Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple
|
Deism vs. Atheism
Posted on: June 22, 2009 - 3:59pm
 Offline
Deism vs. Atheism
I was recently was presented an argument defending deism: "? > existence > spacial movement > time > big bang > life. We can safely assume that a system that exists outside of our existance exists."
Can anybody comeback this? Bookmark/Search this post with: |
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2013.
|
How about we redo this thread, only this time let's make sense? Thanks.
You barely make any sense. You might want to clean up your question and add some particles.
First, some questions: Why would it be safe to assume that something outside of our existence exists? If there's no evidence for it and it's not necessary to explain something, then why bother positing it at all? Better, why assume that something so vague exists? If it were safe to assume that something did exist, wouldn't that something be a specific something?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Let me try that again:
"something created existance which created spacial movement which created time which created the big bang up until now. Because something that exists cannot create existance, something outside of our own existance must have created existance as we know it."
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Besides which, said 'something' must first exist in order to 'create' anything, thus showing that existance is a prerequisite of anything rather than the other way around.
Likewise, the word 'existence' is ambiguously used.
Please understand, we're not trying to bog anyone down with semantics. However, the very fact that these words are used so nonchalantly to replace specific labels gives cause to suspect the true intentions of the individual using them.
Think about how difficult it is to prove your own existence to people who cannot use the five senses to verify that you do exist. One can declare that their skin is the touch of satin, their breath was the icy forests of Siberia, and their urine tastes like Mountain Dew. It is all base assertion until someone makes the comparison.
In order to hypothesize a 'god' of any sort then testable/verifiable criteria must be established and experimented upon.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Sounds like my old college course of metaphysics. Nobody made much sense there, either.
Look up the various rebuttals to Aquinas' "proofs" if you are actually interested in why this isn't a valid proof.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.