Is Deism A Form Of Theism?

[tumbleweed41]

May I ask, what evidence leads you to rationally conclude there is a God?

In all of creation, through all rationality and reasonable research, God fills that "missing piece" to the puzzle of the "first cause".
I do believe that "God", to a Modern Deist, is truly a speculative idea. Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to assume that God exists.
This is not "dogmatic". With advancements in our understanding of the Laws of Nature, we may learn more about God, or the First Cause, or we may logically find another answer that is more reasonable.
In physics, many times an idea of a particle is assumed to exist merely because one can see the reactions of other observable matter around the unseen particle. Sometimes this "unseen particle" is finally observed. Other times a more reasonable explanation is found.
Such is the Deist assumption of God.

 

[Deist David]

I'd like to briefly join this too, as a Deist, who has recently joined these fine forums.

To assert "is that the only difference" in response to a fundamental point that distinguishes Deism from Theism, seems bizarre to me!

Isn't that like asking "so the Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, whereas the Muslims believe Mohammed is God's prophet - is that the only difference ??" ......

For me, Deism is about accepting Reason as the guide to one's beliefs. I believe in a creator, a planter of the first seed, because to conceive that the universe was instigated without cause is less credible than to believe it was instigated by God.

In summary for me, as Deists we believe in God, by reason, never by faith.

Theism is fundamentally different in that it constitutes belief in God by faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For me, Deism is about accepting Reason as the guide to one's beliefs. I believe in a creator, a planter of the first seed, because to conceive that the universe was instigated without cause is less credible than to believe it was instigated by God.

So, God is "planter of the first seed." Anything else? For example, is this God intentional?

And what is your "Reason" for presuming a "first seed"?

 

[Storm]

I'd like to briefly join this too, as a Deist, who has recently joined these fine forums.

To assert "is that the only difference" in response to a fundamental point that distinguishes Deism from Theism, seems bizarre to me!

Isn't that like asking "so the Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, whereas the Muslims believe Mohammed is God's prophet - is that the only difference ??" ......

For me, Deism is about accepting Reason as the guide to one's beliefs. I believe in a creator, a planter of the first seed, because to conceive that the universe was instigated without cause is less credible than to believe it was instigated by God.

In summary for me, as Deists we believe in God, by reason, never by faith.

Theism is fundamentally different in that it constitutes belief in God by faith.

I could have phrased the OP better, but I still think it's a valid question. It's about your thoughts on the nature of God, not the means by which you arrived at your conclusion.

You don't know me, so here's a little background: my dad is a deist. He believes in a supernatural, eternal Creator deity who "lit the fuse for the Big Bang and walked away." I would say that's a subset of theism. OTOH, if you review the thread, I agreed that tumbleweed's form of deism is not.

Your analogy of comparing Christianity and Islam fails because there's a plethora of differences in actual doctrine. Your statement that theism is based on faith while deism is based on reason is valid, but irrelevant to the question of the OP.

So, with that clarified, how do you answer? Also, what evidence led your reason to the conclusion that there is a God?

Looking forward to getting to know you better!

 

[Deist David]

So, God is "planter of the first seed." Anything else? For example, is this God intentional?

And what is your "Reason" for presuming a "first seed"?

Hi,

To answer the second bit first, , my reasoning for the 'first seed' is losely :-

- Our universer appears to be in a state of movement, flux, impermanence.
- It appears that every single 'effect' that takes place is preceded by a 'cause'.
- I imagine a 'birth of time' - I don't really know what this looked like but let's say that it was before the Universe was filled with burning (and failing) rocks and gas.
- For me, something had to give that first nudge, that first 'cause'. (which led to the first 'effect', which was also the second cause, etc, etc, etc, etc (lots of etc's!).

..... because I wholly believe in cause and effect as a law of nature, I cannot conceive any possible way that the universe 'commenced' that doesn't involve conscious first cause.

That conscious first cause is who/what I believe is the only God we on Earth can ever know of.

As to whether this God is 'intentional' - I can't pretend to know and as a Deist, do not have a theory !

 

[Deist David]

Hi Storm,

Totally accept your point, and yes, simplicities in understanding to occur when people don't really know eachother.

In many ways my Deist beliefs are similar to your Dad's but in other way's not ...... I don't use the word 'supernatural' when talking about my Deist beliefs. I do believe there are laws of nature in the universe that man has yet to discover - perhaps from our current viewpoint, these are 'supernatural'.

I guess my 'take' when responding was that for me;

Deism = belief by reason. No Dogma.
Theism = Concepts of faith, revelation and usually some dogma.

..... but I am guitly of generalism and simplification in making that assertion!

Look forward to getting to know you!

David.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... what is your "Reason" for presuming a "first seed"?

For me, something had to give that first nudge, that first 'cause'.

Thank you. Still, you distinguish you deism from theism by laying claim to "Reason". It seems to me that "something had to give that first nudge" is, at best, a rather weak example of this. Why, for example, is a first-nudged universe more reasonable than an eternal multiverse?

..., is this God intentional?

As to whether this God is 'intentional' - I can't pretend to know and as a Deist, do not have a theory!

So Deism is nothing more than the presumption of a "first nudge" - it may or may not have been conscious; it may or may not have been intentional; it may or may not have been a one-time event. Correct? And if so, what possible value is there in using a term derived from deus to describe nothing more than the presumption of an initial catalyst?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thank you. Still, you distinguish you deism from theism by laying claim to "Reason". It seems to me that "something had to give that first nudge" is, at best, a rather weak example of this. Why, for example, is a first-nudged universe more reasonable than an eternal multiverse?

I believe that was explained by cause and effect For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is a known scientific fact. A Deist believes that Natural Law rules the universe. Newtons Third Law (Action=Reaction) is one of those Natural Laws. The multiverse hypothesis, while an interesting study of philosophy and a possible thread in the String Theory, is not explained by Natural Law.

So Deism is nothing more than the presumption of a "first nudge" - it may or may not have been conscious; it may or may not have been intentional; it may or may not have been a one-time event. Correct? And if so, what possible value is there in using a term derived from deus to describe nothing more than the presumption of an initial catalyst?

Not a presumption, a logical assumption due to cause and effect. The natural wonder of our world and universe leads us to reasonably believe that this "Prime Mover" has conscience and intent far beyond the limited ability of humans to grasp. Although the more we understand about how the universe works, the more we will understand God.
As I said earlier, in physics, many times an idea of a particle is logically assumed to exist merely because one can see the reactions of other observable matter around the unseen particle. Sometimes this "unseen particle" is finally observed. Other times a more reasonable explanation is found.
Such is the Deists reasonable assumption of God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

tumbleweed41, I find your response seriously flawed on a number of levels but, since debate is not appropriate, I see no way to proceed. Take care ...

 

[tumbleweed41]

tumbleweed41, I find your response seriously flawed on a number of levels but, since debate is not appropriate, I see no way to proceed. Take care ...

 

[Wandered Off]

Maybe the statement could be posted in one of the many debate areas on RF.

 

[Imagist]

I believe that was explained by cause and effect For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is a known scientific fact. A Deist believes that Natural Law rules the universe. Newtons Third Law (Action=Reaction) is one of those Natural Laws. The multiverse hypothesis, while an interesting study of philosophy and a possible thread in the String Theory, is not explained by Natural Law.

Newton's laws are only applicable to a narrow section of static physics. You can't just go around applying them willy-nilly to whatever you feel like.

Not a presumption, a logical assumption due to cause and effect. The natural wonder of our world and universe leads us to reasonably believe that this "Prime Mover" has conscience and intent far beyond the limited ability of humans to grasp. Although the more we understand about how the universe works, the more we will understand God.
As I said earlier, in physics, many times an idea of a particle is logically assumed to exist merely because one can see the reactions of other observable matter around the unseen particle. Sometimes this "unseen particle" is finally observed. Other times a more reasonable explanation is found.
Such is the Deists reasonable assumption of God.

I don't see how a god (who necessarily came from nothing or always existed) is any more reasonable than a universe that came from nothing or always existed.

 

[Storm]

Please remember that we're in a DIR. I believe tumbleweed created a response thread for those who wish to debate.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Newton's laws are only applicable to a narrow section of static physics. You can't just go around applying them willy-nilly to whatever you feel like.

Creation, or the Big Bang is physics. The speculative singularity of the Big Bang falls within Newton's Third Law.

I don't see how a god (who necessarily came from nothing or always existed) is any more reasonable than a universe that came from nothing or always existed.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Deist looks at the natural world and infers that this could not have been an accident. Admittedly, we also desire a sense of astonishment and connection to something greater than ourselves and define that “something” as God. [/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Imagist]

Creation, or the Big Bang is physics. The speculative singularity of the Big Bang falls within Newton's Third Law.

No, the big bang can only be represented with relativistic physics, which are far more complex than Newton's laws.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Deist looks at the natural world and infers that this could not have been an accident. Admittedly, we also desire a sense of astonishment and connection to something greater than ourselves and define that “something” as God. [/SIZE][/FONT]

The inference that the natural world could not have been an accident is at least intuitive. However, the solution to this problem that you offer is a god. How did this god come about? By accident? The same intuition that offers that the natural world cannot be an accident offers that such a god cannot be an accident.

 

[Wandered Off]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * STAFF ADVISORY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This thread is located in the "Discuss Individual Religions" (DIR) area, which means that debate is not appropriate because of RF DIR rules.

The OP author created another thread in a debate area specifically for debate purposes. Please take any arguments here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/79171-understanding-modern-deism.html

 

[Runewolf1973]

To me, supernatural means outside the Laws of Nature. I do not see God as being outside these Laws. In fact, I see God as being limited by these Laws.
I do not see God as Omnipotent, or Omniscient.

That is exactly what I believe. Perhaps I am a Deist as well I just did not realize it.

 

[Tristesse]

To me, deism seems like theism evolved. I can understand a deist god better than I can understand a theist god.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, me too. I tend to default to deistic thinking when not discussing my own theology, though that might just be because of my upbringing.

 

[DarkSun]

OK, thanks for answering.

I'm a bit confused, though. Didn't God author the laws of nature, as the Creator? Do you think the Creation was ex nihilo?

No, I do not believe God did author them. God is a result of those Laws and is therefor bound by them. So ex nihilo creation would be a paradox. The matter and energy existed to be manipulated.

But if God is the merely the result of these laws, how could He be the first cause?
I'm a little confused.