Deism vs. Atheism

Release
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-06-22
User is offlineOffline
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?


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
How about we redo this

How about we redo this thread, only this time let's make sense? Thanks.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You barely make any sense. 

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."


Release
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-06-22
User is offlineOffline
Let me try that

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."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Release wrote:Let me try

Release wrote:

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."

I would first ask the person posing the argument to choose a word other than create.  I won't respond to an argument wherein a loaded and otherwise blatantly misused (equivocated) word is used.


 

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."


Anon O Moose
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Besides which, said

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.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Likewise, the word

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.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Release wrote:Let me try

Release wrote:

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."

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.