DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 270
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.

    The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.

    The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.

    **But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**

    Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.

    Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).

    DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

    Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods.  Intelligently designed.

    Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]

    This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.

    This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.

    Basically, we're back to square-one.

  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @3RU7AL
    The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god. 
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something." The arguments are usually like "well, I'm not sure how else it would happen that the universe would exist," to which atheism simply stops at "we don't know." Deism seems to add the argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance to this. To which I simply can say "well, I guess we disagree." I even grant this codntion in arguments, "something" started the universe, and no one as you point out can ever get from there to Jesus. They say they can, but they have never demonstrated it. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    The Ultimate Reality is God.

    You can go with that? Sure.

    What we don't have in common is our relationship with God. 


    Deism is simply the belief that God exists. This is nothing spectacular.


    Sure, you could say that someone who can admit God exists and nothing else is functionally the same as an atheist. Just as you can say that a Christian who does not practice the Christian discipline is functionally the same as an atheist.


    But here is the thing. A Deist is the opposite of an atheist. Deism is the belief that God exists. Atheism is denial of God's existence. 


    My religion is love of The Truth. You know The Truth exists. Great. Love of The Truth is where the walk is.






  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Mopac
    A theist is the denial of God's non-existence.

    My religion is love of The Truth. You know The Truth exists. Great. Love of The Truth is where the walk is.

    Love = Truth = Ultimate Reality = God

    Anything else? You have certainly added another one yet to still justify anything without appealing to the other side. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL @ludofl3x @PressF4Respect
    @3RU7AL

    Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.
    Which theists "love" to use deistic arguments?

    The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.
    Intelligent design is not a deistic argument. It was a concept purported by religious authorities for millennia, even polytheistic ones. Deism didn't emerge until after the "enlightenment."

    The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
    That's not deistic at all. It would be "logically necessary" initial mover without the sustenance.

    **But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**
    Using deistic premises, sure. But then, Deism doesn't make any sense.

    Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.

    Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).
    That's the reason it makes no sense.

    DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
    Insofar as they're both riddled with contradiction, yes.


    Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods.  Intelligently designed.

    Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]

    This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.

    This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.
    In other words, have perspective. Good words by which to live.

    @PressF4Respect:

    The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god. 
    You know there's no evidence? How? Please elaborate.

    @ludofl3x:

    I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something."
    No, they presume God/Supreme Being.


  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Athias
    No, they presume God/Supreme Being.


    They presume little g god, prime mover. Not Supreme Being necessarily, that seems to me imbued with other properties that aren't necessary, like supremacy, for the proposition of starting the universe. But now we're both arguing distinction without difference, I think. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Which theists "love" to use deistic arguments?
    This guy, [LINK] 2 minute clip.

    And this guy, [LINK] 3 minute clip.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Intelligent design is not a deistic argument. It was a concept purported by religious authorities for millennia, even polytheistic ones. Deism didn't emerge until after the "enlightenment."
    Regardless of its origin and historical context, it remains an argument that supports DEISM exclusively.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
    That's not deistic at all. It would be "logically necessary" initial mover without the sustenance.
    That's literally the ONLY claim DEISM makes.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
    Insofar as they're both riddled with contradiction, yes.
    Please explain.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something."
    No, they presume God/Supreme Being.
    DEISM is basically an ontological argument that labels "whatever logically necessary thing(s)/force(s)/phenomenon(a)/NOUMENA made everything" as "god(s)".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,505
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ludofl3x
    Deism seems to add the argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance to this.
    Atheism is simply "without belief in god(s)".  NOT "there is/are no god(s)".  And probably "your particular god(s) is/are logically incoherent".

    DEISM is simply "any god(s) that is/are indistinguishable from no-god(s) is/are just as likely as no-god(s)".
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Athias
    Show me one piece of evidence, which cannot be applied to any other deity, to prove the existence of a particular god of your choosing (assume that deism is proven without a shadow of a doubt).
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @3RU7AL @Athias
    #14 is what a Theistic Argument would be trying to answer in a nutshell.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL @ludofl3x @PressF4Respect

    @ 3RU7AL:


    This guy, [LINK] 2 minute clip.

    And this guy, [LINK] 3 minute clip.

    Those are not deistic arguments. First with Bill Stein, as Dawkins pointed out, he presumed a "who." He then uses the intelligent design argument to reveal Dawkins' blatant attempt at arguing from ignorance. Dinesh D'Souza, argues if anything, that the [deist rationale] originated with the ancient Hebrews. So it wouldn't be a deist argue more so than a Hebrew argument.Of course, he's wrong, as intelligent design can be traced as far back as the ancient Sumerians.

    Regardless of its origin and historical context, it remains an argument that supports DEISM exclusively.
    No, the origin does matter. Your accepting the intelligent design rationale for the deistic premise doesn't make intelligent design exclusively deistic.

    That's literally the ONLY claim DEISM makes.
    Deism posits a metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive. Its only function, in a sense, was to initiate. It remains, according to Deists, a "non-interventionist."

    Please explain.
    Easy: if "God" is this metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive, then how is it that they can render conclusions about the characteristics and functions of said God? Even if one were to simply extend the rationale of "everything must follow logic," this metaphysical entity would also have conform to this rationale. Hence, God, too, is confined to logic. Since man has the capacity for logic, man would also have to capacity to perceive God. And Deism argues that God cannot be perceived, acknowledged, etc.

    As for Atheism, it posits that no God exist or that God does not exist. Now if one is going to take the route that Atheism is merely a "non-belief," than it's a non-belief with no substantial premise. If one can neither verify nor falsify the existence of God, then what is the basis of the non-belief? God's existence notwithstanding, atheists do not value arguments for God's existence. And this expressed often through emotion, not reason.

    Atheism is simply "without belief in god(s)".  NOT "there is/are no god(s)".  And probably "your particular god(s) is/are logically incoherent".
    If Atheism operated on its semantic description, it would be apathy or indifference. And regardless of your definitions, Atheism does posit that there are no Gods. It's the premise of your non belief; thus you saw fit to include "logically incoherent" which is tantamount to positing that God cannot "logically" exist.

    DEISM is simply "any god(s) that is/are indistinguishable from no-god(s) is/are just as likely as no-god(s)".
    That's not how they argue it, but your reduction does point out how nonsensical their rationale is. It's a sophistic attempt by Deists to conflate divinity with the Big Bang Theory.

    @PressF4Respect:

    Show me one piece of evidence, which cannot be applied to any other deity, to prove the existence of a particular god of your choosing (assume that deism is proven without a shadow of a doubt).
    Why? Did I make the argument that there's "one piece of evidence"? Or did you assert "the reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence"? You do not reconcile the burden of your assertion by placing the referendum on your opponent to falsify your argument. You posited the assertion; it's you who must support it. Once again, please elaborate.

    @ludofl3x:

    They presume little g god, prime mover. Not Supreme Being necessarily, that seems to me imbued with other properties that aren't necessary, like supremacy, for the proposition of starting the universe. But now we're both arguing distinction without difference, I think. 
    I suppose. Contextually, Deism was a response to Western monotheistic religion, namely Christianity and Judaism. While God isn't "necessary," God is implicit.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    We come to know God through The Son, and by The Holy Spirit for in that The Father is revealed. Even deists can discern that God exists, and they can only do this because God is with us. If God was not with us, it would not be possible for them to witness that God exists. 

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Athias
    the reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence
    Yes. That is exactly what I’m saying. 

    According to Merriam-Webster [1], theism is:
    belief in the existence of a god or gods
    specifically belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
    Theists believe that there is one god (specifically their god). Likewise, a Theistic Argument would be positing for the existence of a very specific god/set of gods. If this were a debate, the burden of proof would be placed on the person arguing that there is specific evidence for the existence of a particular god/set of gods. Since I posited a negative assertion, the burden of proof would not be on me to prove that there is NO evidence for theism.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PressF4Respect
    Theists believe that there is one god (specifically their god). Likewise, a Theistic Argument would be positing for the existence of a very specific god/set of gods. If this were a debate, the burden of proof would be placed on the person arguing that there is specific evidence for the existence of a particular god/set of gods. Since I posited a negative assertion, the burden of proof would not be on me to prove that there is NO evidence for theism.
    This is categorically erroneous. The burden of proof rests with the one who posits a claim, whether it affirms or negates. You are stating in effect that "the nonexistence of evidence for God's existence" is true. The logical inversion of your argument demonstrates that you are in fact making a "true" statement or in this context, a positive claim. Failure to substantiate your negative assertion does not inform the positive assertion, and vice versa less you fall into an argument from ignorance. Essentially, if you posit an assertion, the burden of proof rest on you to support it. My inquiry isn't designed to inform the theistic assertion, but your claim and your claim alone that there's no evidence. How do you know this? Once again, please elaborate.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @PressF4Respect
    The One God that I recognize is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is The One True God. 

    I believe that God became incarnate, sanctifying all of creation.

    I believe that it is God's Spirit that fills all things and gives life to all creation.

    I believe that in becoming incarnate, God became even death so that by death, death is conquered.

    And so I believe in the last day when all of creation will be made manifest by the light of The Truth, that death itself will perish as all of creation is united to God in eternal life.

    And I believe that Eternal life is this... to know The One True God, and  the Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ.







  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Mopac
    You can believe in whatever you want. I’m not here to say what you can or can’t believe in. 
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Athias
    There are only two possible stances that you could take for this subject: either there is evidence for theism or there isn’t. Since no evidence has been provided, the stance that there is no evidence for theism is the default position. Proving that there is no evidence for theism would require me to comb through literally every single webpage, book, and other source of information in existence. This is extremely impractical, if not impossible, to do. It’s like having to scour every single cubic centimeter of space in the universe just to prove that fairies don’t exist. Until someone provides evidence that fairies exist, it can be concluded that they don’t. Same logic applies to this case as well. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PressF4Respect
    There are only two possible stances that you could take for this subject: either there is evidence for theism or there isn’t. Since no evidence has been provided, the stance that there is no evidence for theism is the default position.
    This is an argument from ignorance, an informal logical fallacy which delineates that your posit is validated by lack of evidence to its contrary. There's no "default" position. You still have the burden to support your claim. It works both ways: just like a theist cannot use your lack of disproving their claim as information for their claim, you cannot use their lack of proof for their claims as information for yours--i.e. the default position is that there's no evidence.

    Proving that there is no evidence for theism would require me to comb through literally every single webpage, book, and other source of information in existence. This is extremely impractical, if not impossible, to do. It’s like having to scour every single cubic centimeter of space in the universe just to prove that fairies don’t exist.
    Then perhaps it would be prudent to refrain from proposing arguments you find impractical to substantiate.

    Until someone provides evidence that fairies exist, it can be concluded that they don’t. Same logic applies to this case as well. 
    And this logic you apply is unsound.

  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @Athias
    If you go to the debate section and look at all the debates (for whatever reason), you will notice that in some debates, the Instigator waives the first round. The reason people do this is because it would be extremely impractical to BoP a negative claim first round. So in a debate, what I did would be considered valid.

    Anyways, since you insist on it, I'll fulfill your BoP requirement in the simplest way I can think of.

    I will be using modus tollens to prove that there is no theistic evidence that mankind has yet created.

    The premise of modus tollens is as follows [1]:
    If P, then Q. (premise – material implication)
    If not Q, then not P. (derived by transposition)
    Not Q . (premise)
    Therefore, not P. (derived by modus ponens)

    Applied to this case, the logical structure of the proof looks like this:
    If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it. 
    If there is no such argument, then no theists would use it.
    Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones (as evidenced by this thread).
    Therefore, there is no theistic argument. 


    According to the above proof, until the day that theists start using theistic arguments, it can be logically proven that no such argument exists. 

    Happy now?