Deism 102: Supporting Reasons

[Neo Deist]

It has been brought to my attention that the 101 thread did not contain any reasons or explanations as to why deists believe in God, but reject revealed religions. Life/creation is not a random event or from random chance. Many deists believe that God was the creator and nature is by design. Allow me to cover some of those examples here:

1. Procreation
The survival of a species, especially mammals, depends on reproduction between a male and female. Our design is such that sex stimulates us and we have a natural tendency to crave it (some more than others). We could have been designed with no feeling at all in that regard and the only time sex was an issue was ***IF*** a couple wanted to have a child. Why would a "random creation event" include a feeling of euphoria for us? It is almost as if we are hard wired to try and reproduce by chasing that euphoric feeling.

2. Predators vs. Prey
All throughout nature, some creatures are predators and some are prey. The predators do things such as help keep species populations in check, rid an area of annoying insects, and help keep the environment/habitat in proper working order. The prey serve as the food for the predators, but when the predators die, their decomposed bodies help fertilize the ground which produces vegetation for the prey to feed on. It is a never ending cycle.

3. Different Diets
There are carnivores (meat eaters), herbivores (plant eaters) and omnivores (eat both). Why would a "random creation event" find it necessary to have three different diets for living creatures? The earth is covered in vegetation, so why the need for meat eaters? Carnivores typically have sharp pointed teeth, shorter intestines and stronger stomach acids. Herbivores are the opposite with flat teeth designed for crushing plants, longer intestines and weaker stomach acids. Omnivores are a hybrid of both, though humans tend to lean toward the herbivore end of the spectrum based on our molars, longer intestines, weaker stomach acid, and lack of sharp pointed teeth (and claws).

4. The Expanding Universe
Science now tells us that the known universe appears to be expanding (as well as accelerating). If you rewind that theory far enough back, it will show that the universe had a centralized starting point. Something (or someone) had to pull the trigger to in order to make that initial start happen. There had to have been some type of event (Big Bang perhaps), otherwise why would an eternally dormant spec suddenly decide to grow/expand/create?

5. Plants vs. Animals
Life on earth is only possible because we are in the "sweet spot" of our solar system where it is not too hot or cold. The sun drives photosynthesis, which is the process by which plants convert sunlight to chemical energy, which is used as fuel by the plants. The plants then give off oxygen, which is what creatures require in order to breathe. Those creatures exhale carbon dioxide (CO2 also comes from other sources such as volcanoes) and that helps create the atmosphere which is vital to life on earth. How would a "random creation event" figure out the complex science surrounding this phenomenon?

The examples are endless.

The point is this...deists do not believe in God because of some man made holy books, divine revelation, or because some church organization says so. We believe in God because when we look out in nature, we see the amazement of creation in life, the universe and how everything works as if by design.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

1. Procreation
The survival of a species, especially mammals, depends on reproduction between a male and female. Our design is such that sex stimulates us and we have a natural tendency to crave it (some more than others). We could have been designed with no feeling at all in that regard and the only time sex was an issue was ***IF*** a couple wanted to have a child. Why would a "random creation event" include a feeling of euphoria for us? It is almost as if we are hard wired to try and reproduce by chasing that euphoric feeling.

It is almost as if we have an evolutionary imperative to spread our species.....

2. Predators vs. Prey
All throughout nature, some creatures are predators and some are prey. The predators do things such as help keep species populations in check, rid an area of annoying insects, and help keep the environment/habitat in proper working order. The prey serve as the food for the predators, but when the predators die, their decomposed bodies help fertilize the ground which produces vegetation for the prey to feed on. It is a never ending cycle.

If they did not then life in that area would be wiped out, meaning that all systems that did not develop this way where wiped out already.

3. Different Diets
There are carnivores (meat eaters), herbivores (plant eaters) and omnivores (eat both). Why would a "random creation event" find it necessary to have three different diets for living creatures? The earth is covered in vegetation, so why the need for meat eaters? Carnivores typically have sharp pointed teeth, shorter intestines and stronger stomach acids. Herbivores are the opposite with flat teeth designed for crushing plants, longer intestines and weaker stomach acids. Omnivores are a hybrid of both, though humans tend to lean toward the herbivore end of the spectrum based on our molars, longer intestines, weaker stomach acid, and lack of sharp pointed teeth (and claws).

Why would a designed life event need them?

4. The Expanding Universe
Science now tells us that the known universe appears to be expanding (as well as accelerating). If you rewind that theory far enough back, it will show that the universe had a centralized starting point. Something (or someone) had to pull the trigger to in order to make that initial start happen. There had to have been some type of event (Big Bang perhaps), otherwise why would an eternally dormant spec suddenly decide to grow/expand/create?

It is highly likely that it moves in cycles of expansion and contraction.

5. Plants vs. Animals
Life on earth is only possible because we are in the "sweet spot" of our solar system where it is not too hot or cold. The sun drives photosynthesis, which is the process by which plants convert sunlight to chemical energy, which is used as fuel by the plants. The plants then give off oxygen, which is what creatures require in order to breathe. Those creatures exhale carbon dioxide (CO2 also comes from other sources such as volcanoes) and that helps create the atmosphere which is vital to life on earth. How would a "random creation event" figure out the complex science surrounding this phenomenon?

Are you saying that throughout our entire universe that one planet could not have developed life?
Find the odds of that.

 

[George-ananda]

The point is this...deists do not believe in God because of some man made holy books, divine revelation, or because some church organization says so. We believe in God because when we look out in nature, we see the amazement of creation in life, the universe and how everything works as if by design.

Do you believe in what is colloquially called 'life after death'?

 

[Neo Deist]

It is almost as if we have an evolutionary imperative to spread our species.....



If they did not then life in that area would be wiped out, meaning that all systems that did not develop this way where wiped out already.



Why would a designed life event need them?



It is highly likely that it moves in cycles of expansion and contraction.



Are you saying that throughout our entire universe that one planet could not have developed life?
Find the odds of that.

While I appreciate your response, this is a DIR so be careful that this does not turn into a debate.

 

[Neo Deist]

Do you believe in what is colloquially called 'life after death'?

Refer to the 101 thread.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

While I appreciate your response, this is a DIR so be careful that this does not turn into a debate.

So why would you post your reasons where they are not allowed to be contested?

 

[George-ananda]

Refer to the 101 thread.

Yes, I read that and I realize deists can hold diverse views on the subject. I was curious about your personal beliefs. I'm guessing now that you are agnostic on the question. Correct?

 

[Neo Deist]

So why would you post your reasons where they are not allowed to be contested?

Because this is a discussion on deism, not a debate about deism. Every DIR has that rule. Bunyip was right, that should have been obvious.

Edit: in others words, this particular section is the basis of my beliefs and it is not up for debating/disproving. If it is a debate you seek, make a thread in an appropriate forum.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, I read that and I realize deists can hold diverse views on the subject. I was curious about your personal beliefs. I'm guessing now that you are agnostic on the question. Correct?

My personal view about the afterlife is two fold:

1. I hope that there is one and that God finds me worthy of such, based on how I live.
2. Nothing about the afterlife can be proven, but our bodies do contain energy and physics says that once energy is created it can't be destroyed. Our energy must go somewhere. Does energy = soul? That is another unknown.

That is the beauty of deism. We try not to make assumptions or offer false promises. We are guided by reason and logic.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

To be clear, I try to ask questions so people can follow my chain of logic. So I usually know the answer to questions I ask on the forums.

 

[Neo Deist]

To be clear, I try to ask questions so people can follow my chain of logic. So I usually know the answer to questions I ask on the forums.

Ok...

 

[George-ananda]

My personal view about the afterlife is two fold:

1. I hope that there is one and that God finds me worthy of such, based on how I live.
2. Nothing about the afterlife can be proven, but our bodies do contain energy and physics says that once energy is created it can't be destroyed. Our energy must go somewhere. Does energy = soul? That is another unknown.

That is the beauty of deism. We try not to make assumptions or offer false promises. We are guided by reason and logic.

Thanks for the answer. I like the 'reason and logic' approach. I am an interested student of things colloquially called paranormal and use 'reason and logic' in this study by considering all thoughts on the subject. pro and con. I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the afterlife exists but it can not be shown with the certainty of strictly physical phenomena. I think deism tends to take a dim view of the paranormal (calling it supernatural I believe) but I think in modern times 'reason and logic' can be applied to evidence collected by reasoned investigators. Phenomena can be studied for quality, quantity and consistency and an extended view of the natural can be reasonably considered. I'm not sure this reasoned study by serious investigator could be found in the heyday of Deism (things like Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation Memories, etc.).

 

[columbus]

Life/creation is not a random event or from random chance. Many deists believe that God was the creator and nature is by design.

Not all deists believe this. I, for one, don't. That doesn't mean I don't think Deist Mentor is a true deist or anything. I just find his beliefs unsupportably theistic.

I see deism as based on one simple tenet. "There is something rather than nothing, therefore god". Nothing else. I believe we learn about God by studying the universe, but I don't believe any of the anthropomorphic characteristics posited by theistic beliefs.
I don't see any reason to believe God cares about anything or designed anything or knows anything or even exists in the way we think of things existing. I see God as more like gravity.
I also have beliefs about other stuff, like afterlife. But they are not really related to deism.
Tom

 

[Neo Deist]

Not all deists believe this. I, for one, don't. That doesn't mean I don't think Deist Mentor is a true deist or anything. I just find his beliefs unsupportably theistic.

I see deism as based on one simple tenet. "There is something rather than nothing, therefore god". Nothing else. I believe we learn about God by studying the universe, but I don't believe any of the anthropomorphic characteristics posited by theistic beliefs.
I don't see any reason to believe God cares about anything or designed anything or knows anything or even exists in the way we think of things existing. I see God as more like gravity.
I also have beliefs about other stuff, like afterlife. But they are not really related to deism.
Tom

That's another beauty of deism...there is no official deist church or holy book. It is a very personal "religion" based on the simple premise of a belief in God because of observations in nature (the very definition of deism). The rest is up to the individual. Some lean toward classical deism (or even further, stopping just short of atheism) while others lean toward modern deism (damn near New Age Christianity).

 

[Neo Deist]

I land on the modern deist side of the equation.