moot

I agree, however, if it were said that if a deist held that understanding, then could he not be an objectvist? I think that after enough time he would come to drop such a fancy, as none of his peers have it

ordered as in existing in the coherent manner it does, planets in their current alignments some deists would say it means the creation of the laws of nature, but I understand that that would be an impossibility

something cannot possibly come from nothing, correct? is it more likely that the being I just described ordered things, or they came to order themselves. it is only a preference which of the two we choose

Also, what I am trying to explain is that it is just as reasonable for a god by whose nature would not leave evidence and is bound to natural laws to exist as such a being to not exist and our choice to deny its existence is just a whim or personal preference. granted the burden of proof is on the one trying to convince, but in the same breath on should look at both objectively before coming to a conclusion and one conclusion is just as good as the other.

I admit my arguments are meant to be vague. From the deist literature I have read, most deists simply believe in a "x" factor or God that they ascribe the trait of thought and the ordering of the universe to. they make no claims as to the nature of this being, only stating that evidence points towards it existing and that it is either more or as likely to exist than not exist. after this is established they feel we can begin to add "color" to God

2. Belief that the nature of God is abstract and generally incomprehensible which puts it beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is.

some of the evidence for such a being is, the ordered nature of the universe (all matter). while it does not conclusively prove or necessitate a god's existence, it does provide an inductive case, which is equally strong to that of an atheist.

Not all deists believe this to be true, you are over generalizing, the deism I refer to does not make any of those assumptions also, sentience does not necessarily require a physical brain because all matter is made of vibrations set at specific frequencies (learned this on Nova), how do you know that an energy being vibrating at a specific frequency is not sentient (cannot perceive)

the above is a paraphrasing of course

yes, Rand said that a word is a way to describe a concept according to her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

as a side note, Jake are you a ARI or COS objectivist?

I would love to hear (or rather read) it, I understand that I very well may be wrong and I actually want to be proven wrong as I am playing the "devil's advocate" in this thread padron he figure of speach

So, jake... can you provide, a rational argument as to why exactly objectivism is incompatible with my definition of deism?

I still stand by ohms

no need to be nasty. Equivocation does not prove anything true, but do not commit the fallacy fallacy here is another metaphor: is tree that has been pissed a few months ago on any different to the carpenter than one that is identical but has not been pissed on?

my arguments, are honestly partly inspired by the Christians who denounced deists as atheists.

to quote some person I cannot remember, "a difference that makes no difference is no difference"

how so? prove this without simply stating it as truth. I am only talking about practicality, the only diffenece between a blue nail and a red nail for building a wall that will not be seen is irrelevant. provided that the nails are the same in all else

a god's nature is determined empirically, which means that once a contradiction arises its nature is changed to fit the new evidence also, if one does not define god, there is never a contradiction.

the point is simply that Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism.

as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context

has either an equal chance of being true, or neither chance is known and the evidence for either is very close in strength to the point of irrelevance

dang I did not catch that one I feel kind of bad now.. but still, does objectivism necessitate atheism, or does it only require a lack of faith (assuming that Deism lacks faith and Atheism does not require it)

so, you are saying that in order to be a objectivist one must necessarily blindly accept the fact that there is no god even though there may be gray area and it is just as likely that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them does the fact that Ayn Rand did not feel such a being exist preclude the fact those who also live free of anti-life principals (objecitists) must be atheists as well

my best definition would be a sentient being of any composition that influenced or shaped the universe for either as specific end or as a means to a specific end, which is not known to myself