Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[Neo Deist]

So, now you have me wondering if Deists stipulate types of intervention and do allow for some forms of intervention, but disallow others?

Name something credible that you see as divine intervention that can't be explained by science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not what I was referring to. I do not believe in divine intervention because of free will. If God intervenes, it is no longer free will. It has nothing to do with morality.

If you intervene to help someone, have you somehow violated anyone's free will?

 

[ArtieE]

Friend!
Look in the mirror yourself. You'll see a person who should be rationally 99.99% theist or even more , a person who does believe in the existence of ones own self without any proofs and evidences whatsoever as one experiences oneself existing so why should one not believe in God's existence likewise very naturally. Every time one points a finger at theists for not having proof of God's existence one should see ones own fingers all of them pointing to one's own self and be assured of one's won existence and reassured about the existence of God. Right? Please
Regards

I see what you mean. Neither you nor atheists can provide positive evidence for the non-existence of the gods you and atheists don't believe exist so you and atheists are in the same boat.

 

[Neo Deist]

If you intervene to help someone, have you somehow violated anyone's free will?

I am only talking about divine intervention from God, so let's discuss that...

I believe that everyone has free will. We make our own choices and deal with the consequences; good or bad.

What many do not understand is that the choices your ancestors made could affect you today, or your future bloodline. If they did something that caused a genetic mutation (think having children with someone too closely related) then your genes could have a dormant mutation that could pop up on down the line.

Then there is the criminal element of society. They too have free will. If they choose to commit a crime against a person, God does not intervene, otherwise it is no longer the free will of the criminal even though they are causing harm, the death or loss of property to someone else.

That's not to say that God is not saddened by events that take place (maybe God is...who knows) but not intervening is the ultimate conviction in order to allow for free will to take its course.

Edit:

Why are people murdered? Because someone chooses to commit murder.
Why are women raped? Because someone chooses to commit rape.
Why are items stolen? Because someone chooses to steal.
Why are children abused? Because someone chooses to abuse them.
Why do people develop cancer? Because they did something that can cause cancer (smoking, drinking, etc.) or they have some type of genetic mutation in their DNA.
Why have several children drowned at sea (think Syrian refugees)? Because an adult chooses to place them on a boat knowing that the boat could sink.
Why did someone die in a traffic collision? Because someone else was DUI, or speeding, or playing Pokemon Go. Or perhaps the deceased failed to maintain their vehicle and a tire blew out.

The question then becomes, why believe in God if there is no divine intervention, scientific proof of God's existence or anything else to support your views? The answer is...because I choose to.

 

[ArtieE]

1. From our perspective, what's the difference between a non-existent god and a non-intervening god?
2. Surely sending people to hell would be a clear violation of our free will? Unless our free will is revoked the second our physical body dies?

 

[Acim]

Name something credible that you see as divine intervention that can't be explained by science.

That's not how I frame divine intervention. Like I believe miracles are natural, when they do not occur, something has gone wrong. I also think miracles are not spectacles of physical wonder to induce a belief in divine order. I think those who have previously interpreted such events as 'miracles' are either using a figure of speech, or are mistaken about what a miracle actually is.

I also think given how I understand science (based mostly on simple definitions, found in most dictionaries) that it can arguably explain anything, but that some wish to limit the scope of science, which I see as entirely on them and their understanding of science, or their version of science.

As I noted earlier, I see God (for sure divinity) as within us, even as us, so a bit challenging to not see whatever we are up to as 'divine intervention,' but do find the physical to be illusionary in how all that is understood.

So basically, I cannot name something that is divine intervention which science cannot (possibly) explain, but do feel there is a whole lot of what we are up to that I consistently find science doesn't explain well, nor even sure if it would be scientific explanation.

A prime example would be the scientific method itself. Go ahead, give me the scientific explanation for why and/or how the scientific method exists. Cause I see that as divine intervention. And I just assume turn this stuff on itself than act as if it has to be in the domain of 'religion' for it to be identifiable as divine and/or intervention.

 

[Neo Deist]

So basically, I cannot name something that is divine intervention which science cannot (possibly) explain...

That's all I needed.

 

[Neo Deist]

1. From our perspective, what's the difference between a non-existent god and a non-intervening god?
2. Surely sending people to hell would be a clear violation of our free will? Unless our free will is revoked the second our physical body dies?

A non-existent God means God does not exist. A non-intervening God means that God does exist, but does not get involved for whatever reason.

The concept of hell as a place of eternal torture/torment, complete with smoke, fire and brim stone is a fabrication by the Church. The Church has used that old scare tactic for centuries, in an effort to control the masses. In other words, it is BS!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am only talking about divine intervention from God, so let's discuss that...

Yes - let's discuss that.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you don't think that, in general, free will is violated when we intervene in people's lives, so why do you think it would violate free will if God did it?

I believe that everyone has free will. We make our own choices and deal with the consequences; good or bad.

Only to a certain extent. Our free will is limited: we can't choose to kill people with our thoughts or teleport, for instance.

The physical universe puts limitations on our free will. We can't do most of the things we might choose to do. If God is the author of the laws of the universe, then even a non-interventionist God has severely curtailed our free will.

Why are people murdered? Because someone chooses to commit murder.

... and because they had the ability to murder. And because nobody prevented it.

The three elements of a crime are motive, means, and opportunity. Free will only speaks to the first element, but without all three, the crime doesn't happen.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe that everyone has free will. We make our own choices and deal with the consequences; good or bad.

If one believes that Near Death Experiences reflect reality they are the perfect proof that we don't have free will. For example:

"some people are not given the choice to stay in heaven or return to life. After receiving a "taste" of heavenly bliss, experiencers may be told that they must return and therefore are forced to return to life. They may try to resist having to return. They may even beg to not be sent back. They may argue. But all attempts to resist are futile and the experiencer returns to life often bitterly disappointed."

http://www.near-death.com/science/research/you-are-not-ready.html

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes - let's discuss that.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you don't think that, in general, free will is violated when we intervene in people's lives, so why do you think it would violate free will if God did it?

Yes, we violate someone's free will if we intervene. But we are not God.

Only to a certain extent. Our free will is limited: we can't choose to kill people with our thoughts or teleport, for instance.

This is the SciFi channel. Granted, some people on RF seem to be from the Twilight Zone.

The three elements of a crime are motive, means, and opportunity. Free will only speaks to the first element, but without all three, the crime doesn't happen.

Which doesn't have jack crap to do with God.

 

[Neo Deist]

If one believes that Near Death Experiences reflect reality they are the perfect proof that we don't have free will. For example:

"some people are not given the choice to stay in heaven or return to life. After receiving a "taste" of heavenly bliss, experiencers may be told that they must return and therefore are forced to return to life. They may try to resist having to return. They may even beg to not be sent back. They may argue. But all attempts to resist are futile and the experiencer returns to life often bitterly disappointed."

http://www.near-death.com/science/research/you-are-not-ready.html

NDE's are not true death. Their hearts may stop for a short time, but their brains are still active. The bright light with a warm and fuzzy feeling is most likely a chemical reaction in the body and neurons firing in the brain.

I have said it before...when someone dies and goes through rigor mortis and then comes back to life, call me. Until then, it is not worth discussing.

 

[ArtieE]

A non-existent God means God does not exist. A non-intervening God means that God does exist, but does not get involved for whatever reason.

But from our perspective would we notice any difference?

The concept of hell as a place of eternal torture/torment, complete with smoke, fire and brim stone is a fabrication by the Church. The Church has used that old scare tactic for centuries, in an effort to control the masses. In other words, it is BS!

That wasn't the point. If you could be sent to hell against your will, whatever happened to the free will we were supposed to have?

 

[Acim]

I am only talking about divine intervention from God, so let's discuss that...

I believe that everyone has free will. We make our own choices and deal with the consequences; good or bad.

What many do not understand is that the choices your ancestors made could affect you today, or your future bloodline. If they did something that caused a genetic mutation (think having children with someone too closely related) then your genes could have a dormant mutation that could pop up on down the line.

Then there is the criminal element of society. They too have free will. If they choose to commit a crime against a person, God does not intervene, otherwise it is no longer the free will of the criminal even though they are causing harm, the death or loss of property to someone else.

That's not to say that God is not saddened by events that take place (maybe God is...who knows) but not intervening is the ultimate conviction in order to allow for free will to take its course.

Edit:

Why are people murdered? Because someone chooses to commit murder.
Why are women raped? Because someone chooses to commit rape.
Why are items stolen? Because someone chooses to steal.
Why are children abused? Because someone chooses to abuse them.
Why do people develop cancer? Because they did something that can cause cancer (smoking, drinking, etc.) or they have some type of genetic mutation in their DNA.
Why have several children drowned at sea (think Syrian refugees)? Because an adult chooses to place them on a boat knowing that the boat could sink.
Why did someone die in a traffic collision? Because someone else was DUI, or speeding, or playing Pokemon Go. Or perhaps the deceased failed to maintain their vehicle and a tire blew out.

The question then becomes, why believe in God if there is no divine intervention, scientific proof of God's existence or anything else to support your views? The answer is...because I choose to.

You are clearly referencing free choice, rather than free will. A common misconception, and is not really relevant in this thread, but I still don't see how Creator God could (alleged) create all of what is perceived to exist (physically), and that not be understood as intervention in some way. Or even how it is anything but intervention. The way in which either I understand it, or I think you are suggesting is that Creator God is not Creation and not partaking in this physical existence (what I'd call illusion). If Creator God did manifest as the distinct entity Creator God is from Creation and alter events, that would be intervention that could counter our otherwise free choices. That's how I understand what I think is your position, but isn't mine. I draw the distinction between Creator God and Creation, but it is not a separation as I do not see God as outside of the universe and do see Creator God as within us / our being. The whole 'choice' aspect I find explainable and yet not easy to present in sound bite form, other than to say it is, in reality, an illusion but is actually the fundamental example of divine intervention. The ability to choose again, or reset things to align with divine order (or divine perception). Even that leaves a whole lot more that I'd want to speak to as it doesn't readily capture the scope of how choice manifests, but again is me speaking in way that I find indirectly related to the topic, and more relative to the discussion you and I might have about divine intervention.

 

[Neo Deist]

But from our perspective would we notice any difference?That wasn't the point. If you could be sent to hell against your will, whatever happened to the free will we were supposed to have?

That is the point. Hell does not exist. It is not a place that God created to punish the wicked, so it is not even worth discussing. You might as well replace hell with Willy Wonka's Magical Chocolate Factory and Wonderland if you want a hypothetical discussion.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ArtieE
A person who does believe in the existence of ones own self without any proofs and evidences whatsoever as one experiences oneself existing so why should one not believe in God's existence likewise very naturally. Further proofs or signs are to enhance one's belief in God, they are for the believers and not for the unbelievers.
Those who don't believe in their own existence need no proof at all for the existence of God. Right? Please
Anybody, please.
Regards

 

[Neo Deist]

But from our perspective would we notice any difference?

Nope. It comes down to choice. I choose to believe...and my beliefs don't cause anyone else any type of harm, as deists don't force their beliefs on others, discriminate against others, or go to war in the name of God.

 

[ArtieE]

That is the point. Hell does not exist. It is not a place that God created to punish the wicked, so it is not even worth discussing. You might as well replace hell with Willy Wonka's Magical Chocolate Factory and Wonderland if you want a hypothetical discussion.

You completely and utterly miss the point. The point wasn't about the existence of hell but about the non-existence of free will if you could be sent there against your will.

 

[George-ananda]

Nope. It comes down to choice. I choose to believe...and my beliefs don't cause anyone else any type of harm, as deists don't force their beliefs on others, discriminate against others, or go to war in the name of God.

Does the belief in Deism (as opposed to atheism) make any difference in your life?

 

[Neo Deist]

Does the belief in Deism (as opposed to atheism) make any difference in your life?

As far as what I do with my life, how I treat others, the choices that I make or how I think outside of my own, personal spirituality? Nope, none at all. That is because I choose to be a law abiding, moral person.

Deism is just my spiritual philosophy.