[Matchett-PI]

"One needn't believe in supernatural intervention to believe in Providence. One must assume that an infinite God need not muck about with a universe he created in order for his plan to be fulfilled. Many Deists speak of providence, the plan of the great "author of the universe" and the "natural law" that he put in place that assures that all men are born free and with the desire for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I'll go through this again slowly, and spell it out in ever more minute detail:

Dictionary definition of: Deism / Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason. God is personal and transcendent but not immanent. He is a sort of "remote control" God. He "pushed a button" to create everythng and now passively watches what happens. This view acknowledges God but denies supernational intervention in the universe.

Immanent: Remaining or operating within a domain of reality or realm of discourse.

God of Providence: God conceived of as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny. Providence: Divine guidance or care.

Ben Franklin's June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist", to wit:

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this [REVEALED truth]; and I also believe that without His concurring aid [Immanent: operating within by HELPING US TO BUILD THIS] (present tense), we shall succeed (future) in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." (past). ~~~ Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

"So your refutation is NOTHING but you opinion about what a Deist can and cannot believe in; and it is wrong."

You continue to show yourself as one who deliberately rejects, or is incapable of, objective reasoning. You reject the true definitions of words and instead insist on using your personal definitions as the premises for your arguments.

There is a crash course in Critical Thinking for Dummies available for those who have the courage to want to learn how not to be illogical and emotion-driven.

WARNING: The more emotionally immature a person is, the more courage it will take to face objective truth - because he instinctively knows that it can "hurt" his feelings if the objective truth is different from the subjective truth he has concocted to make him feel good about himself. bttt

[Mylo]

Your argument about Critical thinking should be addressed to Benjamin Franklin's' thinking because it was he who saw nothing incompatible with being a "Thorough Deist" (his words) and believing in Providence (his words in the same book, his autobiography)that there was a plan put in place by the author of the universe.


So your argument is with a dead man. Showing that you need a remedial course in critical thinking.