• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Existantialist Deism


The theory of evolution does not require design input to work. Saying it does is a lie.

You can argue that the theory of evolution is wrong. You will lose as you are wrong but you would not be lying, just wrong.
So you apparently don't know what the word "lie" means anymore than you know how evolution works.
That you are completely mistaken about the relation of evolution to design does not make you a liar. :)
 
So you apparently don't know what the word "lie" means anymore than you know how evolution works.
That you are completely mistaken about the relation of evolution to design does not make you a liar. :)

You know that you have been told over and over again that evolution does not need design to work.

You may disagree that the diversity of life we have around us requires design but saying that evolution needs design is a lie.
 
I BELIEVE that the universe needs a creator to exist but not an operator. Deism is compared to a clockmaker, who winds it up and lets it run on its own. The clock needs a maker to exist, but it can run on its own after its kick start.

But why, though? Why do you believe the universe needs a creator?

(And then, of course, who created that creator?)
 
There is no evidence of design, though.
That's the funniest post of the day.
Your vaunted though I'm beginning to suspect unfounded respect for science is grounded on the assumption of design. Every "law" that science comes up with imply design. The Laws of Nature are what in common parlance we all (except you) recognize as design. :)
 
You know that you have been told over and over again that evolution does not need design to work.

You may disagree that the diversity of life we have around us requires design but saying that evolution needs design is a lie.
I think you're confusing the meaning of the word design with Creatioist arguments you reject. Design has a meaning outside Creationist arguments. If there were no design to work within, evolution could not work. That's simple science. Your not understanding this does not make you a liar. :)
 
But why, though? Why do you believe the universe needs a creator?

(And then, of course, who created that creator?)

The universe needs to have come from somewhere, because all that mass that exploded from the Big Bang didn't just decide to explode. Logically in Deists' terms, the universe is like a machine(ish), a machine needs a creator in order to exist; so the universe needs a creator.

The creator can be considered super-natural so it, he, or she could have existed indefinitely.

Alternatively, you can look at Pandeism that believes that God is a sentient part of the universe that cause the big bang, so God is the universe.
 
That's the funniest post of the day.
Your vaunted though I'm beginning to suspect unfounded respect for science is grounded on the assumption of design. Every "law" that science comes up with imply design. The Laws of Nature are what in common parlance we all (except you) recognize as design. :)

Quite the opposite, in fact. Two points:

1. Why is the eye designed completely backwards?

2. Why are our biological systems designed to fail in spectacular, painful, horrific ways? Is our designer a sadist? What does the existence of childhood cancer say about your god?
 
... all that mass that exploded from the Big Bang didn't just decide to explode.

Energy doesn't just decide to reach equilibrium. Are you saying there must be a thinking, rational entity that makes energy do this?

The creator can be considered super-natural so it, he, or she could have existed indefinitely

Why can't the laws of the universe and all of the energy present in the universe have existed indefinitely?
 
Energy doesn't just decide to reach equilibrium. Are you saying there must be a thinking, rational entity that makes energy do this?



Why can't the laws of the universe and all of the energy present in the universe have existed indefinitely?

Something must have jumpstarted the source of energy.

The laws existed, but they weren't in action before the Big Bang.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
You know that you have been told over and over again that evolution does not need design to work.

You may disagree that the diversity of life we have around us requires design but saying that evolution needs design is a lie.

I think you're confusing the meaning of the word design with Creatioist arguments you reject. Design has a meaning outside Creationist arguments. If there were no design to work within, evolution could not work. That's simple science. Your not understanding this does not make you a liar. :)

My origonal post used the phrase concious designe. Evolution does not need that. That is the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life without the need for such a thing.

Your statement that evolution does require design is a lie. I do understand the difference betwen honesty and lying you do not. I will not bother to reply to you again.
 
Something must have jumpstarted the source of energy.

The laws existed, but they weren't in action before the Big Bang.

Why must something have started it?

How long did the singularity exist before the big bang?
 
Why must something have started it?

How long did the singularity exist before the big bang?

I don't believe that the Big Bang was random, so there must be some force/God/deity/whatever that indefinitely influenced the universe before heading into a "dormant" state. The longevity of this singularity is impossible to understand due to relativity and the fact that we don't know its life span (or if has a life span)
 
I don't believe that the Big Bang was random, so there must be some force/God/deity/whatever that indefinitely influenced the universe before heading into a "dormant" state. The longevity of this singularity is impossible to understand due to relativity and the fact that we don't know its life span (or if has a life span)

Do you believe that gravity is random?

You are convinced something must have started it, and you don't know the conditions before it or what precipitated it... so why must "something" have done it? Why not a force of physics?

I'm simply playing a Socratic game here, but from the outside it looks as though you have a belief in god, and are using this belief to inform your theories as to how it all must have happened... and not the other way around. It looks like you believe in god on some level, but have rejected the belief as silly on other, more recent and relevant levels.
 

My origonal post used the phrase concious designe. Evolution does not need that. That is the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life without the need for such a thing.
This was your original post:

Design is not the only way to produce complexity.

In fact design produces less complexity than evolution.
But your mistake is a mistake, not a lie.

Your statement that evolution does require design is a lie. I do understand the difference betwen honesty and lying you do not. I will not bother to reply to you again.[/COLOR]
Without design in nature, natural selection would not work, and therefore evolution would not work. Moreover, science would not work.
These facts do not make you a liar in these posts of yours in which you fail to acknowledge them. You're just mistaken.
Good day to you, brother. :)
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that gravity is random?

You are convinced something must have started it, and you don't know the conditions before it or what precipitated it... so why must "something" have done it? Why not a force of physics?

I'm simply playing a Socratic game here, but from the outside it looks as though you have a belief in god, and are using this belief to inform your theories as to how it all must have happened... and not the other way around. It looks like you believe in god on some level, but have rejected the belief as silly on other, more recent and relevant levels.

Elaborate.

Also, I don't want to jump into the atheist or agnostic crowd yet, Deism seems to be the most appealing belief to me.
 
Elaborate.

Also, I don't want to jump into the atheist or agnostic crowd yet, Deism seems to be the most appealing belief to me.

That's all I said in the beginning of the other thread. I will rephrase it a little more politely:

Deism is for atheists who, for whatever reason, don't want to commit. Alternatively, it is also for theists on the edge of their faith who can't seem to let go (or as I like to call them, the "pre-atheists").

Any given religious notion of any specific god is ludicrous - completely ludicrous - on its face. This much is obvious, to anyone not inculcated in their youth to believe such absurdities. My contention in the context of Deism is that there really isn't anything beyond the base religious/theistic notion for the necessity of a god in the first place. Deists might as well be run-of-the-mill theists for all intents and purposes, barring the specific sect who tries to claim the definition of "god" as the entirety of existence... which is just another way to say "the universe". That's not a religiously philosophical line of thinking so much as an empirically philosophical one, and again, only if "intent" or "desire" is similarly neutered in definition.
 
Last edited:
Elaborate.

Also, I don't want to jump into the atheist or agnostic crowd yet, Deism seems to be the most appealing belief to me.

Who cares what's appealing? It only matters what's factually true.
 
Every form of inner inquiry that I have explored through varied systems that requires the body-mind to empty into stillness reveals that I am just an individuated form of one universal thing. Call it god, or love, or true nature... whatever. It's the real self that existed before you were told that you were a you, that you had a name, that you were this or that. It's the real self that comes from true nature like everyone else's real self, but it's a real self that only wants to live as you. You can't live as anyone or anything else but you. That we can all be from the same thing yet have different experiences implies a purpose.

I'm not talking logic here or anything else. I'm talking about what's evident in exploring each person's inherent, unchanging inner stillness. I'm also not talking about abdicating yourself to the Absolute and dissolving into oneness. What I'm talking about is very here and now, it is you, in the truest sense.

That's why this externalization of God as a creator who did or didn't do something and all the varied stories attached to it do not ring true to me. There is no separation between anything and any illusion of such is a product of our temporary individuation. But the individuation is important and the real self wants to be honored as this individuation, and not as simply being part of divine unity. It's as though God wants to live as YOU and if you try to be anything else it just won't work too well.

I feel like most of the convoluted theories about God are products of each person's individual imprinting patterns that their real-self underwent when they first arrived in this world. We all experience traumas, stories, delusions from our families, cultures, societies and our own body-mind which the real-self starts to identify with. We then transfer these patterns into stories about what God is and isn't. But the real-self remains untarnished underneath all this and it's always possible to recognize it by going into one's own pain and suffering, and realizing the real-self is still occurring. It contains its own origination.

So my sense is that to understand the real-self is to understand God, through living as God's individuated form, and honouring that. Like Jesus said... "The father and I are one." The holy trinity expounds upon this further by describing the duality of being an individuated soul that is also part of God.

It doesn't make sense that God "abandoned" anything, or to say that God does or doesn't want some particular thing to happen. Everyone is an agent of God and God is always paradoxical as the entire universe contains everything and everything's contradiction. God is therefore the abandoner and the abandoned. God is the savior and the admonisher. God is all these things because we are all these things. God is the logic and the intuition, the sane and the insane, the rational and the irrational.
 
Last edited:
Something must have jumpstarted the source of energy.

The laws existed, but they weren't in action before the Big Bang.

By throwing in that "something", you are just adding one extra link to the chain of causation. But you are still left having to figure out where THAT link came from. What jumpstarted that source of energy that jump started the universe? And if you say it was already there from the beginning, then why can't the universe have just been there?

Besides, the argument of theists goes something like this: design seems to exist in the universe. Therefore there must be a designer. Therefore the intention of his design is.... (and then you can insert for your favorite personal opinion, cultural norm, tradition, etc...like that "the intention of his design is <that women cover their face with a hijab>, or perhaps that <gay marriage is wrong>, or <we should invade such and such country or vote for such and such political candidate>, etc....

It's a pretty useless mindset. People just have to learn to argue for issues based on their own merits, not because whether otherworldly deities do or do not exist, and purporting to know exactly what these entities want from us.
 
Something must have jumpstarted the source of energy.

The laws existed, but they weren't in action before the Big Bang.

Why? Why must something have jumpstarted it all? And the laws didn't exist, they came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. We have no idea what, if anything, existed before.
 
What is the universe made of?
What is god made of?
Did god make the universe out of the same stuff that god is made of? If not, what did god use?
 
Back
Top Bottom