Debate talk:Change My Mind: Deism Best Conforms to Reality
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Unnessary additions[edit]
Deism basically takes reality, says "I agree", then says "oh and by the way God made it all and then got bored and left." I mean it's basically just tacking God on because it makes you feel good. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Occam's Razor would shave the hell out of God. Deism makes an extra assumption that atheism doesn't, so per Occam's Razor, atheism wins. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but the problem is that you can’t Occam’s razor away a first cause. At a very minimum you must accept that there was a first cause to the universe. Therefore, deism is the way to best describe how we got here. Fareeha A (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, the old prime mover argument. 92.5.143.247 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Fareeha A The argument from first cause still runs into the problem of infinite regress. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Argument from first cause is an unnecessary assumption too. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario It's also a Self-refuting idea unless the person presenting the argument uses Special pleading, then it's just plain ridiculous. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well then we’d have to accept an infinite regress of event causes. The new problem is that actual, real life infinities are absurdities. Consider Hilbert’s Hotel, just replace patrons with events. I don’t even care what God you put as the first cause, but given that actual infinities are ridiculous, there has to be a first cause. I also don’t understand the special pleading objection. (1) There are two types of causation: agent and event. (2) An infinite chain of event causes is an infinite regress. (3) An infinite regress is an absurdity. (4) Therefore, a chain of event causes must have a beginning (2, 3). (5) The beginning of the chain must have been an agent (1, 4). I understand that maybe you don’t like the idea of an agent not needing it’s own cause, but it’s no less absurd than an infinite chain of event causes. And I’m not special pleading my own personal God as the mover, I’m just saying there has to be one. Fareeha A (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you really understand the problems with the argument from first cause... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I understand that maybe you don’t like the idea of an agent not needing it’s own cause, but it’s no less absurd than an infinite chain of event causes. And I’m not special pleading my own personal God as the mover, I’m just saying there has to be one." Err, no. Using both Occam's and Hitchens' razors we can safely and confidently kill this nonsense here. The only way you can make the Prime Mover argument work is to use special pleading to claim that A) said PM created themselves, or B) Said PM always existed. Now, the problem with both of these counters in that they ignore their own logic to try to make the original argument work, and indeed fall prey to the exact same problem, i.e. infinite regress.
- TL;DR: Your conclusion denies your premise, or in other words (as I said above) it's a self-refuting idea unless you use special pleading, which even then falls prey to the same problems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- An additional point: If the concept of self-creation is on the table what's to stop us from concluding that the universe we now inhabit didn't just create itself? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you really understand the problems with the argument from first cause... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well then we’d have to accept an infinite regress of event causes. The new problem is that actual, real life infinities are absurdities. Consider Hilbert’s Hotel, just replace patrons with events. I don’t even care what God you put as the first cause, but given that actual infinities are ridiculous, there has to be a first cause. I also don’t understand the special pleading objection. (1) There are two types of causation: agent and event. (2) An infinite chain of event causes is an infinite regress. (3) An infinite regress is an absurdity. (4) Therefore, a chain of event causes must have a beginning (2, 3). (5) The beginning of the chain must have been an agent (1, 4). I understand that maybe you don’t like the idea of an agent not needing it’s own cause, but it’s no less absurd than an infinite chain of event causes. And I’m not special pleading my own personal God as the mover, I’m just saying there has to be one. Fareeha A (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario It's also a Self-refuting idea unless the person presenting the argument uses Special pleading, then it's just plain ridiculous. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Argument from first cause is an unnecessary assumption too. --It's-a me,
- @Fareeha A The argument from first cause still runs into the problem of infinite regress. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, the old prime mover argument. 92.5.143.247 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but the problem is that you can’t Occam’s razor away a first cause. At a very minimum you must accept that there was a first cause to the universe. Therefore, deism is the way to best describe how we got here. Fareeha A (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
