In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R1 – My use of the word supernatural. My opponent has not addressed my response regarding his concerns on my use of the word supernatural. As such, I will consider this point ceded. R2 – My opponent’s final post. This response will consist of clarifying several misconceptions my opponent has presented, reinforcing my own arguments, and pointing to an instance where I believe my opponent has contradicted his position. Point OneFirstly, I will address my opponent’s comments on the logical progression I initially presented, which was: 1. We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory. 2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature. 3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism. 4. We shall now ascribe the supernatural force responsible for the creation of the universe with the traits associated with a ‘personal’ god. These may include, but are of course not limited to; an entity which cares about our sex lives, an entity that cares about what we eat, an entity that cares about what we say and believe, and in general an entity that concerns himself with the affairs of human life. This is the overlying concept of theism, and is what differentiates it from deism. I would draw your attention to the resolution at hand, which states that “deism logically precedes theism”. It is clear that, following the logical progression that gives us grounds to present possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism presents itself at step three. Another step, one that derives from deism, is required in order to reach theism. This takes the form of step four. It therefore resoundingly obvious that 'deism logically precedes theism'. His latest response to this is as follows: The problem is at 3. My opponent asserts that a supernatural force/entity being responsible for creation of the universe refers to Deism. In other words, Deism is the belief in a supernatural force/entity which created the universe. However, this is an incorrect definition for Deism as I have shown. Deism is the belief of a creator who doesn't directly intervene in the course of events in the universe. [1] Without the characteristic of non-intervention, we simply have the belief in a creator. Theism is the belief in a creator as well, so Deism and Theism both fit the bill for argument 3. My opponent is warping the definition of deism, or at the very least, not providing all the information. A principle element for defining deism is an absence of interventionism and other traits, but that is only a simplistic way of discerning it from theism. The lack of interventionism is simply a by-product of the initial concept, which is that a supernatural force or entity created the universe… end. Deism in its purest form is simply that, and it is from that base that theism derives. I would encourage a reading of the introduction of this article [1]. Point Two Secondly, my opponent has attacked my assertion that an absence of a trait is not in itself a trait. This was done in the following way: My opponent mistakenly thinks that non-interventionist isn't a trait, but is the absence of the trait of being interventionist. The fact of the matter is, without any trait, God would be neither interventionist, nor non-interventionist. Let's look at this from the point of view of another trait. A person can be kind, or unkind(simplification, but it works for illustrative purposes). You can say that being unkind is simply the absence of being kind, but an unkind person has the trait of being unkind. Similarly, a non-interventionist God has the characteristic of being non-interventionist. I would firstly like to establish that my opponents use of the word 'god', while in a sense accurate, is implying a conscious mind, and when speaking in terms of deism, this is not necessarily asserted. Force/entity would perhaps be a better choice. I would like to apply your kindness metaphor to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. This asteroid was by no means kind, and had an absence of kindness, but that did not make it unkind. It simply had an absence of any concept regarding ‘kindness’, but that in itself is not a trait that we are giving it, that is a trait that we are observing it already possessing. The same is true for a supernatural creator of the universe. We begin with a supernatural creator, and only a supernatural creator. This is deism. You then ascribe traits such as interventionism to this supernatural creator, thereby creating theism. However, as interventionism has no basis on the original premise, I am not ascribing the supernatural creator with a trait when I say it is non-interventional. I am making an observation of what it previously was, which is required in light of your new presented trait. Point ThreeMy opponent’s final point, in which I believe he contradicts his position, is as follows; Deism positively asserts that God isn't certain things. God isn't an interventionist, so Deism has defined one trait of God: non-interventionist. A Deist could learn that God is blue, and still be Deist. But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism. I would specifically like to point to the last two lines which are: But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism. In regards to the first sentence, my opponent asserts that should a deist discover that god is an interventionist, he would then become a theist. This is absolutely right; however, this actually supports my stance on the resolution. This assertion is strongly indicating that deism is the initial premise, the default, and that the acquisition of additional information is required to progress to theism. My opponents own words are stipulating that deism therefore precedes theism. In regards to the second sentence, I simply remind my opponent that I made a case for deism being the default position in my last post, and that he failed to address it. ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have adequately demonstrated the accuracy and validity of my own arguments, most aspects of which have gone unanswered. I have pointed out flaws in my opponents own arguments, and these criticisms have again. for the most part, gone unasnwered. I have also pointed out a precise instance in which my opponent contradicts his position, and makes an assertion that supports my stance on the resolution. In light of these facts, I feel the outcome of this debate is relatively obvious, and that deism does indeed logically precede theism. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...