Rebelconservative, you are correct in your understanding, I am not proposing that “god” has any specific nature
No you’re not. So can we close this thread now that that’s all cleared up?
That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does
As a point of moderation, you are only going to be allowed to engage in arbitrary conjecture so many times on this board. Since you rightfully acknowledge that the important question is IF a deity exists, stick to offering some forms of evidence or proof and avoid engaging in arbitrary claims of what “could” exist.
No you’re not. So can we close this thread now that that’s all cleared up?
you completely missed my point, I am only trying to determine whether or not deism is anti-life, whether one can be moral and believe in a god, and whether or not a deist could be an Objecivist if they follow all of the tenents of objectivism (i.e. not living for another man)
As a point of moderation, you are only going to be allowed to engage in arbitrary conjecture so many times on this board. Since you rightfully acknowledge that the important question is IF a deity exists, stick to offering some forms of evidence or proof and avoid engaging in arbitrary claims of what “could” exist.
cool, I was only trying to illustrate my point by offering the conjectures of those who do subscribe to deist thought.
I am also not necessarily trying to prove a deity’s existence, though this thread is a place where it could be discussed. the entire point is to determine whether or not a deist can be an objectivist.
also of note, it may have been discussed before but has anyone heard of these “christian objectivists” apparently they think Ayn Rand was the second Jesus or something along those lines. I havent read too much of their literature
That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does
“God” is a word - but what does the word mean? I cannot disprove a word that has no definition. If you assert that “God” has no specific identity or description - that contradicts the law of identity.
If “God” does have a specific description - then please describe it.
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
I am only trying to determine whether or not deism is anti-life, whether one can be moral and believe in a god, and whether or not a deist could be an Objecivist if they follow all of the tenents of objectivism (i.e. not living for another man)
Deism has been discussed before, including this question. Search might bring up some threads.
One could say “God exists, but has no relevance to my life”, or one could make some assumption about what God must have intended for you. You can like Chocolate or Vanilla, and either way you can be a commie or an Objectivist. If you hold a view of God that is as irrelevant to your moral decision-making as your choice of ice-cream flavor, then you can hold various other views: pro-altruist, pro-selfish etc. This type of deism is analogous to atheism: it is not a positive philosophy at all. While it asserts the presence of God, it also claims that this demands absolutely no specific action on the part of man. So, like Atheism, it gives zero guidance on how to live one’s life. (Aside: Benjamin Franklin mentions this in his biography somewhere.)
Still, if atheism is one part of Goodaism, you cannot – strictly speaking, say you are a Goodaist, even though you agree with everything else that Gooda said, but reject his atheism. Perhaps you can adopt 95% of the good stuff from Goodaism and end up leading a happy life. There will always be a chink in your armor, and its possible that it is never exploited – but, why leave it there?
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
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
Identify the straw-man in your response.
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)
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
Define likely. (if you define it using the word “probability”, define that too)
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
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
That’s the definition of the word likely?
as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context
the definition in this context, as language is only a tool to convey ideas, that is what I meant by likely in that specific context
Ok, here’s how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely:
it is just as 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 that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them
If there’s an idea you conveyed in there, I’m missing it.
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
Since energy is not an entity but the effect of entities on other entities, what did this alleged being use to “shape” the rest of the entities out of? If the only existent is itself then you have a problem. Without a multiplicity of eternal bounded entities no non-contradictory view of the U is possible. I see no way around this. Singularities are irrational.
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)
Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply “no faith”, but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist.
Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, “I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion”, that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: “There is an evil spirit living in your abscess”, and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person’s approach “perfectly compatible” with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes.
Ok, here’s how your sentence looks if I replace likely with what you meant by likely:
it is just as 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 that there is a God who created the current form of the universe, set up the laws of nature and does not violate them
If there’s an idea you conveyed in there, I’m missing it.
the point is simply that Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism.
Being a philosophy, Objectivism tries to lay down some principles of how we should validate our knowledge. So, it is not simply “no faith”, but a little more than that. According to these underlying principles, Objectivism rejects certain types of propositions as arbitrary and therefore not knowledge. Further, any time someone tries to get a little more specific about what God is all about, that will lead to contradictions, and Objectivism holds that contradictions do not exist.
Objectivism uses its underlying epistemology while coming up with other propositions. So, if someone comes along and says, “I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusion, but I agree with your conclusion”, that does not make him an Objectivist. Imagine some ancient medicine man who says: “There is an evil spirit living in your abscess”, and lances it off. If this just so happens to also be the medically correct treatment, we would be wrong to call such a person’s approach “perfectly compatible” with modern medicine. When we are comparing systems of knowledge, we should be comparing the systems, not just the leaf nodes.
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 there is Deism in all practical sense Atheism with a difference that makes no difference and is compatable with objectivism.
“the only difference between round and square is the color” This is equivilent to the above.