Deism

[Freethinker43]

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.

[American Deist]

And now you are "hiding" behind a totally false semantic argument over the difference between theism and deism. That's baloney.

I am not hiding and certainly not arguing. I am correcting.

[American Deist]

Recall that even the American Deist who started this thread...

I did not start this thread. Powers of observation, you have not.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

You missed the part where I stated that under deism, we believe that God created the universe to include the laws of nature, and set it all in motion. If nature is following its designed path, then God does not have to intervene (e.g. fine tuning).

But then life would need to naturally evolve from non-living matter. Contrary to your previous position.

The fact that atheists can't disprove that is what drives you guys so crazy. It's also why people like Richard Dawkins won't debate with a deist (his own admittance).

We don't need to disprove speculation that is offered without proof. A claim that is made without evidence requires no evidence to be dismissed.

Richard Dawkins won't debate with deists because there's nothing to debate. A deist doesn't claim to KNOW there is a God like the Abrahamic Theists do.

Deists are necessarily actually agnostic. They have to be. Because if they claim to know something about God then they would need to explain how they came to possess this knowledge.

So Deists are necessarily Agnostic Theists. (i.e. people who claim to believe in a God that cannot be shown to exist)

So what is there to debate?

There wouldn't be any difference between a Deistic worldview versus a Secular Naturalistic worldview. The only thing the deist can lay claim to is having a personal "belief" that an ill-defined undetectable God might exist. What's to debate there?

You even confessed to this yourself in post #18:

Can we prove it? Of course not! But neither can atheists disprove it. We simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

By your own admission there's nothing to debate with Richard Dawkins, you'll just have to agree to disagree with him.

[Divine Insight]

And now you are "hiding" behind a totally false semantic argument over the difference between theism and deism. That's baloney.

I am not hiding and certainly not arguing. I am correcting.

You haven't corrected anything. Your original claim that life cannot evolve from non-living matter is in conflict with Deism.

So you were wrong about your very own claimed paradigm.

[Divine Insight]

Recall that even the American Deist who started this thread...

I did not start this thread. Powers of observation, you have not.

I do stand corrected on that point. But you did kick up this rather OLD Thread. So me bad. You didn't start the thread, but you did start the argument that the scientific view that life can spontaneously evolve from non-living matter is flawed. And that view isn't even compatible with Deism anyway.

So I may have made a mistake about who started this thread, but you have made a grave error concerning the very philosophy you claim to support and stand behind.

If you believe in Deism, then you should be in perfect harmony with the science of evolution.

[Divine Insight]

It's also why people like Richard Dawkins won't debate with a deist (his own admittance).

By the way, why does it bother you that Richard Dawkins won't debate with a deist?

What issue would you actually have to debate with him? Where would you disagree with Dawkins in terms of anything that could actually be debated?

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

You still don't get it.

Deists believe in evolution, but not quite the way you are defining it, or trying to pigeon hole it. The term we have coined is deistic evolution.

1. God created the universe via the Big Bang. God is what caused the BB to happen, contrary to atheists that have yet to be able to explain it.

2. The laws of nature were created at the same time.

3. The building blocks of life were also created. My argument here is that non living material does NOT spawn living material. Science has yet to show the opposite. God created the living material alongside the non living.

4. When #2 and #3 combine, you get life that evolves along a natural path, over billions of years. God created and defined that path long ago.

Prove otherwise. If you can, I'll renounce my belief in deism right now. If you can't, then this conversation is over and needs not go any further.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

You still don't get it.

Deists believe in evolution, but not quite the way you are defining it, or trying to pigeon hole it. The term we have coined is deistic evolution.

1. God created the universe via the Big Bang. God is what caused the BB to happen, contrary to atheists that have yet to be able to explain it.

2. The laws of nature were created at the same time.

3. The building blocks of life were also created. My argument here is that non living material does NOT spawn living material. Science has yet to show the opposite. God created the living material alongside the non living.

4. When #2 and #3 combine, you get life that evolves along a natural path, over billions of years. God created and defined that path long ago.

Prove otherwise. If you can, I'll renounce my belief in deism right now. If you can't, then this conversation is over and needs not go any further.

I don't need to prove otherwise since science has already done so. In the early universe right after the Big Bang all that existed was Hydrogen and Helium. The heavier elements required for life were created later as fusion by-products in stars, and then spewed out into the universe to form solar systems and planets. Actual "living material" didn't evolved until much later on the surface of the earth as far larger molecules.

So I guess you'll need to renounce your belief in deism then.

Or at the very least concede that deism in no way conflicts with Secular Naturalism or scientific knowledge at least in terms of how the universe works or how life evolved.

I can see why Richard Dawkins has no interest in debating deists. It's a pretty senseless debate.

[American Deist]

I don't need to prove otherwise since science has already done so.

No it hasn't. What started the Big Bang is only theory, to include mine. The difference being that I have a cause.

In the early universe right after the Big Bang all that existed was Hydrogen and Helium.

Were you there? Nope, didn't think so. No proof, only more theory.

The heavier elements required for life were created later as fusion by-products in stars, and then spewed out into the universe to form solar systems and planets.

And nuclear fusion would fall under natural law created by God.

You failed to disprove deism. No surprise there, as not even atheists with PhD's in astrophysics can disprove deism. Many have tried since Carl Sagan. None have succeeded, and THAT is why people like Dawkins don't debate deists.

This conversation has concluded.

[Divine Insight]

I don't need to prove otherwise since science has already done so.

No it hasn't. What started the Big Bang is only theory, to include mine. The difference being that I have a cause.

You don't have a "cause". All you have is a claim that some imaginary boogeyman created the universe. But where did your boogeyman come from?

In the early universe right after the Big Bang all that existed was Hydrogen and Helium.

Were you there? Nope, didn't think so. No proof, only more theory.

It's far more than just "theory". The evidence is overwhelming. Also, when you ask, "Where you there?", then answer is actually YES! Not only was I there but we all are.

Are you forgetting that when we look out into the universe we are actually looking back in time. So we can see what happened early in the universe and the evidence is overwhelming. So it's an air-tight case. Hardly "just a theory". You sounds like the Creationists. Also did Ken Ham teach you to ask scientists "Where you there?". That's actually a very bad question when you actually understand how the universe works.

The heavier elements required for life were created later as fusion by-products in stars, and then spewed out into the universe to form solar systems and planets.

And nuclear fusion would fall under natural law created by God.

That doesn't matter. There's still no such thing as "living matter". Even we are not made up of "living matter".

Show me on the periodic table of elements where there is any "living matter".

You failed to disprove deism. No surprise there, as not even atheists with PhD's in astrophysics can disprove deism. Many have tried since Carl Sagan. None have succeeded, and THAT is why people like Dawkins don't debate deists.

This conversation has concluded.

I'm sure you would love to end this conversation under the false claim that you have somehow provided evidence that deism is a valid hypothesis, but in truth it's not.

Moreover, I'm not out to disprove "deism". Deism, like all other make-believe theologies is ill-defined, and your specific requirements for what you require for deism are personal for you. Apparently, for you the concept of "living matter" is an important concept for your version of Deism, but there is no scientific support for that idea. To the contrary science has demonstrated quite convincingly that there is nothing in the human body other than the standard elements of the periodic table. All of which have been accounted for with known physics.

Besides, Deism in general doesn't require that there exists two types of distinct matter, (i.e. living matter versus non-living matter). That has to be your own idea.

If Deism actually made that prediction then it could be tested and shown to be demonstrably false.