discount a Christian's belief, you need to read God's Word completely while truly asking God to reveal Himself to you. The only thing you have to lose is your view of God. God has never hid Himself from anyone that was looking for Him.

---

Again, these are your BELIEFS. I know plenty of people who have not found God no matter how hard they looked. I am not "discounting" your beliefs. I have said time and time again, that I am very glad for people who find comfort in those beliefs. But I do object to people who proselytize that their beliefs are universal and everyone must believe them. This is what I'm getting from the post I am responding to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

It took faith and trust to step across the line of unbelief. But after taking that step, the True God became my Personal Friend, Personal Savior and Personal Father.

---

Exactly it took faith. And you believe that he talks to you etc. But how can you prove it? Until you can its your belief. Excuse me, but I require more concrete proof. If you can give it to me, I'll be happy to listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

I'm not offended by your post, but I do ask that before you judge Christians and their beliefs that you go searching for the God we serve.
Just remember, you can not see the wind, but it is there. You can feel it, you know it's there, and you ONLY see it when it touches someone or something. It also changes everything that it touches i.e. hair out of place, chill bumps, storms, dust, leaves moving etc. Just something to think about.
Rita

---

There is no reason you should be offended. I am not judging Christians for their beliefs, I am simply saying its not the only way to believe and you should not be judging me for my beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Cast you hate or dislike aside as if it were garbage of the mind and heart and reread the bible with an open mind and love of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

And if she does that (or has done it), will you then accept that she doesn't believe in the same things you do? Will you accept that she has the right to not believe the same things you do? Will you not think less of her because she has not chosen the same path you have? Wouldn't a "True Christian" do that?

[QUOTE=elscarta;2113792]
Secondly,



Actually truth is NOT something that can be proven at all! If you think about it all proofs regarding what is true have at their basis some set of axioms; statements whose truth cannot be proven but just accepted i.e. you need to believe in the truth of the axioms on faith to then be able to prove the truth of the statement that you are interested in.

Thirdly,



Some would also say that a particle and a wave are two concepts that are contradictory yet light has no trouble being both!



Hi elscarta,

As far as truth is concerned would you allow for two types of truths (leaving aside synthetic apriori)?

You didn't mention analytic truths which can be put into the form of self-evident axioms. Eg. Law of Identity, x(x=x) From these we can derive second order propositions, which as you say are really only based on faith.

Would you agree that the propositions of faith are of the synthetic type.
To put this another way, these are anticedently derived axioms.
Eg. The Identity of Indiscernibles. For any x and y, given that x and y have the same properties, x is identical to y.

The reason I mention this is because of your second comment regarding wave/particle duality. Two non-identical objects which are identical is a contradiction. It seems as though light can violate any principle of identity it likes, at least at the micro level.

ScottGem,
I hope that there in no one here whom is judging you for your beliefs.
I am not.
In most countries that I am aware of it is a person's right to believe as one wishes.
Yes there are some in which that is not the case. In a few a person can lose one's life for not believing as the powers that be demand.
Unfortunately the Taliband and AlQueda are trying to force that on the world.
So enjoy your right to believe as you wish for the time being.
Who knows what will happen or when if the terrorists succeed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ScottGem,
Yes, I long ago have accepted her belief as she wishes to.
I was just offering some advice concerning why she believe as she does.
It was personal.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I just want to clarify a few things, but I don't feel like quoting everyone, so bear with me.

Yes, I went to Catholic school for 10 years, no, I was not treated well, because I wasn't Catholic, I was Lutheran.

The Lutheran church that we went to treated me very well. I was baptized in the Lutheran religion and at the age of 14 I attended confirmation classes for 2 years and was confirmed in the Lutheran religion.

I'm still very close to the Pastor of my old church. He's a wonderful man. Sadly, he was kicked out of our church because he argued with someone higher up. The church he ended up going to was simply too far away for us to trek to every Sunday.

I was married in the Lutheran church that I went to since coming to Canada at the age of 3 1/2.

I have read the bible with an open mind. Yes, the reason I don't believe in organized religion is because of my experiences in the Catholic school and church that I went to for 10 years. At least that was the case in the beginning.

No, my belief in Deism isn't because I was treated unfairly. My belief in Deism came about because I had questions that no one had answers to. At least not answers that made any sense. When I questioned parts of the bible I was told to just believe, that I wasn't allowed to question, that I should just accept everything I was being told and follow all the other sheep.

I've never been a follower.

I started to ask my parents questions and they encouraged me to find the answers. The answers I found didn't lead to a Christian God. The questions I asked weren't answered in the bible.

I am a Deist because I've exhausted every other option and haven't found an answer that fits as well as Deism does.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Fred, I have to say that you are one of the few Christians that hasn't judged me or condemned me for my beliefs. I think that your faith is one that brings you peace, and you understand what being a true Christian really means. Sadly you are not the norm.

Peace and kindness to you as well Fred. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

So my belief is based on a logical argument. Fact: the design of the universe is extremely complex, ergo it had to be the result of some intelligence.

---

The flaw in the above argument is that complexity does not necessarily imply design/intelligence.

Try looking up the Mandelbrot Set to see how easily complexity can arise from a simple definition.

Quote:

---

With the third statement, I again use a logical argument. A being that is allegedly about peace, love, mercy etc. could not (according to my logical thinking) allow the evils of this world. Especially not the evils conducted in its name (the Inquisition, Jihads, etc.).

Now I understand that you can produce a similar logical reasoning. But your rationalization of why these evils are allowed is still based in your faith that your God has some grand design for us.

---

ScottGem, you do not have a logical argument. The rules of logic are very well defined. You state an absolute negative; a loving God cannot exist due to the presence of evil in the world.

According to the rules of logic you have to show that there is no possible way to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil. On the other hand, to disprove your argument logically, all I have to do is provide a way to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil in this world.

As you have stated "God has some grand design for us" is one way to reconcile a loving God with the evil in the world. So by your own admission you have shown the flaw in your argument being a logical one.

Now before you start saying that this reason is based on faith, it is not important whether you believe the reason is true, the fact that there is a possible reason is enough to invalidate your logical argument.

What you are left with is an emotive argument so please do not continue to say that you have a logical reason for not believing in a loving God.

Quote:

---

Try looking up the definition of truth sometime.

---

This reply shows me that you do not understand the philosophical implications of statements regarding truth and proof. Have you read about Plato's views of the Ideal, and the concept of Absolute Truth?

Quote:

---

Frankly I know little about physics so don't know how correct that statement is. But I do know that if someone can control what you do or what happens to you, then you do not have true free will

---

.

It is easy to verify my statement about light just Google dual nature of light.

Also just because God is able to control what you do doesn't mean he will control what you do. Also even if God controls what happens to you doesn't mean that you are not free to choose how to respond to what is happening to you.

"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink".

The God I believe in certainly guides my life and uses my free choices, even if they go against what he wishes for me, in the best possible way to bring about his grand design.

Quote:

---

We can go round and round on this one. The key here is IF an omnipotent being exists. Before you can accept his existence and therefore his truth, you have to believe in his existence. It's a simple Catch-22.

---

You have missed the point of my reply. Your original point was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

his truth imust be true only if you have faith in it.

---

In other words you believe that the truth about God is dependent upon a person's belief in God. This is false!

The truth about God's existence/non-existence does NOT depend upon what anyone believes. You cannot wish away the existence of God (if he exists) just as I cannot wish his existence (if he doesn't exist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

As far as truth is concerned would you allow for two types of truths (leaving aside synthetic apriori)?

You didn't mention analytic truths which can be put into the form of self-evident axioms. Eg. Law of Identity, x(x=x) From these we can derive second order propositions, which as you say are really only based on faith.

Would you agree that the propositions of faith are of the synthetic type.
To put this another way, these are anticedently derived axioms.
Eg. The Identity of Indiscernibles. For any x and y, given that x and y have the same properties, x is identical to y.

---

Tut, could you please elaborate on your post as I am not sure what you think the two types of truths are.

Also what exactly do you mean by anticedently derived axioms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Who said it was "objectionable to me"? It is not what I CHOOSE to believe, but I have no problem if you believe it.



Oh please! What, I'm supposed to think that your post appeared out of thin air? Or that some computer program responded to this thread?? I have never seen an AI program that sophisticated to post a response like you did. And I don't believe it appeared out of thin air, so there has to be a person sitting at a keyboard somewhere typing into the box.

And your response did not strike an "emotional chord" with me. Rather, I while I have no problem with what you believe, I feel it needs to be clarified as your beliefs, not some statement of fact.



Again, these are your BELIEFS. I know plenty of people who have not found God no matter how hard they looked. I am not "discounting" your beliefs. I have said time and time again, that I am very glad for people who find comfort in those beliefs. But I do object to people who proselytize that their beliefs are universal and everyone must believe them. This is what I'm getting from the post I am responding to.



Exactly it took faith. And you believe that he talks to you etc. But how can you prove it? Until you can its your belief. Excuse me, but I require more concrete proof. If you can give it to me, I'll be happy to listen.



There is no reason you should be offended. I am not judging Christians for their beliefs, I am simply saying its not the only way to believe and you should not be judging me for my beliefs.

---

Sorry if you thought I was judging you for what you believe. It was not my intent. I only wanted to point out why I see things the way I do. And, you are right, it is hard to explain the somewhat unexplainable, especially if you are wanting physical proof.

I never meant to convert you either. My comments were never meant to be abrasive or harsh. If so, I do apologize.

Rita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Tut, could you please elaborate on your post as I am not sure what you think the two types of truths are.

Also what exactly do you mean by anticedently derived axioms?

---

Hello elscarta,

I wasn't very clear before, so I'll give it another go.

The first type of truth I was referring to is that of a logical axiom that formulates as a tautology. I n the case of identity I am assuming that x(x=x) is a tautology and therefore holds universally true. I was assuming you didn't include these types of self-evident truths because they don't have to be based on faith.

The second type of truth ( which I think you say are taken on faith) are those truths which can be derived from the logical axiom that was formulated as a tautology These subsequent truths are not tautologies but based on qualitative properties that a thing can exhibit. I thought my second example of, Identity of Indiscernible 'fitted the bill'.

These types of formulations don't need to be formulated as axioms.
"antecedently supposed axioms" was a bad choice of words on my part.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread, but anyway.

Regards
Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnrg

I never meant to convert you either. My comments were never meant to be abrasive or harsh. If so, I do apologize.

Rita

---

There is nothing to apologize for. All I was doing in my response was to clarify your statements as your beliefs, not provable statements of fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

The flaw in the above argument is that complexity does not necessarily imply design/intelligence.

---

No flaw at all. I look at the complex interaction of biology, geology, physics, chemistry etc. and I see intelligent design. I see two potential explanations for the universe as it exists, either random events or intelligent design. Because my sense of logic impels me to disbelieve in random events, I believe in an intelligent design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

ScottGem, you do not have a logical argument. The rules of logic are very well defined. You state an absolute negative; a loving God cannot exist due to the presence of evil in the world.

As you have stated "God has some grand design for us" is one way to reconcile a loving God with the evil in the world. So by your own admission you have shown the flaw in your argument being a logical one.
Now before you start saying that this reason is based on faith, it is not important whether you believe the reason is true, the fact that there is a possible reason is enough to invalidate your logical argument.

---

Sorry, but I don't accept that. According to you one can propose any possibility to negate an argument. I'm not sure where you are getting your rules of logic, but then don't jive with what I've been taught.

Premise: God is loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: a loving God would not allow such Evil as exists.

There is nothing wrong with my logic or conclusion. You may not agree with my conclusion because you believe there are reasons that a loving God would allow such Evil is rationalization. You may come to a different conclusion based on your beliefs and your rationalization. But that does not negate my logic in any way.

Hi Scott,

I just noticed your syllogism. If I can make a suggestion. One of the first things I would do is leave out of the conclusion are words like ,'such' 'allow' and 'exist' because they are not in your premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Scott,

I just noticed your syllogism. If I can make a suggestion. One of the first things I would do is leave out of the conclusion are words like ,'such' 'allow' and 'exist' because they are not in your premises.

---

Premise: God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: an omnipotent, loving God would not allow Evil.

Do you like that better? I still need the allow in the conclusion otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Premise: God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: an omnipotent, loving God would not allow Evil.

Do you like that better? I still need the allow in the conclusion otherwise it doesn't make sense.

---

ScottGem, by including "allow" in your conclusion you have broken the rules of logical arguments since the introduction of a new idea in your conclusion does not follow logically from your stated premises.

If you wish to use "allow" in your conclusion then rephrase your premises to include "allow".

The following is an example of a logical argument based on your premises.


Premise:
God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: God is not Evil.

As you can see the conclusion does not contain anything which is not already define in the premises and the structure of the argument is valid.

a = b
c = not b
therefore a = not c

For a more in depth explanation of both what makes a valid argument and what makes an invalid argument (fallacy) check out the links below.

Arguments

List of Fallacies

elscarta,
You have made a very good point.
Thanks for that and the links.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

If you wish to use "allow" in your conclusion then rephrase your premises to include "allow".

---

Your example is not valid because it does not say what I want it to say. Nor have you made a very good point. I have said very clearly and specifically, that my argument is based on what makes sense to me. I have stated that I am not trying to present a universal truth. I am not trying to prove to you or anyone that my conclusion is the only one out there.

I will state this one more time. I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

I understand that other people may come to different conclusions because they place faith in the concept that God has some grand plan that tragedy and evil is a part of. I am happy for those people and am glad they can find comfort in that faith. I CANNOT! I have not come lightly to this conclusion. Nor am I alone in this conclusion. Last night I watched the movie Employee of the Month, where these very same conclusions were made by the main character.

So, if you want to state what you BELIEVE and why feel free to do so. I have no concrete proof that you are wrong, just as you have no concrete proof that you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Your example is not valid because it does not say what I want it to say.

---

I never said that I was trying to say what you wanted to say. I was giving you an example of a logical conclusion that can be drawn from your two premises and showing you how the conclusion follows from those premises in the hope that you could then see how you should phrase your premises and conclusions so that they are logically valid.

Quote:

---

Nor have you made a very good point.

---

The point I was making was regards to the structure of a logical argument not to whether your argument is correct or not. Acura understood this.

Furthermore just because an argument is logically structured does not make it necessarily true.

For example consider the following argument.

Premise:
All men are evil.

Peter is a man.

Conclusion:
Peter is evil.

This argument is logically structured, this means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. But the conclusion is false since the first premise is false.

Quote:

---

I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

---

ScottGem, what I have been asking for in my last two posts is for you to explicate your line of reasoning and so far you have not done that.

Maybe if you answer these questions I can work out what your line of reasoning is.

Which one of the four attributes that you have listed(omnipotent, love, peace or morality) do you see necessitates not allowing or condoning the level of tragedy and evil?

Or is it a combination of more that one of them?

Try leaving out each attribute in turn, do you come to the same conclusion in each case?

Also, not directly related to the above;

I have read that some Deists believe in an afterlife, what is your position on this?

And am I right in surmising that you believe in "free-will"?

elscarta,
I also will be interested in any answers to the questions you asked Scottgem.
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I will state this one more time. I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

I understand that other people may come to different conclusions because they place faith in the concept that God has some grand plan that tragedy and evil is a part of. I am happy for those people and am glad they can find comfort in that faith. I CANNOT! I have not come lightly to this conclusion. Nor am I alone in this conclusion. Last night I watched the movie Employee of the Month, where these very same conclusions were made by the main character.

So, if you want to state what you BELIEVE and why feel free to do so. I have no concrete proof that you are wrong, just as you have no concrete proof that you are right.

---

I said I will state this ONCE more. I think I have made my position abundantly clear and have answered any questions asked.

Scottgem,
That's interesting. I do not agree.
Sorry about that but that's the way I am.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Furthermore just because an argument is logically structured does not make it necessarily true.

For example consider the following argument.

Premise:
All men are evil.

Peter is a man.

Conclusion:
Peter is evil.

---

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

---

Hi sndbay,

I was just interested in the way you use the equal sign, e.g.. Hope =
Usually that shows that something is equal to something else. There are at least four different ways 'is' can be used, all of which carry a different meaning.

For example, 'Superman IS Clark Kent' or Superman=Clark Kent. Formulated in this way we are saying that Superman and Clark Kent have exactly the same attributes. The two are really one and the same.

How you have formulated, "hope= gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God HIS fellowman" seems to be using 'is' in the predicate form. In other words, hope is what you have said it is, but it can be many other things as well. In the predicate form it is not restricted to the definition you have given.

You wouldn't think such a little word could cause so much confusion in language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

---

I see no problem with Hope and logic.

Following on from my previous example.

Premise:
Peter is evil.

Hope exists. (opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman)

Conclusion:

Peter has opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

---

This question does not relate to the structure of a logical argument. Personally I believe that there is always hope. I base this on experience that has shown me that even in what appears the most hopeless of situations people can still change for the better.

Quote:

---

This question does not relate to the structure of a logical argument. Personally I believe that there is always hope. I base this on experience that has shown me that even in what appears the most hopeless of situations people can still change for the better.

---

You're basing your post on your belief. When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief? That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

Proof, that's what a Deist needs. Until you can provide proof for your beliefs they remain just that, your beliefs. Beliefs aren't based on evidence, they're based on what you feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

You're basing your post on your belief. When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief? That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

Proof, that's what a Deist needs. Until you can provide proof for your beliefs they remain just that, your beliefs. Beliefs aren't based on evidence, they're based on what you feel.

---

Hello Altenweg,
Beliefs do require proof if we wish to communicate them to other people. If we just communicate a belief without proof then we have a situation whereby everyone has their own beliefs and these beliefs are subjective.
This gives rise to a situation whereby we are unable to test our beliefs against the belief of others. Normally the test is in the form of a logical argument.

For example, if I were a Deist (which I am not ) I could say that I BELIEVE we live in a probabilistic universe in which the laws of probability have to be obeyed, even by God. Once God has set the laws in motion he has a restricted role. ( I think that is what Deists claim?)

I could put this BELIEF to the test in the form of a LOGICAL syllogism.

Premise(1) Probability accounts for Gods greatness
Premise (2) Gods greatness accounts for goodness.
Conclusion Probability accounts for goodness.

I hope this helps

Thank you Acura for the informative post.
I do not wish to argue the existence of God nor satan. I would like to, however, discuss the article and the points that it makes.
As stated, it says how and why satan tries to destroy mankind and God's creation. The destruction of man's spirit has more of an impact on God's intent then mortal death itself. I would think that for a person to die by some cataclysmic event is less destructive than destroying a man's spirit itself, which gives into much more devistation. It is not of much gain to satan to merely kill a man, but if he can separate his family, cause him despair, take away his goodness and confidence, it will have much more of an impact to himself and his generations than just killing him. The death of one's spirit is of more use to satan's plot than mortal death itself. It can drive a man to turn away from God which is exactly satan's goal.
Satan has no interest in those who do not follow God, they are not in his way and he has no use for them, for they are already doing his work. It's those who walk with God that are satan's enemies. Through satan's malicious and deceptive works, he murders, kills and destroys man in both the spiritual and the mortal scales.
As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what children's book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible. All this talk about "logic", if applied, would prove a very different scenario.
Thank you again Acura, the article was very informative and relative. I would like to talk to you more on the subject as originally posted.

sabrewolfe,
Thank you.
Your post was well though out.
I agree that with your thoughts on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabrewolfe

As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what childrens book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible.

---

If you read the post where that chart was posted, it said that it came from counting Biblical passages about people smitten by God. If you read the other posts discussing that particular issue, I'm not sure how you can make the above statement. At least four bibilical incidents were mentioned (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) that accounted for many thousands of lives lost due to God's direct actions. That the Bible states that God has directly killed many people by his actions is irrefutable.

You can argue that killings were justified and that they were done as part of God's vision for the world and on and on. I'm not getting into that argument. But to argue the fact that he has. To say that chart didn't come from biblical passages, to attribute it to a children's book, just makes you look foolish.

Check this article and tell me that chart didn't come from the Bible:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....lete-list.html

Googling how many people has God killed brings up several similar sites. And the totals are very close to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabrewolfe

As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what childrens book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible.

---

I believe it is based on the bible:
Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed?

Altenweg, I don't understand where all your angst against what I have posted is coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

You're basing your post on your belief.

---

And what am I supposed to base my post on?
Also I specifically qualified my last post with "I believe" as ScottGem asked for in post #36.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief?

---

Where did I claim that my belief is the one and only belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

---

Again where am I specifically telling everyone that my belief is the right one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Proof, that's what a Deist needs.

---

But apparently some Deists find it difficult to articulate their own reasons and formulate logical arguments and refuse to supply proof of their own beliefs.

Also don't claim to need proof if you are not prepared to read and discuss the proof that is provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

My only issue, if they don't beleive in God, then how do they beleive that "god" killed all of the people.

You can't not beleive when it serves your purpose and then beleive to make a point.

---

You hit it on nail so accurately.