Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Refuting Deism

  1. #11
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,959
    Amen (Given)
    5256
    Amen (Received)
    3574
    Quote Originally Posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    Maybe he will become a Mormon at this point, given he says God is physical
    Well, I was mostly referring to the Incarnation. God is physical. Well, one of the Persons in the Godhood, at least.

  2. #12
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,489
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    By what standard and basis do you make such a statement?
    It is not a popular opinion hereabouts, but I think we generate our own god and synchronize with others by going to church. The ‘magic’ is what that god can do.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,373
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Deism is an untenable belief in contrast to atheism, pantheism and strong agnosticism, because there is no apparent interaction claimed between the 'Source (?)' and Creation other than Creation itself. It is like claiming a phantom intangible hide and seek God.

    I believe that many of the humanist/naturalists of our early founding fathers of our country used Deism as a cover for agnostic/atheist naturalism, because atheism was illegal, terribly unpopular, and actually punishable by imprisonment. Describing your belief as atheist in the old days was political roadkill as it is today.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-29-2019 at 09:43 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. Amen Seeker amen'd this post.
  5. #14
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,657
    Amen (Given)
    999
    Amen (Received)
    3048
    Hi ReformedApologist, I was once curious to see what sort of arguments people from the Bahnsen and Van Tillian school of transcendental apologitics (I'm guessing here of course) would handle a case of Deism. Usually in such arguments defeaters for belief would have to be properly shown. From the perspective the Christian pressupositions they would interrogate antagonistically the deist in order to make them realise that they are being inconsistent.

    I'm not sure you manage to do that given your points. Firstly your characterisation of a deist is very one-sided and comes off more as a cheap charicature. A deist doesn't have to strongly argue that God is unknowable, there is such a thing as agnostic deism which is what most deists defacto consider themselves to be. That is that they're a deist, and they know of no revelation from God.

    There is a school of deism that does argue that God due to his perfections and impassibility will not interact with an imperfect universe. Its fair game to go after those arguments, but as you didn't, and you didn't at least outline those arguments you don't actually proceed to target them.

    Thirdly, its not enough in presuppositionalism to simply ask "How do they know that?" That isn't actually the thryst of that argument. The argument has to show that there's something that they know that would make it dubious for their other beliefs to be true, if and only if they reject the truth of Christianity proper. You could for instance have supplied arguments about the deist needing to believe that God has a personal interest in humans, to make them with capability of reasoning.

    So for arguments 1 and 3, I will answer that you fail to charactize deists properly.

    For 2 you fall into the whole of merely asking "But how do you know?". There are various answers to that of course. I know because I perceive the truth. Our minds are capable of perceiving truth. This is a basic experience of which we cannot be fooled. For instance, I cannot be fooled into not recognising the truth of the statement 2 + 2 = 4. In order to disprove this, you would have to describe a coherent mental experience of 2 + 2 equalling 3, but because of their abstract nature, the instant I recognise the symbols I can perceive their validity. A person also doesn't have to accept that all of their reasons are 100% valid.

    For instance many presuppositionalists often make errors, and quite often they spend more time arguing against each other than arguing other opponents. A paucity in the validity of their reasoning does not refute that they cannot validly reason, or you would have proven too much and also proven presuppositional apologetics to be invalid. The only course left for you would be a weird fideism that denied all approaches of reason to knowing God.

    On 4. you tip your hat a bit in that you're mostly arguing with atheists. For instance you don't in anyway engage with the much richer tradition of scholastic metaphysics, which is a very different way of figuring out moral truth.

    I'd suggest you read a little broader.

  6. #15
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,744
    Amen (Given)
    696
    Amen (Received)
    1489
    Quote Originally Posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    Deism is defined as the belief that reason and and the Natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God.
    No, Deism is defined as belief in a god that does not currently intervene; one that created the world/universe but is not interacting with it. Nowhere in that definition is the concept that God (or a god) must exist because the world does.
    The following are are a sample of beliefs that are held by Deist (1):
    Most of these are beliefs held by some deists, but not as a result of their deism.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  7. #16
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    853
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Deism is an untenable belief in contrast to atheism, pantheism and strong agnosticism, because there is no apparent interaction claimed between the 'Source (?)' and Creation other than Creation itself. It is like claiming a phantom intangible hide and seek God.
    And yet ... that is the concept that the Canaanites had of El before he proved them wrong by having a chat with Abram.
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  8. #17
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,373
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    And yet ... that is the concept that the Canaanites had of El before he proved them wrong by having a chat with Abram.
    I do not think this responds to my post.

    I do not believe this is correct, and a bit confusing.

    Nonetheless Canaanites were a polytheistic culture with at least one goddess, and as far a can tell the Canaanites did not believe in Deism.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  9. #18
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,657
    Amen (Given)
    999
    Amen (Received)
    3048
    I think the only thing I've gotten out of arguments about pressuppositional apologetics, is that there are two completely self-consistent worldviews: Solipsism with its utter denial of the possibility of knowledge, and Theism, and nothing in between.

    And as long as pressuppositionalists stick to this line of transcendental argumentation, I think their arguments are noble. It's when they try to use the same tactic to argue for Christianity, or even the Westminster Confession, I think they've gone off track.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •