Why Deism?

[The Sum of Awe]

This is how I see it;

God is impersonal right? But deism is kind of a new thing, the early theism mostly started by western mystics such as the apostles of Christianity.

So was it a lucky guess that there is a God, though they were wrong about it being personal?

OR

Was it really mystical experiences, thus God not being personal.

 

[Orias]

This is how I see it;

God is impersonal right? But deism is kind of a new thing, the early theism mostly started by western mystics such as the apostles of Christianity.

So was it a lucky guess that there is a God, though they were wrong about it being personal?

OR

Was it really mystical experiences, thus God not being personal.

Well my understanding of Deism is that a "God" created the Universe and then abandoned it, which means that this "God" let control of the Universe and natural and "supernatural" phenomena.

"God" is impersonal in the Aspect that He is "God", but he is also personal in the Aspect that we are able to congrue with Him and give meaning to the proponents of such doctrines.

 

[Oneatatime]

Deism is probably the only reasonable approach to belief in God because it makes no further claims beyond that God created the universe. I suspect that it didn't escape the notice of Deists that the claims of the claims of theists go beyond the initial unproven claims of Gods existance and act of creation and therefore were foolish to accept.

 

[Yes Man]

Deism is probably the only reasonable approach to belief in God because it makes no further claims beyond that God created the universe.

Incorrect. Deism states that there is a creator but it does not interfere with human affairs. Your statement of a person making no further claims to God applies more to agnostic theism.

 

[Oneatatime]

Incorrect. Deism states that there is a creator but it does not interfere with human affairs. Your statement of a person making no further claims to God applies more to agnostic theism.

If he created the universe in a form which is consistant with a complete understanding of the natural world then Gods existance or non-existance is simply a matter or personal choice and does not impact on others.

God becomes little more than an optional addon to our understanding of the universe rather than a continually supernatural influence as claimed by theists which if true would undermine naturalistic predictions by introducing an uncontrolable variable.

This is my understanding of the significance of deism as opposed to theism and why I have no problem with it.

 

[Orias]

Incorrect. Deism states that there is a creator but it does not interfere with human affairs.

He's not incorrect, since deism involves the absence of the presence of "God".

You are both right.

 

[Yes Man]

God becomes little more than an optional addon to our understanding of the universe rather than a continually supernatural influence as claimed by theists which if true would undermine naturalistic predictions by introducing an uncontrollable variable.

It depends on how the individual approaches it as well. It seems plausible that one could be a Christian and an agnostic theist, whether one invests belief in scripture and so on, depends on which issues the individual decides he or she ought to/must suspend judgment or be willing to have "faith" in a certain belief system, so to speak.

He's not incorrect, since deism involves the absence of the presence of "God".

You are both right.

I tend to quibble with semantics so I suppose you are right as well. There's always a history with words that tends to make the term more vague the further back in time you go.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But does anyone know how deists would know God exists, or why even guess that when God was made up by early mystics.

Because God was invented by mystics, that would make God personal. Though if it wasn't invented by mystics, God could be impersonal, yet how would we even know it exists?

 

[Oneatatime]

But does anyone know how deists would know God exists, or why even guess that when God was made up by early mystics.

Because God was invented by mystics, that would make God personal. Though if it wasn't invented by mystics, God could be impersonal, yet how would we even know it exists?

Neither deists or theists know that God exists. Its just an unsubstantiated claim which theists have chosen to build a belief and moral system upon.

The assertion that God exists is largely meaningless anyway since such a God has no defined characteristics beyond those required in order for it to be considered worthy of Godhood i.e. ultimate power. Its a largely vacuous concept, a blank superhuman.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Neither deists or theists know that God exists. Its just an unsubstantiated claim which theists have chosen to build a belief and moral system upon.

The assertion that God exists is largely meaningless anyway since such a God has no defined characteristics beyond those required in order for it to be considered worthy of Godhood i.e. ultimate power. Its a largely vacuous concept, a blank superhuman.

Well... Think they know God exists.

 

[Oneatatime]

Well... Think they know God exists.

Then they are deluded if they chose their reality rather than allowing reality to decide whats real. To a point all humans are deluded because we often maintain beliefs about others and ourselves which don't reflect reality but this doesn't excuse the assumption that God exists, especially when so much nonsense follows from this assumption.

 

[Orias]

But does anyone know how deists would know God exists, or why even guess that when God was made up by early mystics.

They don't, thats what makes them mystics, which in turn originally derives from the occult.

Because God was invented by mystics, that would make God personal. Though if it wasn't invented by mystics, God could be impersonal, yet how would we even know it exists?

Because the concept and creation of the word "God" exists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

While Deism as we know it is a around 500 years old, the basic ideas can be traced to some Greek philosophies, such as Stoicism.

Deism itself is the belief in a "First Cause", or "Prime Mover". A deity who "caused" the Universe, but takes no active role in it's development or inhabitants. Possibly by choice, or more likely by inability.

Understanding the natural workings of the Universe is how a deist understands "God".

Some Deists reason ontological arguments for the Prime Mover, personally I find those faulty and base my belief in a deistic god on faith alone.

 

[Willamena]

God becomes little more than an optional addon to our understanding of the universe rather than a continually supernatural influence as claimed by theists which if true would undermine naturalistic predictions by introducing an uncontrolable variable.

This is my understanding of the significance of deism as opposed to theism and why I have no problem with it.

I think that's the best argument against this version of Deism. "God" that's an "add-on," and worse yet "optional," is a redundancy.

 

[Willamena]

But does anyone know how deists would know God exists, or why even guess that when God was made up by early mystics.

Because God was invented by mystics, that would make God personal. Though if it wasn't invented by mystics, God could be impersonal, yet how would we even know it exists?

I'm a bit confused by the way you're using the term "personal" here --couldn't the ancient mystics have conceived of a god that was impersonal?

 

[LuisDantas]

Deism is such a basic form of the belief in God that I have a hard time trying to believe that it is not ancient. It may well be more ancient than the belief in a personal god.

 

[Orias]

Deism is probably the only reasonable approach to belief in God quote]

What about pantheism or panentheism eh?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Deism is probably the only reasonable approach to belief in God

What about pantheism or panentheism eh?

What about them?

 

[Orias]

What about them?

He said deism was probably the only rational approach to a belief in "God" (in his personal opinion).

I simply questioned his premise for him to answer.

But I guess esssentially some accords of pantheism or panentheism can be considered "deistic", give or take the personal contructs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

He said deism was probably the only rational approach to a belief in "God" (in his personal opinion).

I simply questioned his premise for him to answer.

But I guess esssentially some accords of pantheism or panentheism can be considered "deistic", give or take the personal contructs.

Here is a site on Panendeism.
Panendeism Home