Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Hmmm, I can see and show others a breeze in the wind, or a storm, a bolt of lightning, a gamma ray strike, a dust-devil. Specific concrete instantiations of forces. Since I myself have intent, the simplest deduction is that anything that moves has "intent" (though of varying complexity or sophistication). That's about as deep as it gets... and I don't pretend its scientific or even accurate, its just a colorful poetic metaphor to describe the results of natural forces. I could argue that many humans lack much more "intent" than an eddy in a river current or a tornado. They're certainly about as transient a phenomena as those. They arise, exist for a while, and then cease to be.

Cease to be? What's your view on "end of physical life"?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I can't follow. Nobody(humans) knows the *true* realms of science, doesn't that alone prove God's exemption from paradoxes?

I don't follow. Science is created by humanity, and it is what humanity wishes of it. Consequently, God, if it does exist, would, of course, be part of Science, but there is no real reason it couldn't be trully supernatural at the same time...(this is God we are talking about after all ).

In other words, it simply doesn't make sense to me for God to be understandable (by the human mind), and since science was created by humanity, it cannot understand God.

Originally Posted by Cipher

Is this *truly* a limit? I could say he has the power and yet choose not to use it,
no?

No, its a limit, because you are now speaking for God. If I am not mistaken, you are trying to argue for dipolar theism, which, has some fundamental flaws (chief among them, human subjectivity wishing to define God to preconceived philosophical nothions and other intrinsically human ideas).

That being said, to clarify my posts. I have no real conception (of course, I have a basic conception of what I would want God to be like (yes my own limitations ), but that can't really be said to be "real") of God (if there is a God). I am certainly not trying to deride other's faith and beliefs, wishing instead to simply put forth my extraordinarily basic ideas.

Originally Posted by Cipher

On another note, What religion(s) identifies God so severely that it acts as limitations?

Any classical theism acts as a perfect example of unnecesary limits on God's power. And even many of the open theistic current religions still limit God's power by making it unable to see the future (though this limit could or could not be justifiable depending on how one wishes to view reality).

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by james0246

I don't follow. Science is created by humanity, and it is what humanity wishes of it. Consequently, God, if it does exist, would, of course, be part of Science, but there is no real reason it couldn't be trully supernatural at the same time...(this is God we are talking about after all ).

In other words, it simply doesn't make sense to me for God to be understandable (by the human mind), and since science was created by humanity, it cannot understand God.

There is *science* over our own "science". The *reality* of our own science is not proven. That is why God can exist on a *truer*(unknown) science over our own (limited) "science".

No, its a limit, because you are now speaking for God. If I am not mistaken, you are trying to argue for dipolar theism, which, has some fundamental flaws (chief among them, human subjectivity wishing to define God to preconceived philosophical nothions and other intrinsically human ideas).

Having the ability and not using it, does not act as a limit. Its more of a "rule" or "law"(in connection to government) for Order. The freedom of breaking laws does exist.

Any classical theism acts as a perfect example of unnecesary limits on God's power. And even many of the open theistic current religions still limit God's power by making it unable to see the future (though this limit could or could not be justifiable depending on how one wishes to view reality).

I believe that there is more to this in that having both destiny and choice is viable.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Cease to be? What's your view on "end of physical life"?

I would *love* to believe that something of the individual exists post-death. I have no evidence at all that such a thing happens.
I *do* know this: the waves on an ocean appear for a while, have form and duration, but then vanish. Each wave has an effect on companion waves and future waves. The ocean is the underlying permanence in relation to the waves.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I would *love* to believe that something of the individual exists post-death. I have no evidence at all that such a thing happens.

Nor is there evidence of it not happening.

I *do* know this: the waves on an ocean appear for a while, have form and duration, but then vanish. Each wave has an effect on companion waves and future waves. The ocean is the underlying permanence in relation to the waves.

So your suggesting that you'll "live" as your own posterity?

What's your belief regarding your own conscious on death, do you see it vanishing?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Nor is there evidence of it not happening.

....are you trying to argue that an afterlife must exist, given only that it hasn't been proven false?

I'll gift you with a caution; take care with how you answer me. Anyone who's see my work in the Abortion thread should pretty much have an idea about what I'm about to do with you.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Nor is there evidence of it not happening.



So your suggesting that you'll "live" as your own posterity?

What's your belief regarding your own conscious on death, do you see it vanishing?

The inability to prove or disprove something is not the same as existence or nonexistence. You can't always come use a double negative to form a positive.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

....are you trying to argue that an afterlife must exist, given only that it hasn't been proven false?

I'm not. I just state "easy" knowledge and then wait for responses( yeah, perhaps that would lead to argument. )

Though I'm not implying that it *must* exist. What I'm trying to show is that it (scientifically and logically) goes both ways. It would be both *reasonable* if it existed or not. The negativity had led me to try and explain this balance.

I'll gift you with a caution; take care with how you answer me. Anyone who's see my work in the Abortion thread should pretty much have an idea about what I'm about to do with you.

I believe that the "true" purpose of an argument is to form a more deeper understanding---of self and and of others. Not to "win" or to "lose".

What I can only say as direct response to that remark is.....I'm glad.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The inability to prove or disprove something is not the same as existence or nonexistence. You can't always come use a double negative to form a positive.

A double negative to form a positive? Who is doing this?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I'm not. I just state "easy" knowledge and then wait for responses( yeah, perhaps that would lead to argument. )

Please define "easy" knowledge. Don't expect to be able to pepper your responses with meaningless statements and get away with it.

Though I'm not implying that it *must* exist. What I'm trying to show is that it (scientifically and logically) goes both ways. It would be both *reasonable* if it existed or not. The negativity had led me to try and explain this balance.

Not entirely correct. What we are debating at this point is the concrete existence of an abstract concept; in this case, the existence of an afterlife. Since the concept of such is intangible, one who wishes to argue that an "afterlife" exists assumes the burden of proof, and has to bear the responsibility of providing evidence to back up his claims.

I believe that the "true" purpose of an argument is to form a more deeper understanding---of self and and of others. Not to "win" or to "lose".

Again, please avoid meaningless statements if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

What I can only say as direct response to that remark is.....I'm glad.

I see you are indeed taking care with your responses. However....not enough, as yet.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Please define "easy" knowledge. Don't expect to be able to pepper your responses with meaningless statements and get away with it.

I don't understand why we even have to discuss this. As I've said, it was only meant to clarify the mere fact that it can go both ways.

Not entirely correct. What we are debating at this point is the concrete existence of an abstract concept; in this case, the existence of an afterlife. Since the concept of such is intangible, one who wishes to argue that an "afterlife" exists assumes the burden of proof, and has to bear the responsibility of providing evidence to back up his claims.

I have no claims except stating the obvious(to me) which is---- it(afterlife) "can" exist *using* proper logic.

Again, please avoid meaningless statements if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Then please do not lead the discussion to this. Instead, may we please have your existential views?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I don't understand why we even have to discuss this. As I've said, it was only meant to clarify the mere fact that it can go both ways.

Because your "'easy' knowledge" phrase means nothing to me by virtue of being vague, and I would wish to learn what you meant by it. You can refuse to explain it, of course, but that would mean that in the end, it was just a meaningless statement.

I have no claims except stating the obvious(to me) which is---- it(afterlife) "can" exist *using* proper logic.

Then demonstrate the process by which one "can" come to this conclusion *using* proper logic, please.

Then please do not lead the discussion to this. Instead, may we please have your existential views?

I have no interest in discussing my personal beliefs with you. I am more interested in the logical processes by which you come to your conclusions.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Then demonstrate the process by which one "can" come to this conclusion *using* proper logic, please.

Finally, we are at clear. Now, you may start reading my past posts---since, you've evidently have not done so---and, from there, please report your responses and counterclaims. If any (or all) seems vague then I challenge you to have that will of asking me to clarify.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Finally, we are at clear. Now, you may start reading my past posts---since, you've evidently have not done so---and, from there, please report your responses and counterclaims. If any (or all) seems vague then I challenge you to have that will of asking me to clarify.

What little I can glean from your past posts, drowned as they are under a ton of meaningless statements, is that you are saying that there is no evidence that an afterlife doesn't exist. As you yourself have not put forth a conclusion within this thread, I find it disingenious of you to request me to put forth mine, which is why I rejected your offer in the first place.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

What little I can glean from your past posts, drowned as they are under a ton of meaningless statements, is that you are saying that there is no evidence that an afterlife doesn't exist. As you yourself have not put forth a conclusion within this thread, I find it disingenious of you to request me to put forth mine, which is why I rejected your offer in the first place.

I did not want to say this but have you looked at all of my posts(on the thread)?

Very well, then I guess I have to repeat the process. It goes without saying, but feel free to counter.

What is *this* "reality"? An unproven state of conditions commonly perceived as "natural".
What is science? The ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.

If you connect the attribute of "reality"'s unproven condition with its scientific sets of laws, what you get is the system of the "reality".

However, in truth, what you only get is a system of a *possible* false reality. This *possibility* is where I center my argument. If "reality" itself is non-*solid* fact, how much can its "science" be? This is what I meant by a science over a "science". Around the unproven "science" we have, we *may* have that *truer* science that allows our natural "laws" bended.

Inter alia, I give you amnesty to correct me.

[ChainLegacy]

Even if one assumes everything you've said to be true, you still don't have any conclusive reasons for believing in an afterlife.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Even if one assumes everything you've said to be true, you still don't have any conclusive reasons for believing in an afterlife.

I don't have evidence in *Knowing* nor in * Not knowing*, and nor do you. But beliefs are another matter. My belief came from my personal experiences, background, and other influences.

[ChainLegacy]

As Ascaloth already told you, you must provide some kind of evidence to make the belief 'reasonable,' as you claimed it was a few posts up. As it stands, all you have done is opened the door for the most minute probability, much like I can't be sure a unicorn isn't about to impale me. Can I disprove it? No. Should I believe it? No.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

As Ascaloth already told you, you must provide some kind of evidence to make the belief 'reasonable,' as you claimed it was a few posts up. As it stands, all you have done is opened the door for the most minute probability, much like I can't be sure a unicorn isn't about to impale me. Can I disprove it? No. Should I believe it? No.

It seems that we're, again, surrounded in confusion and perhaps , again, I'm at fault. Beliefs can't be supported "reasonably" using "universal laws", and I had no intention of doing so. All I'm saying is that, instead the "gravity" being greater on one side, it is equal.

[ChainLegacy]

I know what you're saying, and I'm telling you it isn't equal. Just because we don't understand scientifically these matters does not give your theory of an afterlife any weight. The truth is, we have no idea how much weight it carries.

[MeoTwister5]

It's actually a bit silly to expect a complete, scientifically acceptable rationale for such abstract concepts such as "faith" and "belief" on the basis that... at least for most cases of science as a method relying on and evidence for proof of existence/method cannot really be applied for concepts that are, for all intents and puposes, purely mental.

Faith and belief exist only so far inside the mind (and the heart, but that's a whole different matter) and cannot exactly provide for itself a tangible, physical manifestation that is able to confirm it's own "existence." This is precisely one of the metaphysical problematic of faith and belief for centuries, aside of course from confirming the end-result of faith and belief itself.