So the FREE MAN still needs a god-daddyhenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am Bubba, in another thread, posed these questions...
...I'll answer 'em here.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:52 am 1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path
1. Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.
2. I'm a deist. Best I can tell The Creator created. He left behind no religion. Man has a conscience and certain inherent rights. Man, however, is also a free will. He's not bound to recognize or respect conscience or natural rights. God, it seems, gave man the tools (reason, conscience, free will) but leaves him to his own devices. Does He care for man? I'd like to think so, but I can't say for certain. That man is, as I say, the wildcard in a determined universe, that he recognizes he belongs to himself, that he can consider consequence, seems to indicate he has a purpose. Perhaps discovering that purpose (or purposes) on his own is part of the deal. Perhaps being told what his purpose is nullifies that purpose.
As I say elsewhere: an afterlife -- Valhalla-like, with drinkin' and wenchin' -- would be nice, but I have no reason to believe that, or any other, afterlife exists. This life may very well be our only shot, so we better make the best if it. As for salvation: I don't think man fell. I think man falls or rises in the here & now.
Alexis Jacobi, in that other thread, wrote: the world in which we are incarnate, exists between two poles: the world of God and 'angelic being' and Satan and 'demonic being'. Both of these *beings* are categories of spirits that are angelical. That means: non-physical, without material bodies, and yet with intelligence and also (importantly) will, that in terms of intentionality and purpose do not coincide. These purposes oppose one another.
I think this is, in some way, true. I believe this position of the world, of man, between these poles is related to man's ultimate or overarchin' purpose. Man may be the soldier, the battlefield, and the prize, but he can't be drafted, he has to choose.
None of this stuff about man sittin' between & betwixt Light & Darkness is addressed by a vanilla deism, by the way.
3. I don't believe Datsun is a real thing.
4. Man is a free will. He can choose good; he can choose evil. God, as I see Him, appears to highly value that capacity to choose in man (so much so, man can willfully, knowingly, ignore conscience and violate natural law/rights willy-nilly [though not without consequence]). Evil, then, may be the necessary price for free will just as free will is the necessary precursor to authentic good.
Deism
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Deism
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Must be a deathly quiet night in NZ for you to come and mock me for no reason at all.
You must be bored out of your gourd.
Feel better? Entertained?
Glad I could help.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:52 am 1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
Right, like every single Deist who "follows the dictates of Reason and Nature" all agree on what that actually means in regard to moral and political conflagrations like abortion and gun control...given particular contexts.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am
1. Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.
It's like Kantians all agreeing that through reason we can establish deontologically the moral obligation of all rational men and women. But then when confronted with actual moral issues, they are just like the rest of us...all up and down the political spectrum.
And even here, as with IC, he merely assumes that his own "intellectual contraption" arguments about human autonomy need be as far as he goes in establishing that we do have free will. He believes it, so that makes it so.
Or, sure, maybe he does have the necessary empirical evidence able to establish what to the best of my knowledge actual neuroscientists themselves are still grappling with: comprehending a definitive understanding of the human brain.
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
Of course!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am 2. I'm a deist. Best I can tell The Creator created. He left behind no religion. Man has a conscience and certain inherent rights. Man, however, is also a free will. He's not bound to recognize or respect conscience or natural rights. God, it seems, gave man the tools (reason, conscience, free will) but leaves him to his own devices. Does He care for man? I'd like to think so, but I can't say for certain. That man is, as I say, the wildcard in a determined universe, that he recognizes he belongs to himself, that he can consider consequence, seems to indicate he has a purpose. Perhaps discovering that purpose (or purposes) on his own is part of the deal. Perhaps being told what his purpose is nullifies that purpose.
I knew that sooner or later he would come around to a God, the God, my God. Just not IC's Christian God. But a Creator nonetheless. Though of course as with IC, it's a Creator he merely has "faith" in. Or, perhaps, he is able to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, his God that started the ball rolling but then, after providing mere mortals with Reason that "enables us to find God by doing good", He split the scene.
As for "doing good"?
Right down the line, issue by issue by issue, Henry is here to tell you exactly how you must behave in order to please...him.
"...some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not..." PBShenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am As I say elsewhere: an afterlife -- Valhalla-like, with drinkin' and wenchin' -- would be nice, but I have no reason to believe that, or any other, afterlife exists. This life may very well be our only shot, so we better make the best if it. As for salvation: I don't think man fell. I think man falls or rises in the here & now.
Just as with Henry's Libertarians, there are many different conflicting assessments of what Deists believe about, oh, lots of things?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
Right, so that settles it!!
No, really. The objectivist mind really does work that way. Once they have made up their mind on what it means to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" it's always their own conclusions.
As I noted to IC...
Like this isn't applicable to Henry. Of course our moral and political and religious values are going to be profoundly embedded in history and culture and personal experiences. In the people we meet. In the things we read and see and hear. Even his commitment to Deism evolved out of a series of personal experiences that put him in contact with it in the first place."Around the globe in community after community children are being brainwashed to believe in one or another God. Or in No God. And each of them as individuals has a unique trajectory of personal experiences that brings them closer to one point of view rather than another."
Again, back to the existential trajectory that unfolded in my own life in regards to my current commitment to moral nihilism...encompassed in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
Henry, of course, has his own existential trajectory here in turn.
Also, the argument I make that he always avoids:
Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?
And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?
And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path
And this has exactly what to do with Henry's estranged God bringing into existence countless "natural disasters", medical afflictions, viruses, extinction events, etc.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am 4. Man is a free will. He can choose good; he can choose evil. God, as I see Him, appears to highly value that capacity to choose in man (so much so, man can willfully, knowingly, ignore conscience and violate natural law/rights willy-nilly [though not without consequence]). Evil, then, may be the necessary price for free will just as free will is the necessary precursor to authentic good.
Yes, men and women can choose good and evil. But only Henry gets to tell us what that means issue by issue by issue.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Where did I say they would, or had to?like every single Deist who "follows the dictates of Reason and Nature" all agree on what that actually means in regard to moral and political conflagrations like abortion and gun control...given particular contexts.
I've been open about bein' a deist all over the forum: you act as though this is the first time you hear about it.I knew that sooner or later he would come around to a God
I did. It wasn't to your likin'. Okay by me. Here's the thing, bubba: I got no call to convert you. I just answered your questions. Your faith, or non-faith, is on you.perhaps he is able to demonstrate the existence of a God
Nope. You're a liar. Cite, in context, any post of mine wherein I demand folks live as I want.Henry is here to tell you exactly how you must behave in order to please...him.
Yes.Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you?
Yes.Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?
Yes.And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?
No.And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?
Not mine, bubba. And where's this estranged BS comin' from? You know what estranged means, yeah?Henry's estranged God bringing into existence countless "natural disasters", medical afflictions, viruses, extinction events, etc.
No, bubba, wrong again.only Henry gets to tell us what that means issue by issue by issue.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
Okay, let's explore Henry's own "private and personal" Deist God.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmWhere did I say they would, or had to?like every single Deist who "follows the dictates of Reason and Nature" all agree on what that actually means in regard to moral and political conflagrations like abortion and gun control...given particular contexts.
Now, generally...
"Deism is a religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation."
So, if moral laws are rationally comprehendible, would not all Deists then rationally comprehend how one ought to behave in regard to such things as having an abortion or owning bazookas? Or does each individual Deist get to have his or her own private and personal rendition of rational behavior here?
Rooted perhaps in...dasein?
Also, with the Deist God, is there or is there not a Judgment Day? Is there or is there not immortality and salvation?
Why should we believe what Henry says is rationally comprehendible here when other Deists insist that, on the contrary, it's what they believe about Deism that is the most rationally comprehendible instead?
How can the rest of us know for sure that this God does in fact exist and what exactly the rationally comprehendible behaviors regarding the zillions of conflicting goods that have rent the human species now for millennia are?
Ask Henry?
I knew that sooner or later he would come around to a God
It is. But then I've only been posting here now for a few months.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmI've been open about bein' a deist all over the forum: you act as though this is the first time you hear about it.
perhaps he is able to demonstrate the existence of a God
And, I supect, it wasn't to the liking of all the tens of millions of folks out there who share his belief in a God, the God, but insist that it is their God and not his God they worship and adore. And that their God would never, ever think of not being very much a part of their lives.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmI did. It wasn't to your likin'. Okay by me. Here's the thing, bubba: I got no call to convert you. I just answered your questions. Your faith, or non-faith, is on you.
As for this faith and not that faith being on us, I suggest that is rooted existentially in dasein...in the lives we live and the experiences we have predisposing us to this God or that God. Or to No God at all.
Henry is here to tell you exactly how you must behave in order to please...him.
Again, if the Deist God created mere mortals in order that they "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" which is it...henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmNope. You're a liar. Cite, in context, any post of mine wherein I demand folks live as I want.
1] that the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to react to having an abortion and owning a bazooka or...
2] that each of us as individuals can have our very own "private and personal" dictates of Reason and Nature in reacting to them?
Moral objectivism here or moral subjectivism?
Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you?
Details please.
Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?
Details please.
And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?
In other words, regarding any number of things he notes here pertaining to Deism itself, he is acknowledging that, yes, he may well be wrong.
And just to be clear, are you saying that no matter what new experiences you have, what new relationships you form, what new information and knowledge you come upon, there is no possibility of you changing your mind about abortion or guns?
Then by all means when that does happen to him, let him please apprise us of the circumstances. I'll start holding my breath.
Note to others:
Can you cite an experience you have had with Henry here [going back to 2008] in which you prompted him to change his mind about an issue important to him? Or a time when Henry himself noted an important change in his thinking about things like abortion and guns.
Henry's estranged God bringing into existence countless "natural disasters", medical afflictions, viruses, extinction events, etc.
Wait...henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmNot mine, bubba. And where's this estranged BS comin' from? You know what estranged means, yeah?
Did or did not his Deist God create planet Earth? Did or did not planet Earth uncork countless natural disasters that, down through the ages, have savaged the lives of millions and millions?
Did He create life, and then just let it evolve on its own into dangerous viruses and bacteria? Into hundreds and hundreds of medical afflictions? Into the occasional extinction event?
What's his rendition of the Deist God and the Yellowstone super-volcano?
And by "estranged" I meant taking Himself out of the day to day lives of His own creation.
only Henry gets to tell us what that means issue by issue by issue.
Well, he sure seems to come off as the moral and political objectivist to me here.
But maybe after he discloses the details all the times others here have changed his mind about an issue that is important to him, I'll see the light.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Rooted in individual reason, conscience, and free will, bubba.Rooted perhaps in...dasein?
Well, that's strange cuz I posted this...It is.
...a little while back in response to you.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:03 pm Bubba, you're a pip.
Me: I'm a deist. An afterlife -- Valhalla-like, with drinkin' and wenchin' -- would be nice, but I've no reason to believe that kinda afterlife, or any other, exists.
Admit it: you barely read...you scan.
Like Christians? More power to 'em. See I've never met a Christian who tried to make me into a Christian (unlike you who is desperate to turn me into a crossroads-sitter). I can respect a man who leaves me to my life, especially when he disagrees with me.it wasn't to the liking of all the tens of millions of folks out there who share his belief in a God, the God, but insist that it is their God and not his God they worship and adore. And that their God would never, ever think of not being very much a part of their lives.
That each man knows he is his own; that he knows his life, liberty, and property are his; that he knows it's wrong to kill him, to slave him, to rape him, to rob him, and bein' able to reason that other men are like him in this way (each bein' his own; and that it's wrong to kill, slave, rape, or rob any of 'em) a man can reasonably respond. But, as a free will, he can also choose to be unreasonable, choose not to recognize other men have the same right to life, liberty, and property, as he.the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to react to having an abortion and owning a bazooka or...
Like you, who'd take my property, not becuz I've done wrong with it, but becuz you're a'fear'd I might do wrong with it. You're unreasonable. You don't believe I have the same right to life, liberty, and property you do. And you excuse this as Datsun (it's not my fault I'm a wannabe slaver! I was made this way by up-bringing, circumstance, etc.). It is your fault: you're CS Lewis's benevolent tyrant. You'd leash me for my own good.
Conversations with a thoughtful friend and my own reasonin' moved me from a staunch atheism to deism.Details please.
Yep. And not just with deism.regarding any number of things he notes here pertaining to Deism itself, he is acknowledging that, yes, he may well be wrong.
As I say...
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:49 pmBe a good gatekeeper to your head; test and retest every assumption, every belief, regularly; where you find alien roots, excise them.
You could do it right now, if you have a mind to, easy-peasy.Then by all means when that does happen to him
You could kill my libertarianism, my deism if you can show me one man, just one, who believes it is right and proper that he should be property, a slave.
Show me this man: and the undergirdin' of what I believe goes bye-bye.
He did. And I explained why I believe Evil and evil exist.Did or did not his Deist God create planet Earth?
You don't like my reasonings...okay.
That's not what that word means.by "estranged" I meant taking Himself out of the day to day lives of His own creation.
Don't care if you do, bubba., and as long as you respect my life, liberty, and property; as long as I respect your life, liberty, and property, I don't have to.maybe...I'll see the light.
Oh, sure, I'm a moral realist, or objectivist: but you still don't get what that means, do you.Well, he sure seems to come off as the moral and political objectivist to me here.
Somehow, in your mind, a person bein' his own, and recognizin' other men have the same inviolate claim to themselves, is a bad thing. You've never actually addressed it.
I asked sculptor this...
...will you answer?
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
Right, like for each of us as individuals all around the globe, often living very different lives out in very different worlds understood in very different ways, we don't acquire reasons and a conscience existentially.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:23 pmRooted in individual reason, conscience, and free will, bubba.Rooted perhaps in...dasein?
As for free will: click.
it wasn't to the liking of all the tens of millions of folks out there who share his belief in a God, the God, but insist that it is their God and not his God they worship and adore. And that their God would never, ever think of not being very much a part of their lives.
By all means, live your life. I'm just noting that in regard to God and religion, the whole point for those "tens of millions" seems to be morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side. Any number of Christians will assure you that your own Deist God just doesn't cut it on Judgment Day. You're going straight to Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:23 pmLike Christians? More power to 'em. See I've never met a Christian who tried to make me into a Christian (unlike you who is desperate to turn me into a crossroads-sitter). I can respect a man who leaves me to my life, especially when he disagrees with me.
Again...
"...some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not, etc."
Then back again to this:
"The basic beliefs of all Deist theologies is that God exists and created the world, but beyond that, God has no active engagement in the world except the creation of human reason, which enables us to find God by doing good."Again, if the Deist God created mere mortals in order that they "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" which is it...
1] that the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to think about immortality and salvation or...
2] that each of us as individuals can have our very own "private and personal" dictates of Reason and Nature in regard to them
Now, what's the point of doing good in order to find God if there is nothing in it for you on the other side? After all, what is the 70 to 80 odd years we have on this side of the grave compared to "all of eternity" on the other side of it? Even the No God Buddhists came up with reincarnation.
Then straight back up into the clouds you go with your own "world of words" set of assumptions about the human condition:the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to react to having an abortion and owning a bazooka or...
Not sure what all this means in regard to your own reaction to abortion and bazookas and slaves? ? Aren't fiercely dogmatic about what the Deist God intended by "life, liberty, and property"? Need to know what the "dictates of Reason and Nature" demand of you here?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:23 pmThat each man knows he is his own; that he knows his life, liberty, and property are his; that he knows it's wrong to kill him, to slave him, to rape him, to rob him, and bein' able to reason that other men are like him in this way (each bein' his own; and that it's wrong to kill, slave, rape, or rob any of 'em) a man can reasonably respond. But, as a free will, he can also choose to be unreasonable, choose not to recognize other men have the same right to life, liberty, and property, as he.
Like you, who'd take my property, not becuz I've done wrong with it, but becuz you're a'fear'd I might do wrong with it. You're unreasonable. You don't believe I have the same right to life, liberty, and property you do. And you excuse this as Datsun (it's not my fault I'm a wannabe slaver! I was made this way by up-bringing, circumstance, etc.). It is your fault: you're CS Lewis's benevolent tyrant. You'd leash me for my own good.
Ask Henry.
Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you?
No, no, no. That conversation revolves around God and religion. I'm talking about discussions that revolve around your moral and political convictions.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmConversations with a thoughtful friend and my own reasonin' moved me from a staunch atheism to deism.
Though, sure, just out of curiosity, what was his or her argument that shifted your views? I shifted from Christianity to atheism as a result of my experiences in Vietnam. And the radical politics of fellow soldiers at the Song Be MACV. Dasein down to the bone.
How about those men who go to a dominatrix...precisely in order to be enslaved? And there are any number of men and women who actually prefer to be totally submissive in relationships.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pmYou could kill my libertarianism, my deism if you can show me one man, just one, who believes it is right and proper that he should be property, a slave.
Let me guess: they have the "dictates of Reason and Nature" all wrong.
Did or did not his Deist God create planet Earth?
Please explain it again. The part where natural disasters, medical afflictions, viral and bacterial pandemics and extinction events are all part and parcel of the "dictates of Reason and Nature" to this Deist God of yours.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pm He did. And I explained why I believe Evil and evil exist.
Starting here:
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... troduction
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... diphtheria
Or is this the explanation:
"Deistic evolution does not oppose or contradict evolution or come into conflict with science as it says that a God started the process and then left it to natural processes." wiki
How does that work? The Deist God creates life on Earth but He doesn't know how it will evolve and doesn't have the power to control it? He creates the laws of matter but then the laws of matter themselves are in command? No teleological components here at all?
In other words, I refuse to "get" that what you insist it means is what is always the most "realistic".henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pm Oh, sure, I'm a moral realist, or objectivist: but you still don't get what that means, do you.
Yes, this staunch individualism is what those like Ayn Rand and many Libertarians preached. Just in a No God world.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:42 pm Somehow, in your mind, a person bein' his own, and recognizin' other men have the same inviolate claim to themselves, is a bad thing. You've never actually addressed it.
But then back to the irony where those who refused to think about everything under the sun exactly as she did were "excommunicated" from the "collective". The secular rendition of an inquisition.
Well, if the Sculptor here is the ILP Sculptor there, he is just another objectivist himself. Only his religion is atheism.
Me, I would never argue that No God is the only rational frame of mind. For two reasons:
1] the gap
2] Rummy's Rule
As for my answer:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Yeah, cuttin' to the chase...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no.
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
Uh-oh, looks like another substantive exchange between me and an objectivist is about to bite the dust.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:21 pm Yeah, cuttin' to the chase...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no.
I know I am me and mine as a flesh and blood human being interacting with other flesh and blood human beings in the either/or world. I know that this presumes both free will and a Self not embedded in a sim world or dream world or Matrix "reality".
But that's not where I take "I", is it? Where I take the "self" is here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
"I" in the profoundly more problematic is/ought world. With or without God.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Yeah, already told you a half dozen times: if I wanted to be there, I would be. I'm not chasin' answers thru links.
Again...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no, bubba.
We, you and me, know the answer, and we know why you won't give it.
Again...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no, bubba.
We, you and me, know the answer, and we know why you won't give it.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
Sans the links, I already answered it:henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:43 pm Yeah, already told you a half dozen times: if I wanted to be there, I would be. I'm not chasin' answers thru links.
Again...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no, bubba.
We, you and me, know the answer, and we know why you won't give it.
I'm just noting that you are hardly the first objectivist I have reduced down to substance-less posts like this one. On the other hand, that you're not embarrassed by it is beyond my control.I know I am me and mine as a flesh and blood human being interacting with other flesh and blood human beings in the either/or world. I know that this presumes both free will and a Self not embedded in a sim world or dream world or Matrix "reality".
But that's not where I take "I", is it?
You're beat. It's just a matter of admitting it.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
That's not an an answer: that's equivocation.Sans the links, I already answered it:
I know I am me and mine as a flesh and blood human being interacting with other flesh and blood human beings in the either/or world. I know that this presumes both free will and a Self not embedded in a sim world or dream world or Matrix "reality".
...blah, blah, blah...old tactic, bubba: not worth spit.I'm just noting that you are hardly the first...
Last chance before I spill your beans and ruin your Datsun...
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
It's always an equivocal [or wrong] answer with you if it is not the answer that you give. Who here is not able to grasp that? That's what objectivists of your ilk do!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:29 pmThat's not an an answer: that's equivocation.Sans the links, I already answered it:
I know I am me and mine as a flesh and blood human being interacting with other flesh and blood human beings in the either/or world. I know that this presumes both free will and a Self not embedded in a sim world or dream world or Matrix "reality".
Although [above] I did ask others here to cite examples of where, in a discussion with you pertaining to moral and political value judgments, you acknowledged that an answer that they gave in conflict with yours was not equivocal or wrong, but right. Them being right from their side, you being right from yours. Again, depending on the initial set of assumptions regarding the human condition: "I or we", "capitalism or socialism", "nature or nurture", "realism or idealism", "objectivism or subjectivism", "dasein or deontology".
Let's see what comes from that. Nothing so far.
Ruin it? Hell, I want to be rid of it!!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:29 pmLast chance before I spill your beans and ruin your Datsun...
With dasein my moral and political value judgments are fractured and fragmented. I am ever and always "drawn and quartered" -- hopelessly ambivalent -- when confronting the "news of the day". I've thought myself into believing that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. I'm convinced "here and now" that oblivion is right around the corner.
Please, by all means ruin that for me!!!
No, what is really at stake here is that "I" will ruin it for you. I'll deconstruct that Precious Self of yours as, slowly but surely, you begin to grasp that my frame of mine ought to be your frame of mind too. Why? Because in being brutally honest about the "human condition" you'll admit to yourself that, estranged or not, there is no God. There is no "transcending font". There is no Precious Self.
There's just this:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Here, of course, what you aim to sustain "in your head" is the moral objectivist illusion that there is no difference between knowing and owning yourself when the question is "did Mary have an abortion?" or when it is "Is abortion moral or immoral?"henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:29 pmYou know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Yes or no.
"Does John own a bazooka?" or "is it natural that all of us be allowed to own a bazooka?"
A world in which the slaver is not allowed to believe that it is moral or natural to own slaves because the slaves don't believe it is moral or natural to be slaves.
Instead, it all comes down to a leap of faith to a God demanding that we "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"...but only if we follow it exactly like you do.
Thus back to the part that you studiously evade/avoid:
Which is it...
1] that the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to think about abortion and guns and slavery and immortality and salvation or...
2] that each of us as individuals can have our very own "private and personal" dictates of Reason and Nature in regard to them
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Deism
Okay.Please, by all means ruin that for me!!!
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Of course you do.
Why equivocate then?
To say yes, to acknowledge you are your own, irrevocably, inalienably, means you must acknowledge every other person is his own. You acknowledge, whether in a moral reality or a rudderless amoral affair, there is one fact upon which an ethic can be founded. And if there's an ethic, there's a standard, a means of distinguishin' right from wrong. And if there's a legit right, one applicable to all men, your nihilism is empty, your Datsun a fiction. To say yes is to lose the luxury of it's not my fault! I'm just a product of my time and place!. To say yes is assume responsibility for yourself and, yes, to responsibly judge others. Not punish them, judge them. You no longer get to say John and Mary have equivalent arguments. You have a standard by which to assess.
To say no, well, that's just a lie, one not even you can tell with a straight-face. To say no means you have no objection, cannot object, to bein' killed, slaved, raped, or robbed. To say no is madness.
You're caught. You cannot say yes without denyin' Datsun, you cannot say no without declarin' yourself to be just meat.
You sit at the crossroads. But you don't have to.
But, but, but, what of the myriad of objectivists who disagree with your rendition, Henry?
If an objectivist, any objectivist, proposes a man, any man, is not his own: he's wrong. Anyone who denies any man is his own is wrong.
But, GUNS, Henry, GUNS!
Unless you're willin' to imbue guns, or bazookas, with some special essence, to claim they're possessed by a spirit, a gun, or bazooka, is just matter in a particular configuration, potential property. To deny someone property (becuz you fear it or fear the possibility of its use) is you declarin' him less than you, that you are more than him. You declare his life is not his own and in doin' so you've become mad.
But, ABORTION!
Men of good conscience can dicker about when what a woman carries becomes a person. Science and philosophy haven't answered that question. But all men of good conscience know that what a woman carries does become a person well before birth, and, as a person, is his own.
But what about all those who disagree, Henry!
What exactly are these folks disagreein' with? That a person, any person, is his own and no one else's? Knowin' what you do about yourself, that you are your own, is this a reasonable position? A sane position?
No, it's not. There is no just position for the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, the thief. And no refuge for them in I'm a product of my time and place. A man's right to himself is not a product of time and place; it's beholden to neither. Time and place, the people of a time and place, respect this fact about each man or they knowingly violate it. None has the luxury of sayin' I didn't know.
It can't be that simple, Henry!
Why not? There is an self-evident fact about man; an ethic, simple and minimal, can be derived from it. It requires no God to undergird it. All it asks is that each man give up any claim to any other man. It provides a measure against which right and wrong can be judged. And it leaves all men to their own devices: to worship as each likes or to not worship at all, to live as each chooses alone or with others, to think and feel as each likes. Oh, yes, it requires self-direction and self-responsibility (this is a bad thing?).
It is that simple.
That's the gist, iambiguous.
I know you'll look for loopholes, inconsistencies. I'd like to believe, when you can find none, you're big enough to say you're right, Henry. You'd have to give up on Datsun, but that's a small price to pay to finally stop crossroad-sittin'.
And, please, any reader of this post, if you can poke holes in the above, do.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7219
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Deism
What is this but Henry telling us yet again that there must be a standard, there must be a means of distinguishing right from wrong. Why? Because how on earth are we to explain his own?! And how dare anyone not embrace his own value judgments here!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:35 amOkay.Please, by all means ruin that for me!!!
You know you are yours and no one else's, yeah?
Of course you do.
Why equivocate then?
To say yes, to acknowledge you are your own, irrevocably, inalienably, means you must acknowledge every other person is his own. You acknowledge, whether in a moral reality or a rudderless amoral affair, there is one fact upon which an ethic can be founded. And if there's an ethic, there's a standard, a means of distinguishin' right from wrong. And if there's a legit right, one applicable to all men, your nihilism is empty, your Datsun a fiction. To say yes is to lose the luxury of it's not my fault! I'm just a product of my time and place!. To say yes is assume responsibility for yourself and, yes, to responsibly judge others. Not punish them, judge them. You no longer get to say John and Mary have equivalent arguments. You have a standard by which to assess.
What's he got to say about this:
Although [above] I did ask others here to cite examples of where, in a discussion with you pertaining to moral and political value judgments, you acknowledged that an answer that they gave in conflict with yours was not equivocal or wrong, but right. Them being right from their side, you being right from yours. Again, depending on the initial set of assumptions regarding the human condition: "I or we", "capitalism or socialism", "nature or nurture", "realism or idealism", "objectivism or subjectivism", "dasein or deontology".
Nothing.
Or this:
Which is it...
1] that the dictates of Reason and Nature revolve around the most rational manner in which to think about abortion and guns and slavery and immortality and salvation or...
2] that each of us as individuals can have our very own "private and personal" dictates of Reason and Nature in regard to them
Nothing.
Or this:
Ruin it? Hell, I want to be rid of it!!!
With dasein my moral and political value judgments are fractured and fragmented. I am ever and always "drawn and quartered" -- hopelessly ambivalent -- when confronting the "news of the day". I've thought myself into believing that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. I'm convinced "here and now" that oblivion is right around the corner.
Please, by all means ruin that for me!!!
No, what is really at stake here is that "I" will ruin it for you. I'll deconstruct that Precious Self of yours as, slowly but surely, you begin to grasp that my frame of mine ought to be your frame of mind too. Why? Because in being brutally honest about the "human condition" you'll admit to yourself that, estranged or not, there is no God. There is no "transcending font". There is no Precious Self.
Nothing.
Or this:
By all means, live your life. I'm just noting that in regard to God and religion, the whole point for those "tens of millions" seems to be morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side. Any number of Christians will assure you that your own Deist God just doesn't cut it on Judgment Day. You're going straight to Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
Again...
"...some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not, etc."
Nothing.
Or this:
"The basic beliefs of all Deist theologies is that God exists and created the world, but beyond that, God has no active engagement in the world except the creation of human reason, which enables us to find God by doing good."
Now, what's the point of doing good in order to find God if there is nothing in it for you on the other side? After all, what is the 70 to 80 odd years we have on this side of the grave compared to "all of eternity" on the other side of it? Even the No God Buddhists came up with reincarnation.
Nothing.
Or this:
No, no, no. That conversation revolves around God and religion. I'm talking about discussions that revolve around your moral and political convictions.
Though, sure, just out of curiosity, what was his or her argument that shifted your views? I shifted from Christianity to atheism as a result of my experiences in Vietnam. And the radical politics of fellow soldiers at the Song Be MACV. Dasein down to the bone.
Nothing.
Or this:
How about those men who go to a dominatrix...precisely in order to be enslaved? And there are any number of men and women who actually prefer to be totally submissive in relationships.
Let me guess: they have the "dictates of Reason and Nature" all wrong.
Nothing.
Or this:
Please explain it again. The part where natural disasters, medical afflictions, viral and bacterial pandemics and extinction events are all part and parcel of the "dictates of Reason and Nature" to this Deist God of yours.
Starting here:
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... troduction
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... diphtheria
Or is this the explanation:
"Deistic evolution does not oppose or contradict evolution or come into conflict with science as it says that a God started the process and then left it to natural processes." wiki
How does that work? The Deist God creates life on Earth but He doesn't know how it will evolve and doesn't have the power to control it? He creates the laws of matter but then the laws of matter themselves are in command? No teleological components here at all?
Nothing.
Or this:
Yes, this staunch individualism is what those like Ayn Rand and many Libertarians preached. Just in a No God world.
But then back to the irony where those who refused to think about everything under the sun exactly as she did were "excommunicated" from the "collective". The secular rendition of an inquisition.
Nothing.
Instead, he just creates yet another "general description intellectual contraption" in which we are simply to assume that his own "private and personal" understanding of Libertarianism reflects exactly what the Deist God expected of all mere mortals wholly in sync with His very own "dictates of Reason and Nature".