NationStates Jolt Archive

No matter how defined the soul, like a deity, could not be shown to exist; its existence is inferred.

Truth of this inference lies beyond rational proof. Nor is there anything in Nature that requires it.

And yet there is nothing more obvious in Nature than the works of an intelligence greater than man's - which man is able, within limits, to decipher. That man can decode Nature's secrets proved what the Church fathers and all the founders of the world's great religions had always said: that man's intelligence is a reflection of that same Divine Intelligence which authored Nature.

Were this not so, natural philosophers could not discern the laws behind Creation, either because there would be none, or because man would be so alien that he could not discern them. The very harmony between natural law and our ability to discover it, strongly suggested that sages and priests of all persuasions are essentially correct! - in arguing that we are buit the creatures of an Almighty Power, whose Power is reflected in us. And this reflection in us of that Power may be justly termed our universal, immortal, yet individual souls.

The operation of chance in no way proves that Nature and Man - who is part of Nature and as such a reflection of its Creator - are somehow accidental. Chance is one of the principles thorugh which natural law works. That principle may correspond with the traditional religious view that man is free to chart his own course. But this freedom, even when appearently ranodm, obeys statistical laws in a way that man can comprehend.

Uncertainty is certain. Certainty is uncertain.

Man is, like Nature itself, free and determined both at once - as religious sages have been telling us for millenia though, to be sure, they use a different vocabulary, far less precise than ours. Much mischief and misunderstanding betwixt relgion and science stem from that.

As the execution of France's greatest and most faithful heroine ( St Joan ) proved, faith without reason is blind. And, as the superficiality and vanity of the works of Voltaire proves, reason without faith is lame.

And, as the superficiality and vanity of the works of Voltaire proves, reason without faith is lame.

Hey! I really liked Candide!

And I was almost ready to go with you up to there, too.

you would have to have faith in something to be able to argue / reason it as correct. Even scientists have faith, in science, not that they would call it 'faith' because is often misconstrude as being of a religious nature, which isn't always necessarily correct - depending on how you interprate it.

Hey! I really liked Candide!

And I was almost ready to go with you up to there, too.

So did Talleyrand.
In the end, M. Arouet was pretty much disgusted by that fickle creature.

Boggy boy, I think you must realize the fate of your thread.

It says nothing about George Bush, immigrants, gay marriage or absurdist claims about Christianity. It's doomed.

All the same I think it's well written, and thought provoking and I feel that I am a better person for having read it.

Boggy boy, I think you must realize the fate of your thread.

It says nothing about George Bush, immigrants, gay marriage or absurdist claims about Christianity. It's doomed.

All the same I think it's well written, and thought provoking and I feel that I am a better person for having read it.

Deism is better than Christianity because it doesn't try to deny the fundamental right of sex and reproductive choice, by which all surgical procedures and contraceptives necessary to ensure choice must be paid for by the government (so they aren't only available to those than can afford them). This is mandated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, as was made clear from any study of basic public high school biology, God, whether or Christian or personal (Deist), does not exist. I believe in science and not superstitutions.

However clear you feel biological origins disprove the existence of God, the lack of a formation of complexity from the masses of entropy in the universe plainly indicate there is much to be learned before a correct inference can be made on the formation of life as we know it.

However clear you feel biological origins disprove the existence of God, the lack of a formation of complexity from the masses of entropy in the universe plainly indicate there is much to be learned before a correct inference can be made on the formation of life as we know it.

We have learned everything we need to know. I am not a scientist by any means, I even got a D in it, but the one thing I remember our teacher clearly stating, is that we have disproven God.

Besides, I prefer it that way, the Christian God has only tried to take away my fun at all times.

No matter how defined the soul, like a deity, could not be shown to exist; its existence is inferred.

Truth of this inference lies beyond rational proof. Nor is there anything in Nature that requires it.

And yet there is nothing more obvious in Nature than the works of an intelligence greater than man's - which man is able, within limits, to decipher. That man can decode Nature's secrets proved what the Church fathers and all the founders of the world's great religions had always said: that man's intelligence is a reflection of that same Divine Intelligence which authored Nature.

Were this not so, natural philosophers could not discern the laws behind Creation, either because there would be none, or because man would be so alien that he could not discern them. The very harmony between natural law and our ability to discover it, strongly suggested that sages and priests of all persuasions are essentially correct! - in arguing that we are buit the creatures of an Almighty Power, whose Power is reflected in us. And this reflection in us of that Power may be justly termed our universal, immortal, yet individual souls.

The operation of chance in no way proves that Nature and Man - who is part of Nature and as such a reflection of its Creator - are somehow accidental. Chance is one of the principles thorugh which natural law works. That principle may correspond with the traditional religious view that man is free to chart his own course. But this freedom, even when appearently ranodm, obeys statistical laws in a way that man can comprehend.

Uncertainty is certain. Certainty is uncertain.

Man is, like Nature itself, free and determined both at once - as religious sages have been telling us for millenia though, to be sure, they use a different vocabulary, far less precise than ours. Much mischief and misunderstanding betwixt relgion and science stem from that.

As the execution of France's greatest and most faithful heroine ( St Joan ) proved, faith without reason is blind. And, as the superficiality and vanity of the works of Voltaire proves, reason without faith is lame.

Most eloquently stated. I agree whole heartedly.

Thank you. I understand the Deist a bit better, now.

Boggy boy, I think you must realize the fate of your thread.

It says nothing about George Bush, immigrants, gay marriage or absurdist claims about Christianity. It's doomed.

All the same I think it's well written, and thought provoking and I feel that I am a better person for having read it.


*grin* not all is lost yet to the cultural filistenes who have no concept but up or down with Bush.

clever boy - have a treat

:fluffle:

Deism is better than Christianity because it doesn't try to deny the fundamental right of sex and reproductive choice, by which all surgical procedures and contraceptives necessary to ensure choice must be paid for by the government (so they aren't only available to those than can afford them). This is mandated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, as was made clear from any study of basic public high school biology, God, whether or Christian or personal (Deist), does not exist. I believe in science and not superstitutions.

You are simply placing man over God by saying this. The universal declaration of human rights is just an expression of what people think natural law is, a man-made thing. As everything made and thought by men, it may be right as it may be wrong, as every man has his own personal motives and interests for saying anything. It would be like placing the laws of a State over the laws of the one (in my beleif there is only one God, but I must be neutral) who created all States, God. The existance of God is an evident thing (look how many atheists there are and then have a glance not only of theists but of agnostics), it is part of the natural law that we've been pursuing since the times of the Stoics... It would be like putting man over the one who created mankind, God. God's laws are far more important than State's laws, and the first ones cannot be wrong (as God is totally good, which would be the same as to say "perfect", He cannot be wrong or choose to behave badly, which in fact is the same). The laws of the State can be against the laws of religion, as the people that take decisions in the State are just people (which isn't necessarily wicked, but may be wrong), but people must obey to their religions in the first place.
As a Catholic I will tell you that the Church isn't an organization that only exists to tell people that what they like to do is wrong, just because (or just for fun, as many beleive, demonizing the Church). There is a very logical theo-philosophical background for every decision in the Church, which is free for the public to read.
As a neutral guy again: you cannot deny the existance of God or any deity by means of biology, as it is from another abstraction level.
Abstraction levels:
1. Factical sciences: history, biology, phisics, chemistry, etc
2. Mathematical-logical sciences: Math and logics
3. Philosophy and Theology
Level one just cares about positive (things that can be sensed) knowledge, level two goes further, but still has a direct root in positive knowledge. Only level 3 goes even further, trying to get to the Truth with our best weapon as human beings: reason.
As every science studies a different aspect of the Universe (even though lv3 studies it all, it studies it externally) from a different abstraction level, with a different method: sciences cannot get into others, changing things. That is why one cannot deny biological facts from theology (which would be something like "human beings do not respire to get their energy, energy constantly appears because God puts it in there"), or viceversa. You cannot deny the existance of God or any deity from biology because biology simply doesn't study God, it studies phisical living things. Cientificism (positivism) is a wrong philosophy, as it tries to get God or any methaphysics out of the scene, it is a very reduccionist thing... ("what I cannot see doesn't exist", so love doesn't exist? feelings do not exist?).
Faith doesn't go against science, they aren't opposites, in fact, they compliment each other (as St. Joan and BogMarsh said). God is Love, God is Wisdom, God is Truth, etc. "Science" (by this term people refer to every science but philosophy and theology) is trying to get to Truth, so it is contradictory to try to deny God or theology by means of science...
Atheism is an absurd thing really. While any deism, even agnosticism, goes more with man's nature.
As a Catholic again:
I think that Catholicism is the correct hypothesis to the problem of life, which doesn't mean that I say that other religions are wrong, and I do not deny them, and I, just as the Church, will not force you to do anything (even to convert), as many people think we do. A very wrong view of not only Catholicism but of every religion in the world has been spread by people who knows where with who knows which intentions...
Well, that is all for now, thx Bog Marsh for your post,
You people:
Have a nice posting day ^^

clever boy - have a treat

:fluffle:


*munches on treat*
:fluffle:

*munches on treat*
:fluffle:

lol..morning sunshine

As the execution of France's greatest and most faithful heroine ( St Joan ) proved, faith without reason is blind.

I don't think France had any other heroines. :P

A very nice piece that shows me with much certainty that I'm not a deist. :)

Just to mention, though... I hope you don't imply that Deists like and accept circular definitions like that 'Uncertainty is certain etc.' thing you included. Such phrases sound pretty, but they say absolutely nothing.

A very nice piece that shows me with much certainty that I'm not a deist. :)

Just to mention, though... I hope you don't imply that Deists like and accept circular definitions like that 'Uncertainty is certain etc.' thing you included. Such phrases sound pretty, but they say absolutely nothing.

Actually, that came straight from Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Uncertainty is certain. Certainty is uncertain.

We have learned everything we need to know. I am not a scientist by any means, I even got a D in it, but the one thing I remember our teacher clearly stating, is that we have disproven God.
I suspect that your D may be down to a clearly incompetent teacher.

Anyone who thinks that God can be 'disproven' is clearly a little wonky in the head.

I suspect that your D may be down to a clearly incompetent teacher.

Anyone who thinks that God can be 'disproven' is clearly a little wonky in the head.


and anyone who thinks he can be proven without a shred of doubt isn't?

and anyone who thinks he can be proven without a shred of doubt isn't?
Point out where I said that.

Go on, a cookie for the quote.

and anyone who thinks he can be proven without a shred of doubt isn't?

Deists and Theists alike would be very upset if it were possible to prove the existence of God(s) beyond all possible doubt, since it would put a stake through the heart of Natural Religion.

Point out where I said that.

Go on, a cookie for the quote.

You didn't, I was asking a question based on your comment. :)

We'll try to send you a Yorkshire Puddin' anyway ;)

We'll try to send you a Yorkshire Puddin' anyway ;)
are you taking flu drugs?... what?? :confused:

Actually, that came straight from Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Uncertainty is certain. Certainty is uncertain.

*sigh* He's on my reading list... haven't got to him yet, though. If that's an example of his style of argument, I may put it off a while.

*sigh* He's on my reading list... haven't got to him yet, though. If that's an example of his style of argument, I may put it off a while.


It is no argument. Merely a fact. And pretty much an unquestionable fact in the post-Heissenberg era. :)

It is no argument. Merely a fact. And pretty much an unquestionable fact in the post-Heissenberg era. :)

Touche... except that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only means we can't measure what things are... not that things aren't what they are. (i.e. we can't measure what things are with full certainty, but they are what they are with perfect certainty.)

Edit: i.e. things are exactly, certainly what they are... it's just impossible to exactly see what it is that they are due to the uncertainty principle. ^^'