From what might one infer the existence of a deity that did nothing of which we are aware and does nothing of which we are aware?
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
From what might one infer the existence of a deity that did nothing of which we are aware and does nothing of which we are aware?
The question in the OP is directed solely to those deists who do not make such a claim.I don't think it's necessarily intrinsic to Deism that God "did nothing". I have read some posts in the past whereas some believe God started everything but does not interfere.
Spinoza was a pantheist at best. I see no way in which he offered any support for Deism.It's been a long time, but doesn't Spinoza arrive at this through a series of propositions?
The question in the OP is directed solely to those deists who do not make such a claim.
From what might one infer the existence of a deity that did nothing of which we are aware and does nothing of which we are aware?
And yet you indicated elsewhere that you were not invested in such a belief and, when challenged, dismissively relegated it to the category of classical deism.Deism does not say that God did nothing. A commonly shared belief of deism is that God is the creator, made the universe and the laws of nature that govern it, gave living beings free will, and set it all in motion. From there, He has no reason to be involved as things run on their own accord.
Spinoza was a pantheist at best. I see no way in which he offered any support for Deism.
This being a DIR I hesitate to offer opinions on the relative merits of deism and pantheism.I guess the difference being that either God is of nature, and does't really mean or do anything to humans, or God is completely separate of nature, and doesn't really mean or do anything to humans?
This being a DIR I hesitate to offer opinions on the relative merits of deism and pantheism.
And yet you indicated elsewhere that you were not invested in such a belief and, when challenged, dismissively relegated it to the category of classical deism.
So my question remains: What inspires or compells you to posit a deity that (a) did not necessarily play a role in creation, and (b) does not necessarily intervene today?
I would be interested in your opinions on that.This being a DIR I hesitate to offer opinions on the relative merits of deism and pantheism.