Deism vs Theism (Deists, tradition, virtual, creation, Revelation)

[rojse]

I have recently examined the idea of deism, whic Dawkins covers in "The God Delusion". It's the idea that God created the universe, and then let everything be.

Although I do not believe in any sort of God, be it theistic or deistic, I would consider the idea of a deistic God far more worthy of religious attention than the theistic God - the deistic God was intelligent and far-sighted enough to be able to create the mechanisms that would bring about the universe in a manner that would give rise to life, rather than the blundering theistic God, who has to keep on making changes to the universe to make everything work.

Opinions?

[crystalonyx]

If supreme intellgence could arise from nothingness, why couldn't the universe?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

If supreme intellgence could arise from nothingness, why couldn't the universe?

The assumption being that "supreme intelligence" arises, an assumption that few deists/theists make.

[Sunstone]

Seems to me the deistic god is a good first step.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by rojse

Although I do not believe in any sort of God, be it theistic or deistic, I would consider the idea of a deistic God far more worthy of religious attention than the theistic God - the deistic God was intelligent and far-sighted enough to be able to create the mechanisms that would bring about the universe in a manner that would give rise to life, rather than the blundering theistic God, who has to keep on making changes to the universe to make everything work.

Opinions?

It seems to me like deism is a refuge for people who have discounted the existence of a personal god(s) that interacts with its/their creation, but, for whatever reason, have taken it as given that some sort of god must exist.

Personally, once I've accepted the main points of what differentiates deism from theism (i.e. no detectable evidence of any god, and no interaction between any god and the universe), I no longer see any pressing need to assume that god must exist at all, even a deistic one.

The deistic god seems to be defined as the ultimate "God of the gaps" that is utterly unfalsifiable. It strikes me more as a hypothetical invention of humans based on what we know God isn't than any particular vision of what we think God might be.

[mball1297]

I'm still in the phase of completely breaking myself of all Catholic habits. I firmly believe that Christianity is false, but was raised for so many years in their traditions that I find that I still want to believe in some kind of God, even if it's not their version. I think that's where this idea of a deistic god comes from. Although, there are scientists who say that even if there was a big bang, something had to have initiated it.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

It seems to me like deism is a refuge for people who have discounted the existence of a personal god(s) that interacts with its/their creation, but, for whatever reason, have taken it as given that some sort of god must exist.

I have to quibble with the "taken it as given" bit. They have reasoned that some sort of god must exist. Now whether that reasoning is sound is, of course, another question.

- - -

From my interactions, the variations are endless, but there are basically two categories, IMO. The labels are mine, not necessarily claimed by others: "Design deists" infer (invalidly IMO) some intelligence in the design and complexity of the universe, while "First Cause deists" reason that there probably was some external first cause to the material universe. Some fit in both categories. There is also a small but seemingly growing subset who call themselves "Pandeists" or "Panendeists" in slight variations of the theistic version of those terms.

FWIW, the most generic definition that encompasses virtually all deists (and many nondeists, for that matter) is that they use their own reasoning -rightly or not- to infer or deduce ideas about god rather than relying on second-hand revelation or holy texts.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

If supreme intellgence could arise from nothingness, why couldn't the universe?

If you really wish to call us "supreme" intelligences...

[rojse]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

It seems to me like deism is a refuge for people who have discounted the existence of a personal god(s) that interacts with its/their creation, but, for whatever reason, have taken it as given that some sort of god must exist.

Or perhaps the theistic God is an expansion on the deistic God to allow us to have a emotional crutch, which would make theism the refuge for the emotionally frail.

Not something I believe, but it is as equally valid as your argument.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Personally, once I've accepted the main points of what differentiates deism from theism (i.e. no detectable evidence of any god, and no interaction between any god and the universe), I no longer see any pressing need to assume that god must exist at all, even a deistic one.

Some people would say that the existence of the universe itself constitutes proof, and how it is able to support life. I don't agree with it, though, but that is just one person's opinions.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The deistic god seems to be defined as the ultimate "God of the gaps" that is utterly unfalsifiable. It strikes me more as a hypothetical invention of humans based on what we know God isn't than any particular vision of what we think God might be.

How can you utterly falsify the theistic God-of-the-gaps, and how is this different to the deistic God-of-the-gaps?