Deism vs Atheism

The God of Deism "I'm not sure how Pro is defining God... until this is cleared up." I understand your confusion with what this god really is. I will try to clarify a bit. In Deism, people are able to have various beliefs about this creative force that set the universe in motion. For example, some people will believe that this God is eternal, omnipotent, and intelligent, while others will think we don't have enough information about this god to assert that these characteristics are true. It gets even more complex when some Deists think that this god could interfere with the universe, but has not revealed himself in any religion. Some Deists will even think that God intelligently designed life, while others will think that he had no part in it or there is not good enough reason to presuppose that this is true. I personally believe that we don't know enough about this God to presuppose other characteristics of him. I also don't think that the characteristics people infer about god, through our universe's nature, are sound. I don't have good enough reasons to believe that this god is either a sentient mind that created the universe or isn't. This leaves me with a definition of god that is very much like my definition of Deism: the impersonal creative force that set the universe in motion, and does not interfere with it. The reason Deists can be so diverse in their beliefs about god is because we have no doctrine to follow. We are opposed to the establishment of religions with its own standards/rules/dogma. The one thing I noticed that the vast majority of Deists will agree on is that God is the impersonal creator of the universe. This is why I defined Deism in this way. It is the most basic definition that I could come up with, and is one which would be hard to fine disagreement with within the Deistic community. To respond to your contention that I may be a Pantheist, I am certain that my beliefs fit more with Deism. Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God, or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity. I don't think we have enough evidence to believe that the universe is a creator unto itself, and thus I would not consider it God. If we were to find out that the universe did in fact create itself, then I would consider myself a Pantheist. But until that day comes, the most reasonable standpoint would be Deism. First Cause "I feel that the biggest problem is that Pro never... such a proposition is true." I actually agree that the proposition should not be deemed absolutely true because there are no better alternatives to a creator of the universe. I also agree that stating this would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. What I have really concluded is it's the most reasonable belief today, with our current understanding of the universe. Sure, we do not know for certain if the universe was created by an impersonal god. I am just asserting that it is the best possible position for what we know. "A problem with Pro's argument is the simple fact that we don't know...we simply have to lack belief in such things until proved otherwise." I agree to a point with your argument. We can't know for certain what existed before the big bang. Maybe it's true that logically impossible things existed. I think we should lack belief in anything specific before the big bang, such as the unicorn. I also agree that the causal principle might not have existed at some point before the big bang. As I said before, we should lack belief in a specific thing before the big bang, but I think it's reasonable to believe that something, as opposed to nothing, existed before the big bang. It could be some of the things you mentioned, such as a world with irrational attributes, things that are not possible, or a non-causal existence. Any of these things would be considered something. If something existed, then something started the universe. This is because a "nothing" world would have not been able to exist to allow a universe to begin. That something that allowed the universe to begin is what Deists would call God. The difference between the skepticism of these things you mentioned and a creator of the universe is that we are pretty certain that the universe began at the big bang. Even if causality didn't exist before the big bang, causality existed at the moment of creation. It's evident that the universe had a cause, because it began to exist. Ex Nihilo "First, I want to say we cannot reject creation... such laws don’t exist." If we consider that nothing is capable of creating a universe, then nothing suddenly becomes something. It is something in that it has properties which allow it to spontaneously form universes. Sure, the universe's laws break down at the big bang, but there must have been something in order to have a universe exist. Even if there were irrational laws that suddenly allowed the universe to form, they would still be considered laws, and thus something. "I wouldn't say a vacuum itself is nothing, but even if the virtual particles obey laws, they do show us some things can be uncaused... This doesn’t mean something caused the lion. Leading down this, brings me to my next point." I disagree with this idea that the lion or virtual particles were uncaused. I think what would be considered the cause of the virtual particle is the processes and laws which gave the virtual particle the ability to spontaneously form. To make it clearer, the virtual particle could not have existed if it weren't for something else. If something results from another thing's existence, then that other thing could be considered the cause/creator. Occam's Razor "When the question of God comes up, one has to appeal to it being uncaused to prevent a regress. However, why not skip a god and just say the universe is uncaused? Occams razor suggests we take the latter." Actually, I don't think this creator has to be uncaused. Since I don't know all the properties of the creator that started this universe, I could not assert that it is uncaused. For example, God could have been created by something else and then started this universe once created. Or maybe God somehow converted himself into the universe and ceased to exist after the process. I just don't know. I simply think that an impersonal creator was likely to have existed, no matter his other attributes. "Let's apply it. Cutting an uncaused god out and stopping at an uncaused universe is simpler, shorter, and makes one less assumption than its opposing hypotheses. A God hypothesis says there’s an uncaused God that caused the universe, stopping at the universe is clearly simpler." The problem with applying Occam's razor to this circumstance is we have evidence that the universe began to exist and probably isn't eternal. As I said in round 1, the universe is accelerating apart faster than gravity can pull itself in. This shows that a cyclical universe probably doesn't exist. Because of this, the universe will probably end in a big freeze. I will even insist that a Deistic god is a simpler answer than an eternal universe. If we are to assume that the universe is eternal, that means we also have to believe our scientific understanding of universal expansion and the big bang are wrong. In an eternal universe, there would be no starting point. This is in contrast to our own, as the big bang is a well established starting point. An eternal universe would most likely be cyclical in nature. We have good evidence that this isn't true. With a Deistic explanation, we don't have to assume any scientific understanding of our universe is wrong. The Deistic explanation doesn't assume any qualities of this God outside of being a creative force and impersonal. This view is also a simpler explanation than religions with revelation, as we don't have to assume any supernatural event occurred on Earth. It is the simplest explanation we currently have for our universe's exist. And as such, it is the most likely answer.