• 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.

Deism

Angel said:
They don't think they have proof?
Did you read the article on the off-chance?
Click to expand...

They may think they have proof.

They don't though.
 
tosca1 said:
How can you think that a "liar" is one of the greatest humans to have ever lived?


If His philosophy is so perfect (since you find no flaws in it).....then why can't you accept His claim as
the Son of God?


If He's not who He said He is, then why did He willingly sacrifice Himself, and die for mankind?
What kind of philosophy is that? Dying for a lie?
Click to expand...

Why should I care if he claimed he was the son of god, if he even did. Alot of paganism was added into the bible by the Church to aid in converting rural peasants outside of Romes immediate influence, and the whole virgin birth son of god thing has been used by Horus, and Mithra long before Jesus. Doubtful he ever claimed divinity as a man, more likely his followers assigned it to him. His philosophy doesn't require anyone to believe he is god's son. It's one of those, the argument stands on their own merits.

Don't know that he willingly sacrificed anything, and don't care if he did. He was challenging the Temple's power, they didn't like it so they had him killed. That's not him sacrificing himself for a lie. That's him being executed for causing problems. A sacrifice would be if no one wanted him dead and he did it anyway. That part of the story is of zero importance anyway to anyone but Christians. I get this is a hard concept for people who believe that being the son of god is what makes Jesus special. But the myths surrounding Jesus have zero to do with his philosophy. Following his parables and morals, does not require you to believe the mumbo jumbo added in by Roman Priests trying to save their power as the cult that would become Christianity swept across their failing Empire.

This is a problem I have found in most "Christians" today. They are under the impression Jesus just walked around the desert telling people he was the son of god come to save them. No, he was a revolutionary who started a grass roots movement that toppled the Western Half of Rome. And he did it preaching pacifism, and love.

If you want to see his philosophy free of divine claims, read the above link. The whole thing. Then watch this Yale lecture on historical Jesus.



Or you can do what most Christians who ask these snarky questions do, ignore everything I said and blabber about his sacrifice, like some random persons declarations actually make it true. Puh Lease.
 
Angel said:
On what basis do you think they don't have proof?
Click to expand...

Because I have never seen a definition of any kind of god (that one would try to seek a scientific proof for) that didn't automatically place the god outside of the realm of proof.

Further, if there was any kind of credible proof for the oldest question in the history of mankind, I'm sure I would have heard about it first through channels other than Debate Politics.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Because I have never seen a definition of any kind of god (that one would try to seek a scientific proof for) that didn't automatically place the god outside of the realm of proof.
Click to expand...
Well, the "proof" in this case arises from phenomena recognized by science but unaccountable in scientific, i.e., materialistic, terms: namely, mathematical reality and consciousness.

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Further, if there was any kind of credible proof for the oldest question in the history of mankind, I'm sure I would have heard about it first through channels other than Debate Politics.
Click to expand...
The problems of mathematical reality and consciousness have been written about since Plato, were revisited by Newton, and then grappled with by more modern scientists. The history is in the article.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Why should I care if he claimed he was the son of god, if he even did. Alot of paganism was added into the bible by the Church to aid in converting rural peasants outside of Romes immediate influence, and the whole virgin birth son of god thing has been used by Horus, and Mithra long before Jesus. Doubtful he ever claimed divinity as a man, more likely his followers assigned it to him. His philosophy doesn't require anyone to believe he is god's son. It's one of those, the argument stands on their own merits.

Don't know that he willingly sacrificed anything, and don't care if he did. He was challenging the Temple's power, they didn't like it so they had him killed. That's not him sacrificing himself for a lie. That's him being executed for causing problems. A sacrifice would be if no one wanted him dead and he did it anyway. That part of the story is of zero importance anyway to anyone but Christians. I get this is a hard concept for people who believe that being the son of god is what makes Jesus special. But the myths surrounding Jesus have zero to do with his philosophy. Following his parables and morals, does not require you to believe the mumbo jumbo added in by Roman Priests trying to save their power as the cult that would become Christianity swept across their failing Empire.

This is a problem I have found in most "Christians" today. They are under the impression Jesus just walked around the desert telling people he was the son of god come to save them. No, he was a revolutionary who started a grass roots movement that toppled the Western Half of Rome. And he did it preaching pacifism, and love.

If you want to see his philosophy free of divine claims, read the above link. The whole thing. Then watch this Yale lecture on historical Jesus.



Or you can do what most Christians who ask these snarky questions do, ignore everything I said and blabber about his sacrifice, like some random persons declarations actually make it true. Puh Lease.
Click to expand...



Your opinion that His claim as the Son of God is merely added by priests doesn't hold water.

The apostles - who were fearful when He got arrested that they'd all went into hiding - had written about what they'd witnessed, and willingly martyred themselves after they'd witness the risen Christ. From being fearful they were suddenly brimming with confidence that they'd defy the authorities and kept preaching.


There were also other witnesses to the risen Christ, thus Christianity exploded in the region.
 
Angel said:
Well, the "proof" in this case arises from phenomena recognized by science but unaccountable in scientific, i.e., materialistic, terms: namely, mathematical reality and consciousness.


The problems of mathematical reality and consciousness have been written about since Plato, were revisited by Newton, and then grappled with by more modern scientists. The history is in the article.
Click to expand...

Leading questions are also a good sign of bunk.

"Did our History Chanel explorers find Noah's Ark? Stay tuned!" No, no they didn't. Clearly.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Deism either requires the invention of a supreme being, which makes it little different than any other kind of theism with a creation myth, or it requires such a vagueness and intentional lack of definition that might as well be a no-god scenario anyway.

So, I'll revise my earlier statememt: Deism is for atheists and theists alike who either lack the balls to defend their convictions, or the skills to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm a deist, and I truly believe a force predating the Universe caused the Universe to exist. We have no way of knowing what that force is, or its intentions. If it even has intentions. We have no way of knowing if that force is aware of us, or even capable of self awareness. We have no way of knowing if this force was created in some natural cycle by a force larger than itself.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We do know that.

And as the Universe does exist and is in motion, its safe to assume an unbalanced force acted upon it. If it doesn't have a beginning, then the Universe itself is that force. Whether it is a conscious being with a purpose, or just cosmic energy cycling through its own form of evolution. There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way.

It's likely not aware of us, and even if it is, probably doesn't care about us. But something got the ball rolling somewhere, or the ball has always been rolling and is the something. Either way, its easier to reconcile an unknowable force tipped the dominoes, than it is to infer that nothing beyond what we can perceive exists.

There's your balls and skills...
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Your opinion that His claim as the Son of God is merely added by priests doesn't hold water.

The apostles - who were fearful when He got arrested that they'd all went into hiding - had written about what they'd witnessed, and willingly martyred themselves after they'd witness the risen Christ. From being fearful they were suddenly brimming with confidence that they'd defy the authorities and kept preaching.


There were also other witnesses to the risen Christ, thus Christianity exploded in the region.
Click to expand...

According to your mythology...

But as I stated before, don't know if he did, don't care if he did. It's not the important part of the story.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I'm a deist, and I truly believe a force predating the Universe caused the Universe to exist. We have no way of knowing what that force is, or its intentions. If it even has intentions. We have no way of knowing if that force is aware of us, or even capable of self awareness. We have no way of knowing if this force was created in some natural cycle by a force larger than itself.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We do know that.

And as the Universe does exist and is in motion, its safe to assume an unbalanced force acted upon it. If it doesn't have a beginning, then the Universe itself is that force. Whether it is a conscious being with a purpose, or just cosmic energy cycling through its own form of evolution. There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way.

It's likely not aware of us, and even if it is, probably doesn't care about us. But something got the ball rolling somewhere, or the ball has always been rolling and is the something. Either way, its easier to reconcile an unknowable force tipped the dominoes, than it is to infer that nothing beyond what we can perceive exists.

There's your balls and skills...
Click to expand...

So, you're making the cosmological argument, but instead of Aquinas's magical wizard who continues to medle, your magical wizard inexplicably left. Got it.

The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Leading questions are also a good sign of bunk.

"Did our History Chanel explorers find Noah's Ark? Stay tuned!" No, no they didn't. Clearly.
Click to expand...
You refer to journalism here and apparently refuse to read the article inasmuch as your "refutations" do not refer to any points in the article. There's bunk, and then there's bunk.

ThoughtEx. said:
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We do know that.

And as the Universe does exist and is in motion, its safe to assume an unbalanced force acted upon it. If it doesn't have a beginning, then the Universe itself is that force. Whether it is a conscious being with a purpose, or just cosmic energy cycling through its own form of evolution. There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way.
Click to expand...
There it is in a well-written nutshell.

"There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way."

That's as good a definition of "God" as any ever offered.:)
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, you're making the cosmological argument, but instead of Aquinas's magical wizard who continues to medle, your magical wizard inexplicably left. Got it.

The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Click to expand...

You see, your trying to pigeon hole deists into believing in a standard god with standard god powers. The whole point is, no one can know that, so why try. I stated several times that it could just be a force with no guided purpose. Yet you are determined to discredit the idea because of your own preconceived notion of what a god should be in relation to us.

AS for your uncaused cause, I don't think you caught the part where I stated that the Universe was either at rest, or already in motion. So I do allow for an uncaused cause, the Universe already being in motion and thus being the unbalanced force that caused us to exist. Meaning Deists allow for unconscious nature itself to be the higher power as one of the possibilities. We just don't think we can define the parameters of god, so we don't try. We don't even like the word god. Cause it makes people think we believe in a wizard who just left. We don't believe anything of the kind, we allow for many possibilities. And when new information arrives, we discount the possibilities that conflict with the new information and move forward.

Basically the only thing deists truly believe in, is Newton's first law. The rest is just a statement of preference from person to person. "I would prefer this to be true, but who knows"- Core concept of Deism.

At no point did I state anything left, that is once again your preconceived notion, I did state that it could not be aware of us or is aware and doesn't care. Earlier, I misunderstood something you meant, and corrected myself. Do you got the balls to admit you didn't take a critical look at my statement...
 
Deism is just another mental gymnastic, like agnosticism, to allow people to live as atheists without pissing off theists as much.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Click to expand...


The universe is either eternal....or something/someone outside of the universe had created it.


Science says the universe isn't eternal, it has a beginning........ for there wouldn't be a beginning if
it had always existed!


As far as we know.....matter cannot create itself. If matter cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that someone/something outside of nature (supernatural) had caused the universe and everything in it.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Click to expand...
Causality is a fundamental concept in the natural sciences. Science follows this concept back 14 billion years and then falls mute on what preceded the time-space cosmos.
Deistic thought simply carries that concept a step further. According to the article I posted above (which you refuse to read) there is no scientific explanation for the complex mathematical reality at work in the cosmos, i.e., no materialist explanation of the rule of mathematics in the universe.

The "flaw" you find in the cosmological argument is a straw man. "God" is an inference from your own science that accounts for the universe where science cannot. That we cannot account for "God" is not a refutation of that inference. This question just changes the subject.
 
spud_meister said:
Deism is just another mental gymnastic, like agnosticism, to allow people to live as atheists without pissing off theists as much.
Click to expand...

You would think, but in my experience, Christians (at least) get way more pissed off if you acknowledge a domino tipper and discount their domino tipper as false. Than if you just state there was no domino tipper at all.

And they get even more pissed off if you do it while saying Jesus was one of the greatest humans to have walked the earth. Which is odd, you would think they would enjoy that you hold their messiah in such a high regard even if you don't believe in his divinity. I mean, I am basically saying, I live my life by your teachers standards. What does it matter if I believe he is god, I acknowledge his morality as the best option to live by.

But that really ticks off Christians for some reason. Any Christian is free to tell me why that is.
 
spud_meister said:
Deism is just another mental gymnastic, like agnosticism, to allow people to live as atheists without pissing off theists as much.
Click to expand...

ThoughtEx. said:
You would think, but in my experience, Christians (at least) get way more pissed off if you acknowledge a domino tipper and discount their domino tipper as false. Than if you just state there was no domino tipper at all.

And they get even more pissed off if you do it while saying Jesus was one of the greatest humans to have walked the earth. Which is odd, you would think they would enjoy that you hold their messiah in such a high regard even if you don't believe in his divinity. I mean, I am basically saying, I live my life by your teachers standards. What does it matter if I believe he is god, I acknowledge his morality as the best option to live by.

But that really ticks off Christians for some reason. Any Christian is free to tell me why that is.
Click to expand...

All religions are stories woven around the intuition that "There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way" (the Deistic rational inference as formulated by ThoughtEx. above). An understanding of religion belongs to psychology, not science or philosophy or politics. Belief in this or that religious story is a very personal matter, and any challenge to that story is taken personally.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You see, your trying to pigeon hole deists into believing in a standard god with standard god powers. The whole point is, no one can know that, so why try. I stated several times that it could just be a force with no guided purpose. Yet you are determined to discredit the idea because of your own preconceived notion of what a god should be in relation to us.

AS for your uncaused cause, I don't think you caught the part where I stated that the Universe was either at rest, or already in motion. So I do allow for an uncaused cause, the Universe already being in motion and thus being the unbalanced force that caused us to exist. Meaning Deists allow for unconscious nature itself to be the higher power as one of the possibilities. We just don't think we can define the parameters of god, so we don't try. We don't even like the word god. Cause it makes people think we believe in a wizard who just left. We don't believe anything of the kind, we allow for many possibilities. And when new information arrives, we discount the possibilities that conflict with the new information and move forward.

Basically the only thing deists truly believe in, is Newton's first law. The rest is just a statement of preference from person to person. "I would prefer this to be true, but who knows"- Core concept of Deism.

At no point did I state anything left, that is once again your preconceived notion, I did state that it could not be aware of us or is aware and doesn't care. Earlier, I misunderstood something you meant, and corrected myself. Do you got the balls to admit you didn't take a critical look at my statement...
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
The universe is either eternal....or something/someone outside of the universe had created it.


Science says the universe isn't eternal, it has a beginning........ for there wouldn't be a beginning if
it had always existed!


As far as we know.....matter cannot create itself. If matter cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that someone/something outside of nature (supernatural) had caused the universe and everything in it.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Causality is a fundamental concept in the natural sciences. Science follows this concept back 14 billion years and then falls mute on what preceded the time-space cosmos.
Deistic thought simply carries that concept a step further. According to the article I posted above (which you refuse to read) there is no scientific explanation for the complex mathematical reality at work in the cosmos, i.e., no materialist explanation of the rule of mathematics in the universe.

The "flaw" you find in the cosmological argument is a straw man. "God" is an inference from your own science that accounts for the universe where science cannot. That we cannot account for "God" is not a refutation of that inference. This question just changes the subject.
Click to expand...

The cosmological argument extends causality only as far as a single point, and then inserts a wizard to all points previous. If everything needs a begining.... why doesn't the wizard? If you allow for the quality of "timelessness" to exist in the universe, then it is already allowed and no wizard need be invented to allow it. Clearly, not everything has a defined begining if a thing/force/entity exists that has no beginning itself; there is just no good reason why it has to be an entity, and no reason to call it "god" if it's not an entity.

Being "outside the universe" is an impossible contradiction given the definition of the universe - all of the matter and space in existence.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
You haven't read the Jefferson Bible have you?

http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

I'm a Jefferson Deist myself. I consider Jesus to be one of the greatest humans to have ever lived. And find no flaws in his philosophy as presented from Jefferson's point of view. In fact I think his message is much more compelling if you consider him a human being and not the son of the wizard living in the sky.
Click to expand...

Yeah but how can you ignore all the claims to divinity lol? It was very central to his 'philosophical message' and the reason anyone listened to him / his character
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Deism either requires the invention of a supreme being, which makes it little different than any other kind of theism with a creation myth, or it requires such a vagueness and intentional lack of definition that might as well be a no-god scenario anyway.

So, I'll revise my earlier statememt: Deism is for atheists and theists alike who either lack the balls to defend their convictions, or the skills to do so.
Click to expand...

No, it's for agnostics to toy with, and for theists who believe there must be 'something' out there which explains the universe. Atheists patently reject this

The lack of definition is because they dismiss the existing creation myths, while admitting they have no idea the motives and mechanisms behind the 'real' creator. If anything this should become more popular starting in 20th century, as the knowledge of the universe kept expanding and the creation myths became more and more far-fetched. But there was a resurgence in fundamentalism instead
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You would think, but in my experience, Christians (at least) get way more pissed off if you acknowledge a domino tipper and discount their domino tipper as false. Than if you just state there was no domino tipper at all.

And they get even more pissed off if you do it while saying Jesus was one of the greatest humans to have walked the earth. Which is odd, you would think they would enjoy that you hold their messiah in such a high regard even if you don't believe in his divinity. I mean, I am basically saying, I live my life by your teachers standards. What does it matter if I believe he is god, I acknowledge his morality as the best option to live by.

But that really ticks off Christians for some reason. Any Christian is free to tell me why that is.
Click to expand...

Because you're calling him or the gospels who later inserted those miracles liars, and those miracles are the reason they worship him, duh. On top of that, i think it's very doubtful that if those miracles weren't in the 1st-2nd century oral traditions and then in the gospels, the non religious teachings of Jesus would have survived. We're talking about a very illiterate part of the world that was frequently under siege

But if it did survive, he would have 1/10000 of the following he does now as an ancient philosopher only. Compare how many have read "the republic" or gone to plato sermons with that of the NT. How many try to live according to "the republic's" commands? 99.9% of Christians today would not even have read a word of it. That's why it offends them
 
tosca1 said:
How can you think that a "liar" is one of the greatest humans to have ever lived?


If His philosophy is so perfect (since you find no flaws in it).....then why can't you accept His claim as
the Son of God?


If He's not who He said He is, then why did He willingly sacrifice Himself, and die for mankind?
What kind of philosophy is that? Dying for a lie?
Click to expand...

Jesus = Davis Koresh. Both are the same type of people.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, you're making the cosmological argument, but instead of Aquinas's magical wizard who continues to medle, your magical wizard inexplicably left. Got it.

The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Click to expand...

I always found that anti cosmological argument to be weakly splitting hairs. It's the same as theists asking what else could have caused the big bang? They're simply saying "god" caused the universe and maybe he has no will or purpose, other than to set things in motion and sit back and laugh maniacally...possibly to intervene at a (much) later time
 
chromium said:
I always found that anti cosmological argument to be weakly splitting hairs. It's the same as theists asking what else could have caused the big bang? They're simply saying "god" caused the universe and maybe he has no will or purpose, other than to set things in motion and sit back and laugh maniacally...possibly to intervene at a (much) later time
Click to expand...

It's not splitting hairs to directly attack the fundamental proposition of an arugment.

The cosmological argument, in a nutshell, says that everything that exists needs a cause; therefor, God. It's a self-defeating argument, because the base proposition requires a contradiction, namely something (or someone to the theist) to ignore the base proposition and simply exist without a cause of its own. It justifies invention to justify its own axiom, which makes it non-axiomatic.

It's like saying "All M&Ms are green. Therefor, a red M&M must exist."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom