Steve D'Ippolito Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Deism is not better than theism. Historically, sure, it's a step in the right direction; factually, not so much. Well, I'll say this much for deism. From an ethical standpoint--which has a greater impact on our actions--the important question is not "whether god exists" but "does he want something from you?" At least with a deist the answer is "no." As such they make far better neighbors than people who think god wants them (and you) to do X, Y and Z. (Occasionally you run into a person who believes in a god given morality that *only* applies to believers, but that's rare.) In other words, Deism at least doesn't prod those who follow it into rights violations. But deism is still factually false. Worse than just wrong, it is arrived at through a failure of epistemology (not just an error of knowledge). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctrl y Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) An argument God's existence is that we cannot have a painting (the universe) without the painter (God). In other words, all existence implies a creator. My counterargument is, "Then who created God?" --> "God is unknowable" --> "Then your argument is irrelevant. We must start with something we KNOW about, being existence." This still leaves plenty of speculation about God's existence, however. Is there a better counterargument? 1. Seeing a painting does make me believe that there is a painter. However, seeing a cloud does not make me believe that there is a cloud maker. Nor does seeing a mountain ridge make me believe that there is a guy who tenaciously chisels out mountain ridges. And the universe seems more like a cloud or a mountain ridge than a painting, in this respect. 2. It's a stolen concept fallacy. We form the concept "creation" by distinguishing between things that are created and things that are not. The argument argues from a specific creation, the painting, to the conclusion that everything is a creation. But if everything is a creation, then the context necessary to form the concept "creation" no longer exists. 3. The argument leads in principle to an infinite regress of creators. Edited August 17, 2009 by ctrl y dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.