Is the deist God most logical?

[Heyo]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

A deos is most parsimonious, a theos requires additional, independent assumptions.
It doesn't contradict science as it only exists when and where science doesn't work.
It is compatible with a "perfection" attribute as it doesn't have to tinker with its creation like the theos who couldn't get it right from the beginning.

 

[Hold]

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]......Deism
noun

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
   

 

[Hold]

Logical to humans

Why do you believe deism is not the most objectively logical? I am just curious

Do you base your belief in God on logic...?

 

[DNB]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

Yes, if God created everything, and that man has the capacity to even question or fathom such a concept, presupposes the innate affinity with the Creator. All other creatures do not have such an awareness, but the fact that one particular genus does, indicates a relationship between man and the transcendent - for it would be utterly absurd for thoughts to go into such a realm that has no basis in reality - such a notion would be considered insanity. But, clearly, theists are not insane.

 

[viole]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

I think that if we define God as perfect, omnipotent and omniscient, then God will NOT interfere with Her creation, without defeating Herself. She might need to do that only if surprised by a certain course of events, because She missed something for instance, which contradicts the above mentioned premises.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

Is a man most logical or is it the woman?

Asks men who as the living humans proves every identify he imposed.

As he self idolated is his teaching.

So thinking he said gods O mass are held fixed a law. So it's natural his God made all laws as just highest greatest. Coldest place to new hot releases.

As any O fixed body still created from its own body outwardly. Natural laws said man congratulating himself on those thoughts.

To discuss he's human on earth looking out into space.

I'm persuing from my creation says mind the heavens as my god O had created beyond itself.

Now have you forgotten who you first were as man the theist?

Yes says man you woman reminded me.

Why he has to as thinking claim she must be a God also.

 

[PureX]

...Deism
noun

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

I'm not sure what the point of such a belief would be except to explain away the advent of existence using a supposition that has no basis in our experience.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

Not as logical as friendly. I always liked the idea of God smiling down at me from the clouds.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

It presumes both that the universe is made and that God makes the universe. This sets up God as interacting with time and raises the question of where God comes from. If the universe needs to come from somewhere then logically God needs to come from somewhere. The precondition is not resolved but is avoided. There are other ways to deal with existence.

My way of dealing with existence is a kind of like Wolfram's hypergraph. Its similar to Plato's idea about platonic solids. To me all of the hypergraph would exist within God, God being transcendent and not part of the universe.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/stephen-wolfram-hypergraph-project-fundamental-theory-physics#:~:text=In a sense, Wolfram believes,everything that exists in space.”

To me its the best attempt to understand existence based on what is available, and dealing with the question of existence takes us towards dealing with questions about God, too. This model of existence means we are responsible to care for our things and for the world. Its up to us to care about each other, too. Things can go very wrong and get worse, but they can also get much better. Another thing it would imply is that there can be other hypergraphs, other universes, other unreachable spaces.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

Deism is, IMO, the abandonment of logic.

The deistic God is unfalsifiable. On the one hand, the means it can't be disproven. On the other hand, it means that there can be no rational reason to conclude that it exists.

IMO, anyone who has concluded that a deistic God exists has committed some sort of mistake of logic.

 

[Heyo]

Deism is, IMO, the abandonment of logic.

The deistic God is unfalsifiable. On the one hand, the means it can't be disproven. On the other hand, it means that there can be no rational reason to conclude that it exists.

IMO, anyone who has concluded that a deistic God exists has committed some sort of mistake of logic.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether the deist god is most logic. And I think, as any theist god would need even more unjustified assumptions, the deist god is least illogical, or iow, most logical of all the proposed gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't the question. The question was whether the deist god is most logic.

I thought I answered that question, but just for clarity: I'm saying the deistic God is the least logical version of God.

And I think, as any theist god would need even more unjustified assumptions, the deist god is least illogical, or iow, most logical of all the proposed gods.

Here's the difference:

With most classical versions of God, everyone can agree that, should some set of evidence be present, belief in that God would be justified. There may be disagreement on whether that set of evidence is present, but we can all agree on the logic of the arguments.

We don't have this with deism. By definition, there is no set of evidence that could justify belief in a deistic God.

To phrase it another way: it's entirely possible to come up with an argument for God that is valid (i.e. the internal logic of all the parts of the argument works) but not sound (i.e. the premises of the argument aren't true). OTOH, any argument for a deistic God would be both invalid and unsound.

 

[Heyo]

I thought I answered that question, but just for clarity: I'm saying the deistic God is the least logical version of God.


Here's the difference:

With most classical versions of God, everyone can agree that, should some set of evidence be present, belief in that God would be justified. There may be disagreement on whether that set of evidence is present, but we can all agree on the logic of the arguments.

We don't have this with deism. By definition, there is no set of evidence that could justify belief in a deistic God.

To phrase it another way: it's entirely possible to come up with an argument for God that is valid (i.e. the internal logic of all the parts of the argument works) but not sound (i.e. the premises of the argument aren't true). OTOH, any argument for a deistic God would be both invalid and unsound.

Many arguments for gods are arguments for a deistic god: the first cause and first mover are, the argument from fine tuning is, the Kalam is. And while they all fail in their own way they really crash when you ask about the step from the deistic god to the theistic god of the apologists chosen variant.
And while many theist's gods can be proven to not exist, the deist god can simply not be proven to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many arguments for gods are arguments for a deistic god: the first cause and first mover are, the argument from fine tuning is, the Kalam is.

Those arguments are irrational crap, though.

And while they all fail in their own way they really crash when you ask about the step from the deistic god to the theistic god of the apologists chosen variant.

There's no "step from the deistic god to the theistic god."

There is a step from "gods in general" to "a specific god," but the deistic god isn't some more general form of god.

And while many theist's gods can be proven to not exist, the deist god can simply not be proven to exist.

That's what I said at the beginning: the deistic God is unfalsifiable. It can't be disproven but there's also no rational way to conclude that it exists.

 

[Alien826]

If you must have a god then the deist god is the "least god" there is. It needs only one attribute, the ability to create the universe (or maybe just the original singularity, if that's true). It doesn't need consciousness, or even to exist once the initial creation is complete.

It's logical in the sense that all our observations show that the universe runs perfectly well without any godlike being.

The only question remaining is whether calling such a thing "god" is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[viole]

ut, clearly, theists are not insane.

Clearly.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

Man thinker is just a human and living. Owns the want ..I want god by thinking stories.

I want to know the creator. What is the creator.

So other thinking living humans the same life conditions ask what for?

Real answer is as I want it.

Real answer for my machine gods position.

Real answer my machine God will invent it.

So all other themes about God he lied about. Actually.

You therefore ask what type of God does your machine invent?

As it's only a Human who built designed a machine. Pressed buttons.

Isn't any god. Pressed buttons doesn't do anything. His God isn't alive.

Your god is hence by body a machine.

So you then have to do an interview about those men.

Why?

He says...I know the sun attacked earth. It made huge bored out tunnels mass removed...wormholes.

I know it converts mass and it removed earths layers. It reduces cold molten metal into dusts.

How do you know?

When star mass as now colder mass of sun came from infinity law ...advice came. It was burning. Changed my brain as earths gases cold above burnt fell. So I was taught about light.

I saw a lot of recorded visions about it.

Basic what is god for a man on earth as his topic is I personally want god.

As science and I want god is only his human topic.

Therefore to a man theist by suns laws with infinity terms he learnt how the sun causes transcended time and light to all god positions about his machine presence.

So he owns god. It's his machine.

Talking is a form of human used manipulation and con.

To reason presence of all things is a subject.

He chooses as the term l theory to then claim when nothing existed. Is another subject.

Why other men said God is created bodies in form in the universe as law.

As his machine body isn't any law.

Held body a term the state of a God.

The very reason why certain topics and subjects are human reasoned.

 

[DNB]

Clearly.

Ciao

- viole

Thank you!

 

[lukethethird]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

I fail to see the logic in creating a God to explain how the universe came to be. It merely begs the question as to what created the creator ad infinitum.

 

[Muffled]

Is the deist God most logical?

Deism teaches that God made the universe and its natural laws but do not interfere with his creations. It is the belief in the existence of a god knowable through human reason

Any thoughts?

I believe it is illogical to think a God who invested in creation would abandon that investment.