DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 270
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:

...there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god. 
If you want to debate me on this specific premise (since you kinda already are), then I’ll happily oblige.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
Yes.

Now will you answer me this one question: what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
As for this:
Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones (as evidenced by this thread).
I was referring to 3RUTAL’s first post of this thread, and the argument made in it.

If you wish to start off on a clean slate, then we can do so on a superset debate.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you want to debate me on this specific premise (since you kinda already are), then I’ll happily oblige.
No, I'd rather discuss the premise in the forums rather than subject it to vote.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
I was referring to 3RUTAL’s first post of this thread, and the argument made in it.
And I challenged the integrity of each of 3RU7AL's statements. 3RU7AL's argument is that he accepts intelligent design as the premise for deistic arguments, but not theistic arguments. This however does not provide evidence that intelligent design is an exclusively deistic premise. When I argued that intelligent design has its origins which preceded Deism, he extended his argument in concession or in spite of it.


PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
The reason I want this in a debate instead of in a forum setting is because, given the complexity of the argument, it would require a separate debate to prove/satisfy.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
I am specifically referring to this:
This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:

The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What proof? You have not substantiated your premises. There has yet to be any demonstration of evidence by this thread. 3RU7AL's videos at best are subject to interpretation, and the only contribution you've made to the discussion is to assert that Theists use deistic arguments because evidence for their "particular God," outside of holy texts, does not exist. Not to mention, the argument you've used to construct the modus tollens is still an argument from ignorance because you're still placing the referendum on the Theistic argument to inform your assertion. This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:
Pick a specific god and I will explain exactly why it cannot possibly exist due to logically contradictory descriptions.

In the absence of a logically coherent description, I reject the validity of all gods (except SPINOZA'S GOD OF COURSE!!!).

I only accept the existence of phenomena that are scientifically quantifiable and or logically necessary (based on the definition of "existence" also known as REAL-TRUE-FACTS).

You are making an "argument from ignorance" basically saying that because (not-rigorously-defined) fairies and gods can't be disproven (in your opinion) that they cannot be said to "not-exist" (you're also ignoring the definition of "exist").

The definition of exist requires verifiability.  Not verifiable = Does-Not-Exist.

Pick a specific god and I will explain exactly why it cannot possibly exist due to logically contradictory descriptions.

By refusing to rigorously define what you mean by "god(s)" and or "fairies" you are making an "appeal to ignorance".
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
@PressF4Respect:


The reason I want this in a debate instead of in a forum setting is because, given the complexity of the argument, it would require a separate debate to prove/satisfy.
Then create another thread. If the argument is as complex as you say, then we'll need more than a five round limit. Not to mention, if others want to participate in the discussion, they have discretion to weigh in.

@3RU7AL:

Pick a specific god and I will explain exactly why it cannot possibly exist due to logically contradictory descriptions.
I've told you before that not only does God exist, but also that all gods exist. In that same discussion, I argued that the existence of anything is not contingent on a particular description, and I believe that I used a description of myself as an example. Even if you were to demonstrate a logical contradiction, that is not the same as a refutation of God's existence.

In the absence of a logically coherent description, I reject the validity of all gods (except SPINOZA'S GOD OF COURSE!!!).
And that's your prerogative in the context of that which you accept or reject, but then again, that is not the topic of discussion.

I only accept the existence of phenomena that are scientifically quantifiable and or logically necessary (based on the definition of "existence" also known as REAL-TRUE-FACTS).
There are many definitions of "existence" or "to exist" and thus, any extension of definitions will primarily result in arguments over semantics.

You are making an "argument from ignorance" basically saying that because (not-rigorously-defined) fairies and gods can't be disproven (in your opinion) that they cannot be said to "not-exist" (you're also ignoring the definition of "exist").

Not even remotely. Read my argument. I stated that I believe God exists because I can--an argument over which we've had an extensive debate. The validity of this logic is not at all contingent on capacity to falsify. And I'm not ignoring the definition of "exist" because there is no definition of exist; there are definitions--and if I sought an insubstantial debate over semantics, I'd cite the merriam-webster definition--to have actual being whether material or spiritual, and that would be the end of it. But rather than argue definitions, I seek a conceptual exploration into the nature of being, where one requires more than just a dictionary to delve.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
Ok I will
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@PressF4Respect
You don't need a holy text to know God exists. The Ultimate Reality by necessity must exist.

Going from this to Christianity is not a matter of now proving a different God than this. Orthodox theology has more to do with the relationship God has with creation and our relating to God in creation.

So the question is a little bit misguided in the case of Orthodox Christianity.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You don't need a holy text to know God exists. The Ultimate Reality by necessity must exist.
We already agree that god = NOUMENON.

You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
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.
I have to agree with Athias on this one.  Shifting the BoP exclusively to your opponent is also a logical fallacy. 

Both sides should be able to support their case independently.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
We already agree that god = NOUMENON.

No, I do not agree. This is bad language. It implies that God is a mental construct, not The Ultimate Reality.

You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.

I am certain this is a misunderstanding on your part, because we have scripture and we take it very seriously.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
We already agree that god = NOUMENON.
No, I do not agree. This is bad language. It implies that God is a mental construct, not The Ultimate Reality.
Your descriptions of god are indistinguishable from NOUMENON.

You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.
I am certain this is a misunderstanding on your part, because we have scripture and we take it very seriously.
Do you believe the holy-scripture as-written is 100% infallible?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I argued that the existence of anything is not contingent on a particular description,
There can be no conversation if you refuse to discuss the specific meaning of specific words.

There can be no conversation if you refuse to describe the thing you assert "exists".

Scritino-waves exist.  I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.

(A)  all gods exist.

(B) what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean by "exist"?

(A) i refuse to describe gods and i also refuse to define existence.

(B) so you've basically said, "all potatoes exist".
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Your descriptions of god are indistinguishable from NOUMENON


That is because descriptions are by nature noumenon, and God is not a description.


Do you believe the holy-scripture as-written is 100% infallible?
Writings cannot be infallible. Only God is infallible.

I accept that the church's interpretation and use of scripture is inerrant.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
Yes.
Please elaborate.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
There can be no conversation if you refuse to discuss the specific meaning of specific words.
And yet conversation persists without it.

There can be no conversation if you refuse to describe the thing you assert "exists".
No, you cannot pigeonhole a description that isn't lexically semantic.

Scritino-waves exist.  I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.
Okay.

(B) what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean by "exist"?

(A) i refuse to describe gods and i also refuse to define existence.
Disingenuous. I've already given you a description of existence in a previous discussion. If you'd like me to repeat it, all you have to do is ask.  As for God, are there other descriptions for gods? Please elaborate.


(B) so you've basically said, "all potatoes exist".
All potatoes do exist. I trust that's not up for dispute?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Scritino-waves exist.  I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.
Okay.
God is a Scritino-wave.

God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
So God exists?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
So God exists?
So Scritino-waves exist?

Spinoza's god definitely exists.

All other gods exist in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism means the opposite of atheism, because it admits a deity.

Belief in God does effect how some people behave, but to others it may not. That doesn't make deism functionally the same as atheism. They are opposites.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Belief in the existence of a deity is not the same as devotion or faith toward a deity.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Deism means the opposite of atheism, because it admits a deity.
Atheism means, "without THEISM".  This is perfectly compatible with DEISM.

Belief in God does effect how some people behave, but to others it may not.
Belief in a DEISTIC god does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.

That doesn't make deism functionally the same as atheism. They are opposites.
The practical and moral conclusions drawn by DEISM and ATHEISM are indistinguishable.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism simply means belief that a deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.

Atheism does not believe that a Deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.

Belief in the existence of a deity is not the same as devotion or faith toward a deity.

It takes more than intellectual assent for the belief to do anything. Our scriptures say that  even the demons believe, but thid does not stop them from being demonic. There are many so called believers in God, even ones that claim to worship God that behave in a way indistinguishable from those who are pagans or even deny God outright.


Theism and Deism mean the same thing belief in a god/gods/deity/deities/God. Even the etymology of these words demonstrate this as deus and theos both mean the same thing. 

What is the difference?

Deus is the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theos". They even sound pretty similar!













3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Deism simply means belief that a deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.
I agree.

[Even (IFF)] Atheism does not believe that a Deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.
I (conditionally) agree.

Belief in the existence of a deity is not the same as devotion or faith toward a deity.
I agree.

It takes more than intellectual assent for the belief to do anything. Our scriptures say that  even the demons believe, but thid does not stop them from being demonic. There are many so called believers in God, even ones that claim to worship God that behave in a way indistinguishable from those who are pagans or even deny God outright.
I agree.

Theism and Deism mean the same thing belief in a god/gods/deity/deities/God. Even the etymology of these words demonstrate this as deus and theos both mean the same thing. 

What is the difference?
Theism requires THEOLOGY.

DEISM excludes THEOLOGY.

Deus is the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theos". They even sound pretty similar!
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but words take on different meanings over time.

For example, the word "catholic" means literally "universally accepted," from French catholique, from Latin catholicus "universal, general," from Greek katholikos, from phrase kath' holou "on the whole, in general," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole" (from PIE root *sol- "whole, well-kept"). [LINK]
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism does not necessarily exclude theology. In fact, I find that very difficult to believe. Plesse explain.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
I think that any outcome will lack proof and general satisfaction.

Because the outcome is always the same.