"What are the temporal and eternal..."

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]...deism is a form of theism. A deist don't believe in a personal god, or revelation as a source of knowledge, but do believe that there is a creator god who initiated everything, and then left the universe running according to the natural laws. In other words, a deist doesn't believe that god intervenes with the natural world.

Thanks, but I did ...[text shortened]... it fit in with googlefudges list of definitions...

Never mind, I'll figure it out for myself.[/b]

A deist believes that a god exists and thus is a theist.

It's really not that hard.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh goody, I was hoping you might approve. 😵

I'm just following your lead here, or mislead...

...whatever.

As always, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Your earlier pretense that you try to understand other posters is wearing thinner by the hour. You are clearly deliberately misunderstanding me and think a smiley face fixes it.
For the record, I did not approve, nor are you following my lead.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I actually rather like the definition given here by Richard Carrier, and for much the same reasons....

So is that what you meant when you said:
"The possibility exists that the supernatural could be 'real'.?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
God Himself is your judge and mine not lemon lime.

Another pointless platitude that has no bearing on the context of my post whatsoever but provides you with a little opportunity to pontificate from on high.

Yuk.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So is that what you meant when you said:
"The possibility exists that the supernatural could be 'real'.?

Yes, but as I said, that 'possibility' is really really really tiny.

I don't believe that the supernatural is real/possible.
In fact I go further and believe that the supernatural is not real or possible.

But I still acknowledge the remote possibility of being wrong about that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, but as I said, that 'possibility' is really really really tiny.

I don't believe that the supernatural is real/possible.
In fact I go further and believe that the supernatural is not real or possible.

But I still acknowledge the remote possibility of being wrong about that.

Well I think the biggest problem is that you are making statements about something that is far from well defined. What does 'mental' or 'mind' mean in your definition?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I think the biggest problem is that you are making statements about something that is far from well defined. What does 'mental' or 'mind' mean in your definition?

I think the reason I linked to a detailed explanation by a professional philosopher on
this topic was so that I didn't have to try to explain in detail complicated ideas better
than an expert communicator. I'm not going to be able to explain it better than he does,
which is why I linked to his post [which has sub-links to further more detailed points].
With a whole bunch of worked examples, which helps explain what he means.

I have tried to explain to you exactly this before [before I discovered his posts on this topic]
and failed to successfully convey my meaning to you.

Richard Carrier seems to hold exactly the view on this topic I do and explains it better than
I apparently can.

So if you want to understand my views on this, I recommend reading his writings on it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have tried to explain to you exactly this before [before I discovered his posts on this topic]
and failed to successfully convey my meaning to you.

I don't recall that. That definition of supernatural is entirely new to me.

I must note that I am not disputing anything you have said, I was just thinking through the definition and wondered how I could possibly describe 'mind' without describing a mechanism by which it works (thus making it 'natural' ).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't recall that. That definition of supernatural is entirely new to me.

I must note that I am not disputing anything you have said, I was just thinking through the definition and wondered how I could possibly describe 'mind' without describing a mechanism by which it works (thus making it 'natural' ).

Thus demonstrating how unsuccessful I was in explaining my position last time.

I'm curious about your problem with describing 'mind' because as far as I can see
almost nobody talks about minds in terms of the mechanisms by which they work.
The sheer prevalence of 'dualist' thinking where mind is detached from and separate to
any kind of materiel substrate suggests to me that this is the most common and indeed
default way people think about minds.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The sheer prevalence of 'dualist' thinking where mind is detached from and separate to
any kind of materiel substrate suggests to me that this is the most common and indeed
default way people think about minds.

Except that most people don't actually think about it at all. They assume it is obvious and brush over it.

Originally posted by FMF
lemon lime will appreciate you pointing out his inconsistency in this no frills manner because on page 6 he did say: "I'm annoyed by people who consistently add and subtract from what I'm saying."

Well, you know, I live to please.

And I'm quite pleased with my occasional no frills manner. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, you know, I live to please.

And I'm quite pleased with my occasional no frills manner. 😏

Hey C Hess,

Try Jiffy Lube too.

You can get a good oil change there.
New air filters too.
Fluids checked. etc.

Originally posted by sonship
Hey C Hess,

Try Jiffy Lube too.

You can get a good oil change there.
New air filters too.
Fluids checked. etc.

Great! 🙄

Woow, keep your pants on! 😠

Originally posted by googlefudge
A deist believes that a god exists and thus is a theist.

It's really not that hard.

I posted a link to an interview with Antony Flew a few pages back. Here is an excerpt from the last part of that interview where he makes a distinction between deist and theist...


Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require two distinct investigations. But in the popular literature—even in much of the philosophical literature—the two issues are regularly conflated. Especially among atheists, the presumption is that the non-existence of God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is the danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now respond?

Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of divine revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and continue to do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the existence of evil does not pose a problem because the deist God does not intervene in the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of course, can turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.

Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a "thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that there is a "cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be? (I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big turning point for him, in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God was not a "place"—a set of characteristics, like a landscape—but a person.)

Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

Originally posted by lemon lime
I posted a link to an interview with Antony Flew a few pages back. Here is an excerpt from the last part of that interview where he makes a distinction between deist and theist...


Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require two distinct investigations. But i ...[text shortened]... k. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

So?

Flew is both wrong and confused about many issues, including those he mentions here.

But from the passage you site, he says, he believes in a god, and that that god is a person [a being].

A theist is a person who positively believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Flew believes in the existence of a god.
Flew is a theist.

And what he's saying is not necessarily incompatible with that as it's possible and reasonable to read
his clarification as him pointing out that he's not [for example] a Christian, which might well be the
default assumption of an American reading the interview and being told that he's a theist.