I've been giving this some thought, and I've wondered why more people aren't deists? Everyone wants a god who intervenes, cares about them, watches over them, rewards them with heaven. But yet there's no evidence to support any theistic perspective. And, in fact, all of the very best arguments for the existence of god that theists have come up with (and there are some good ones) point only to deism and never directly support any theistic point of view. So what's wrong with deism? Sure, let's say there's a god but he doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen. In fact, isn't this consistent with the history of mankind anyway? If there's really an intervening and caring god, why the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin? Doesn't reality square much better with the notion of a god who is really unconcerned about us all?

Your thoughts, from any perspective, are appreciated.

If there's really an intervening and caring god, why the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin?
If there is not an intervening and caring God, why Schindler, charity organizations, and Make-a-Wish Foundation?

Hi, cadillac59!

You might be able to correct the spelling in the title if you click the Edit and then the Go Advanced button.

Thanks!

If you believe in an Almighty Creator capable of creating the universe,systems within systems sustaining life, why is it hard to believe that the same Creator is capable of sending messengers with revelations and moral codes for man to follow?
Why is is hard to believe in a Heaven and Hell we cannot see while alive?

A creator who can create volcanoes that destroy life and oxygen,air,water that sustains life,
Why is it hard to believe that same creator is capable of judging his creations whether they do right or wrong and meting out justice even if we escape the human scales of justice/injustice in this world?

According to Wikipedia:

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs, such as by miracles and revelations. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in what is now the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism and Universalism, which developed from it. It continues to this day in the forms of classical deism and modern deism.

That's interesting. One or more of the members here claim to be more Deist that anything else.

Deity is within us and all around us, part of us. The actual experience cannot be adequately described with words. Words, even written ones are made of Deity but can't describe it at all. We are also Deity but frequently live our lives thinking that our ego and brain is all there is to us. Most of us live in terror of death, not because we might go to hell but because it is an unknown.

As a Pagan I do not reject the supernatural or need published scientific proof that an event occurred. A supreme beingness does constantly help us, in exactly the way we need. Religious communities that do affect me are there because I need to be affected. So, what can I learn from them that will make me a better, more caring, forgiving, assertive and accepting part of Deity?

When someone from a Church, any kind, alludes that I am lost, I look around to discover that I am not. Then I check in with my feelings, Deity is right there, waiting to help me. No, not lost at all. Deity is also present in the person who told me I was lost. Right there, smiling at me.

If you believe in an Almighty Creator capable of creating the universe,systems within systems sustaining life, why is it hard to believe that the same Creator is capable of sending messengers with revelations and moral codes for man to follow?
Why is is hard to believe in a Heaven and Hell we cannot see while alive?

A creator who can create volcanoes that destroy life and oxygen,air,water that sustains life,
why is it hard to believe that same creator is capable of judging his creations whether they do right or wrong and meting out justice even if we escape the human scales of justice/injustice in this world?

As I said before, some arguments can be made for the existence of a god or gods, but I find it an unwarranted leap of faith, based upon nothing really, to attribute any particular nature or character to god (and I cannot see any reason why there has to be only one incidentally) and my observations of history suggest to me that, if there is a god, he's not that concerned about what goes on in the world.

It's a bit like what I quoted on another thread, a passage from one of Bertrand Russell's writings, "If you were granted omniscience, omnipotence and millions of years in which to perfect your world, do you really think the best you could come up with would be the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan?"

I think that was well-said.

Hi, cadillac59!

You might be able to correct the spelling in the title if you click the Edit and then the Go Advanced button.

Thanks!

Thanks, it worked!

If there is not an intervening and caring God, why Schindler, charity organizations, and Make-a-Wish Foundation?

But good doesn't have to only come from god. There are good people and bad.

So what's wrong with deism? Sure, let's say there's a god but he doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen.

Because saying there's a God who doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen produces the same evidence as assuming there is no God.

Occam's Razor it.

Because saying there's a God who doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen produces the exact same evidence as assuming there is no God.

Occam's Razor it.

No. That was the point I was making. It does not.

Everyone wants a god who intervenes, cares about them, watches over them, rewards them with heaven.
Uh no. I couldn't care less if a god existed or not. I go about my life just fine without the need the worship an unseen being.

I've been giving this some thought, and I've wondered why more people aren't deists? Everyone wants a god who intervenes, cares about them, watches over them, rewards them with heaven. But yet there's no evidence to support any theistic perspective. And, in fact, all of the very best arguments for the existence of god that theists have come up with (and there are some good ones) point only to deism and never directly support any theistic point of view. So what's wrong with deism? Sure, let's say there's a god but he doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen. In fact, isn't this consistent with the history of mankind anyway? If there's really an intervening and caring god, why the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin? Doesn't reality square much better with the notion of a god who is really unconcerned about us all?

Your thoughts, from any perspective, are appreciated.

That is not much of a god, and there is no real reason to believe in god if this was god's attitude for us.

If you do the research, there is very good archeologic, scientific, and scholarly proof for the Bible an Jesus Christ. That being said, it is ultimately faith that is required to believe and see that God does care and communicate with us.



G&P

No. That was the point I was making. It does not.

An example please (and also re-reading your posts, I don't see this point you claim to have made)

Uh no. I couldn't care less if a god existed or not. I go about my life just fine without the need the worship an unseen being.

That's true. I should have said "some people" (I actually tend to agree with you). By the way deism doesn't involve belief in a god that demands anything of us, let alone worship.

That is not much of a god, and there is no real reason to believe in god if this was god's attitude for us.

If you do the research, there is very good archeologic, scientific, and scholarly proof for the Bible an Jesus Christ. That being said, it is ultimately faith that is required to believe and see that God does care and communicate with us.



G&P

Archeologic and scientific proof? Proof of what? There's certainly no proof of any kind that god exists, let alone the god of the bible. The best arguments (that are not "proofs" anyway) point at best to deism, not any particular brand of theism.

an example please (and also re-reading your posts, i don't see this point you claim to have made)

Here's what you wrote:

Because saying there's a God who doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen produces the exact same evidence as assuming there is no God.

How does saying something about the existence or non-existance of god "produce evidence?" Perhaps there is where I don't follow you.

Here's what I meant. If you take a theist's best arguments, say the argument of first cause with the big-bang theory added to it (suggesting the universe had a finite beginning and thus must have had a "cause"), it only leads to the possibility that a god or gods did it but tells you nothing about his/its character. In fact that particular god doesn't have to be a person at all, but might be simply an impersonal force in the universe.

See the point?

I will try to explain as a believer why just "Deism" does not work for me.

As you mentioned Pol Pot and Nazi, their acts in this world was not actually punished while they were alive or even if some were it is nothing compared to the actions and mistreatment others had to endure in their hands.

For this very reason,my belief in the Hereafter and an Almighty Creator who will provide justice even if we escape the worldly life makes sense to me.

Because I can make a list of people who I know deserves to suffer for making others suffer at their hands.
And there is not enough worldly punishment that will make up for the evils in their lives.

I believe in a justice,where those who deserve get due punishment and those who deserve get due reward, deism does not offer justice.

How does saying something about the existance or non-existance of god "produce evidence?" Perhaps there is where I don't follow you.

This is my point, both a non-intervening god and a non-existent god produce no evidence of a god. Occam's razor says the simplest answer is probably right: Non-existent God.

I guess the point is that I don't understand any advantage that deism has over atheism. At least I can understand theism from the point of wanting to be watched over by something bigger than themselves, even if that is a concept that I personally find almost insultingly childish.

Do you believe there is an advantage in believing in deism over atheism, and if so could you enlighten me?

This is my point, both a non-intervening god and a non-existent god produce no evidence of a god. Occam's razor says the simplest answer is probably right: Non-existent God.

I guess the point is that I don't understand any advantage that deism has over atheism. At least i can understand theism from the point of wanting to be watched over by something bigger than themselves, even if that is a concept that i personally find almost insultingly childish.

Do you believe there is an advantage in believing in deism over atheism, and if so could you enlighten me?

Agree:

If one has a "parent," and that parent did not feed, clothe, shelter, teach, love you etc. functionally speaking does that person really have a parent?



G&P

This is my point, both a non-intervening god and a non-existent god produce no evidence of a god. Occam's razor says the simplest answer is probably right: Non-existent God.

I guess the point is that I don't understand any advantage that deism has over atheism. At least i can understand theism from the point of wanting to be watched over by something bigger than themselves, even if that is a concept that i personally find almost insultingly childish.

Do you believe there is an advantage in believing in deism over atheism, and if so could you enlighten me?

Thanks for your comments.

I really cannot say there is an advantage to deism vs. atheism other than the obvious: you can give credit to a theist's best arguments for god (such as design, which I don't think is a particularly good one, or first cause, one that is far better now since the big bang theory) without having to also buy into their particular argument for the character of god. They'll never prove their particular brand of theism, no matter how hard they try, and in fact they almost never try to. Instead they try to prove god exists and from there suppose people will make the jump to their views of god's character (and some people who do not think hard enough about it might).

Actually I've got one foot in the atheist camp myself, so I am in no way advocating theism, or even deism. Coming from a Lutheran background and being gay makes me fairly critical and suspicious of religion in general. I left my Lutheran church because they did not take an affirmative stand in favor of same sex marriage in California in 2008 at the time of an election inititive, so I became disinchanted over Christian teachings. I've not completely decided to leave god behind so deism seems a possible alternative. Hence my question.

I will try to explain as a believer why just "Deism" does not work for me.

As you mentioned Pol Pot and Nazi, their acts in this world was not actually punished while they were alive or even if some were it is nothing compared to the actions and mistreatment others had to endure in their hands.

For this very reason,my belief in the Hereafter and an Almighty Creator who will provide justice even if we escape the worldly life makes sense to me.

Because I can make a list of people who I know deserves to suffer for making others suffer at their hands.
And there is not enough worldly punishment that will make up for the evils in their lives.

I believe in a justice,where those who deserve get due punishment and those who deserve get due reward, deism does not offer justice.

Your argument, and it's not necessarily a bad one, is that god must exist to equalize the injustice in the world. I see the point. Even if Hitler had been caught and put on trial (and maybe executed) it would hardly of done much to compensate for the wide path of destruction and death left behind. True.

But I think imagining the way things ought to be is not the same as establishing how they in fact are. We can all envision a god who sorts it all out and makes it right at the end of the day, but that does nothing really to advance the argument of his existence. I think I've heard your point of view expressed as the "moral necessity" for the existence of god. I think there are better arguments. But I appreciate your point of view.

Your argument, and it's not necessarily a bad one, is that god must exist to equalize the injustice in the world. I see the point. Even if Hitler had been caught and put on trial (and maybe executed) it would hardly of done much to compensate for the wide path of destruction and death left behind. True.

But I think imagining the way things ought to be is not the same as establishing how they in fact are. We can all envision a god who sorts it all out and makes it right at the end of the day, but that does nothing really to advance the argument of his existance. I think I've heard your point of view expressed as the "moral necessity" for the existance of god. I think there are better arguments. But I appreciate your point of view.

That was just to show why I could not cater to Deism.

This view does not mean that it is the only reason I believe, just one of many. :)

That was just to show why I could not cater to Deism.

This view does not mean that it is the only reason I believe, just one of many. :)

I think for those of us who might be inclined toward atheism, deism is a reasonable alternative. For example, coming from a Lutheran background (and from one of the most liberal of branches of that church), I considered atheism for a number of reasons, but have given deism some thought as an alternative. I'm not quite ready to fully embrace atheism at the moment, maybe that's part of it. Returning to god, for me, would be a return to a liberal Lutheran tradition I suppose (Lutheranism has the best that the Catholic church has to offer without some of the other matters I see as problematic).

I think for those of us who might be inclined toward atheism, deism is a reasonable alternative. For example, coming from a Lutheran background (and from one of the most liberal of branches of that church), I considered atheism for a number of reasons, but have given deism some thought as an alternative. I'm not quite ready to fully embrace atheism at the moment, maybe that's part of it. Returning to god, for me, would be a return to a liberal Lutheran tradition I suppose (Lutheranism has the best that the Catholic church has to offer without some of the other matters I see as problematic).
I grew up in one of the conservative branches of the Lutheran church, the Missouri-Synod. In fact, my dad was a pastor all his adult life. Despite the fact that M-S Lutherans tend toward fundamentalism, one lesson my dad taught was that we are to do our best to follow Jesus' two greatest commandments: love God and love each other. Yes, the Ten Commandments are a guide for us, but if we don't show love in our efforts to keep them, we have failed. How then can we show love to the unchurched, to those of another religion or who have no religion, to those who look different from us, to those who ARE in some way different from us? My dad often say the OT shows us our sin (SOS), shows us where we have gone wrong, whereas the NT shows our salvation (SOS), shows us the best possible way to live, a la the Good Samaritan, by showing unconditional love to others.

Why do Christians insist that gays and their partners are living in sin, when it is the Christians themselves who won't allow any kind of marriage or even civil contract for gays. I know several gays in long-term relationships, some with adopted children. They have created stable families and make wonderful parents! Communities are enhanced with their presence. I pray that more church bodies will open their hearts and minds to include gays in their membership.

I grew up in one of the conservative branches of the Lutheran church, the Missouri-Synod. In fact, my dad was a pastor all his adult life. Despite the fact that M-S Lutherans tend toward fundamentalism, one lesson my dad taught was that we are to do our best to follow Jesus' two greatest commandments: love God and love each other. Yes, the Ten Commandments are a guide for us, but if we don't show love in our efforts to keep them, we have failed. How then can we show love to the unchurched, to those of another religion or who have no religion, to those who look different from us, to those who ARE in some way different from us? My dad often say the OT shows us our sin (SOS), shows us where we have gone wrong, whereas the NT shows our salvation (SOS), shows us the best possible way to live, a la the Good Samaritan, by showing unconditional love to others.

Why do Christians insist that gays and their partners are living in sin, when it is the Christians themselves who won't allow any kind of marriage or even civil contract for gays. I know several gays in long-term relationships, some with adopted children. They have created stable families and make wonderful parents! Communities are enhanced with their presence. I pray that more church bodies will open their hearts and minds to include gays in their membership.

Thank you and yes. As a gay man, I couldn't agree more.

My church was ELCA affiliated and now that denomination ordains gay and lesbian pastors in committed same sex relationships. Hopefully same sex marriage will be the next thing to follow. That's why I said if I go back to god, it will only be in an ELCA church.

Yes, we (gay people) are equal in every respect to heterosexuals: equal in our ability to form lasting relationships. Equal in our ability to be good parents, equal in our ability to love and respect others, equal in our ability to contribute meaningfully to our communities, equal in our ability to be good neighbors, equal in our ability to occupy any profession, and the list goes on and on.

That's why I said if I go back to god, it will only be in an ELCA church.
Don't put God on the shelf because of incorrect thinking by people. It's not God's fault! I hope an area ELCA congregation will become your home away from home.

or first cause, one that is far better now since the big bang theory

I find this a bit silly. You can say god did something to the universe that caused the big bang, or you can say the universe big banged on it's own. Both of which we have equal evidence for, and one of which is a degree simpler.

I guess I find it silly to invoke a god just because you can't understand how something would happen without a god. I don't say that god holds the magnets to the fridge just because I'm ignorant of how magnetism works. In the same way I don't say that god caused the big bang just because I don't understand how that happened, and I don't think it's a particularly good argument for the existence of god.

Have you ever heard the phrase "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)"?

I find this a bit silly. You can say god did something to the universe that caused the big bang, or you can say the universe big banged on it's own. Both of which we have equal evidence for, and one of which is a degree simpler.

I guess I find it silly to invoke a god just because you can't understand how something would happen without a god. I don't say that god holds the magnets to the fridge just because i'm ignorant of how magnetism works. In the same way I don't say that god caused the big bang just because I don't understand how that happened, and I don't think it's a particularly good argument for the existence of god.

Have you ever heard the phrase "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)"?

I'm not trying to make an argument for the existence of god. Far from it. In fact, I'm on the edge of atheism myself but, as I've indicated, I'm just not quite there yet and have looked at alternatives to religion, like deism.

I heard an interesting argument raised recently by a theist in an atheism vs. theism debate, which involved the big bang theory. He said that because we now know the earth came into existence at a finite point in the past (i.e. at the time of the big bang) we can say the universe had a beginning whereas before we couldn't. Hence, if the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause and now the stage is set to call that cause god. Before, without proof that the universe had a beginning we could not do that. Because we define god without reference to having had a beginning we avoid the problem of having to apply the first cause argument to god's origins.

To illustrate, Bertrand Russell, before the big bang theory, use to critique the first cause argument this way: You cannot use the first cause argument because it immediately raises the question of who made god. If you say god always existed and doesn't need a cause, you might as well say the universe always existed and doesn't need a cause either. If anything doesn't need a cause it might as well be the universe as god.

Add the big bang theory and you give the universe a beginning thus necessitating an explanation of cause. But no similar argument can be made with respect to god. You see the distinction?

Your point was well-taken: maybe the universe "big banged" on it own.

Not sure I agree with the theist's use of the big bang to use a first cause argument but I thought it made some sense.

I'm not trying to make an argument for the existence of god. Far from it. In fact, I'm on the edge of atheism myself but, as I've indicated, I'm just not quite there yet and have looked at alternatives to religion, like deism.

I apologise for my tone, I'm used to discussing these points with theists. But still, I'm just trying to share with you why I'm not convinced by the first cause argument.


He said that because we now know the earth came into existence at a finite point in the past (i.e., at the time of the big bang)

You mean the universe? The Earth wasn't formed in it's present state until about 3/4 of the universe's age had passed.


we can say the universe had a beginning whereas before we couldn't

I don't believe this is true, we can say that the universe was a dense singularity at one point, in which any information about what the universe was like before this singularity was destroyed. For example (and this is just hypothesis on my part) you could say that a contracting universe would contract to a singularity and then begin expanding again as a virtue of its inertia.



Hence, if the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause and now the stage is set to call that cause god. Before, without proof that the universe had a beginning we could not do that. Because we define god without reference to having had a beginning we avoid the problem of having to apply the first cause argument to god's origins.

To illustrate, Bertrand Russell, before the big bang theory, use to critique the first cause argument this way: You cannot use the first cause argument because it immediately raises the question of who made god. If you say god always existed and doesn't need a cause, you might as well say the universe always existed and doesn't need a cause either. If anything doesn't need a cause it might as well be the universe as god.

Add the big bang theory and you give the universe a beginning thus necessitating an explanation of cause. But no similar argument can be made with respect to god. You see the distinction?

Your point was well-taken: maybe the universe "big banged" on it own.

Not sure I agree with the theist's use of the big bang to use a first cause argument but I thought it made some sense.

I think the rest of your post is driven by a slight misunderstanding (either yours or the theist's) about big bang theory. Big bang theory does not say anything about the time before the singularity. We call the singularity the beginning of our universe, because any information about what was before the singularity has been lost. We define the time at which the singularity began to expand as t=0. i.e. the first time for which we can derive information about with observation.


The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3]), and continues to expand to this day.

I find most people have a naïve idea that the singularity popped out of nothing, which might indeed necessitate some kind of first cause (which also could be addressed by some existing more scientific hypotheses), but the big bang theory does not say anything about that.

In summary, I don't think the big bang theory really adds anythign to the first cause argument, other than letting the person arguing for the first cause use some arguments based on their own misunderstanding. The most we can assume from big bang theory is that the universe is not steady-state as was once believed, but is dynamic and changing. We still don't really have any information about whether there was a 'caused' beginning.

OK, I AM a Deist. I have held that belief for many, many years. I've mentioned in other discussions here that deism is my belief.

I am a deist because I find it hard to accept that the complexity of the design of this universe was the result of a random event. There are too many physical laws and design logic to believe there was not some intelligent force behind it.

However, believing that, I cannot believe that such a force is hanging around guiding things. I cannot accept that a force intelligent enough to create this complexity could sit there and allow the evil and tragedy that exists in this world.

Frankly, I think our known universe is a cosmic joke created by some intelligence who is amused by the havoc it created.

I grew up in one of the conservative branches of the Lutheran church, the Missouri-Synod. In fact, my dad was a pastor all his adult life. Despite the fact that M-S Lutherans tend toward fundamentalism, one lesson my dad taught was that we are to do our best to follow Jesus' two greatest commandments: love God and love each other. Yes, the Ten Commandments are a guide for us, but if we don't show love in our efforts to keep them, we have failed. How then can we show love to the unchurched, to those of another religion or who have no religion, to those who look different from us, to those who ARE in some way different from us? My dad often say the OT shows us our sin (SOS), shows us where we have gone wrong, whereas the NT shows our salvation (SOS), shows us the best possible way to live, a la the Good Samaritan, by showing unconditional love to others.

Why do Christians insist that gays and their partners are living in sin, when it is the Christians themselves who won't allow any kind of marriage or even civil contract for gays. I know several gays in long-term relationships, some with adopted children. They have created stable families and make wonderful parents! Communities are enhanced with their presence. I pray that more church bodies will open their hearts and minds to include gays in their membership.

Your first paragraph is a beautiful expression of what I think a God follower believes.

Cadillac, I wish and hope that you understand that there is a God, a God that loves you.
Sin, sinning, sinners is in God's realm. I'm sorry that Christians, myself included, focus more on judging the sinner rather than showing our love for the sinner. I hope you find a group of people / a church? That understands this and lives this.



G&P

I prefer to answer your question with another question.

Why Deism?

It offers no comfort in time of trouble.

It offers no hope of anything better in this world, ever.

It offers no hope that good will finally overcome evil.

There is no promise of anyone to turn to when everyone has turned against you.

It offers no guarantee that those who have committed horrible crimes against their fellow human beings will ever be brought to justice.

It offers no hope of any life after this one is over.

It puzzles me why anyone would want to be a Deist. It is as empty as last years' corn shucks.

Why Deism?

It offers no comfort in time of trouble.

So you find comfort in your belief in a god that watches over you. I am glad you have found such comfort in blind faith. As for, I see no evidence to provide me with any comfort in a belief in a God. And I too much of a logician to find comfort in blind faith.


It offers no hope of anything better in this world, ever.

I vehemently disagree with this. Hope for a better world lies in the actions of the people that populate that world.


It offers no hope that good will finally overcome evil.

Good will triumph by the good actions of people, not blind faith.


There is no promise of anyone to turn to when everyone has turned against you.


It offers no guarantee that those who have committed horrible crimes against their fellow human beings will ever be brought to justice.

Again, if it comforts you that evildoers will get their just desserts in some afterlife, more power to you. But a religion that promises such punishment for people who don't worship they way that religion says they should is not going to capture me.


It offers no hope of any life after this one is over.

Again, I disagree. Since a deist does believe that there is a supreme being that created the universe as we know it, there is no conflict to also believe that some higher plain of living was also created.


It puzzles me why anyone would want to be a Deist. It is as empty as last years' corn shucks.

Not in the least. A deist is generally a logical person, who believes in the evidence of their own senses. There is enough evidence to believe that some intelligent guidance was used in setting up the universe. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that such an intelligence exists or existed. But there is overwhelming evidence, In my opinion, that no such force is guiding our actions or providing help and guidance. So the same logic prevents believing in some organized religion.

I prefer to answer your question with another question.

Why Deism?

It offers no comfort in time of trouble.

It offers no hope of anything better in this world, ever.

It offers no hope that good will finally overcome evil.

There is no promise of anyone to turn to when everyone has turned against you.

It offers no guarantee that those who have committed horrible crimes against their fellow human beings will ever be brought to justice.

It offers no hope of any life after this one is over.

It puzzles me why anyone would want to be a Deist. It is as empty as last years' corn shucks.

Here's an answer to your question which takes the form of a question:

Why does wanting something to be true make it true? That's all you've said. Namely, that god has to be a certain way or else it just wouldn't be fair. I fail to see the logic to any of that.

There's nothing fair about anything in life. The idea that god has to exist and have a certain character, so that everything comes out right in the end is childish wishful thinking.

So, guys,

You object loudly and long against any premise of faith.

Unless it is your faith that mankind on his own will some day make a perfect world.

Lots of luck on that one! How many thousands of years do you say that man has been around? Humanity in general is just as evil as it ever was.

You are trying to "sell" the idea of Deism, so instead of bashing Christianity, tell us the benefits of Deism.

Ask yourself this. If you are right and I am wrong, what effect will that have on me?

Second question. If I am right and you are wrong, what effect will that have on you?

Feel free to post your answers.

Galveston,

Nope you are looking at this totally skewed from your perspective and that's where you go wrong.

I am very happy that people can take comfort in their religious beliefs. Having faith can be a wonderful thing for such people. I don't object to faith for people who find comfort in it. What I personally can't accept, because of my own specific makeup, is blind faith. I need facts, or at least, logical conclusions to hang my hat on. If you want to believe the way you do, that's up to you and I'm glad you are happy with your beliefs.

My objection to your posts in this thread is not that you personally can't accept Deism, but that you think no one should. I have explained why I believe that way, and I have refuted some of your arguments or explained why I can't accept them. But I have always maintained you have a right to them.

Nor do I accept that humanity is as evil as it ever was. Clearly there are evil people. But I strongly believe that humanity in general wants to be good. If that wasn't true, why would so many follow religious teachings about being and doing good?

I'm not trying to "sell" Deism, especially not to the extent that you are trying to "sell" Christianity. I have simply stated why I subscribe to the doctrine so people can understand my thinking.

I do believe that IF there is an after life and IF there is a heaven and hell as part of that afterlife, the decision as to which direction and individual goes wi8ll not be dependent on what church they attend, how often they attend, or whether they attend at all. It will be based on how one lives their life. If a person does mostly good with their life, follows the Golden Rule and the ethical provisions embodied by the 10 Commandments, they one will be admitted to heaven no matter what their religious beliefs.

So, guys,

You object loudly and long against any premise of faith.

Unless it is your faith that mankind on his own will some day make a perfect world.

Lots of luck on that one! How many thousands of years do you say that man has been around? Humanity in general is just as evil as it ever was.

You are trying to "sell" the idea of Deism, so instead of bashing Christianity, tell us the benefits of Deism.

Ask yourself this. If you are right and I am wrong, what effect will that have on me?

Second question. If I am right and you are wrong, what effect will that have on you?

Feel free to post your answers.

What you asked was the very familiar (and old) argument known as Pascal's Wager: If you are right and I am wrong, I've got everything to lose. If I am right and you are wrong you've lost nothing by believing. There's a detailed analysis (and critique) of the argument at wikipedia: Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)

There are many ways to refute this. One way that I like is to ask about all the possible competing religions out there and ask the same question: Can you possibly wager on all of them? If so, how? And should or would anyone?

Plus, and I'll leave you with this since you can read the wikipedia article yourself, I'm not sure it is true that you've lost nothing by believing (whether that belief is false or not). What if you'd altered your life in such as way as to deny yourself happiness and fulfillment because of your beliefs and this cost you decades of your life before you came to your senses and started living the way you wanted to? Can you really say you've lost nothing?

And a final comment. Inscribed on Sigmund Freud's tombstone in Vienna are the following words:

The voice of reason is still but persistent.

I believe that all religions,with good intent are pathways to God.The pathways start differently,but all end up in the same place.(heaven)? Just a simple thought.

I've been giving this some thought, and I've wondered why more people aren't deists? Everyone wants a god who intervenes, cares about them, watches over them, rewards them with heaven. But yet there's no evidence to support any theistic perspective. And, in fact, all of the very best arguments for the existence of god that theists have come up with (and there are some good ones) point only to deism and never directly support any theistic point of view. So what's wrong with deism? Sure, let's say there's a god but he doesn't care about humanity and simply allows things to happen as they happen. In fact, isn't this consistent with the history of mankind anyway? If there's really an intervening and caring god, why the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin? Doesn't reality square much better with the notion of a god who is really unconcerned about us all?

Your thoughts, from any perspective, are appreciated.

Cadillac,

I can only answer this question for myself. I can't answer why OTHER people aren't deists.

Deism is the belief that G-d created the world/universe and then stepped back away from the day to day operation of that world/universe, and allows it to operate on its own without direct intervention.

For me, it comes down to this... I have seen and experienced too much to think that G-d is not involved intimately with my life. I have experienced too many "coincidences" in my life to think that G-d isn't there. I've had my own life saved too many times to think that the universe is operating on "automatic". As an EMT, I've helped too many other people that I really didn't have the power to help on my own to think that there wasn't someone "out there" helping me do it. I've both experienced too much tragedy and avoided too much tragedy to think that anything is happenstance. I've done and seen too much to believe that the world is that random.

Is it a scientific answer to your question? Nope. But that's MY reason for not being a Deist.

As for your questions about Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc... there's a good book out there called "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" by Harold Kushner. I don't agree with everything in the book (in fact, there are some parts of the book I strongly disagree with), but he does a good job of exploring the nature of good and evil in the world and why tragedies happen, and why G-d acts or doesn't act to prevent things from occurring. It might help answer some of your questions. Or it might just leave you with more questions. But I think it's worth a read.

Elliot

I believe that all religions,with good intent are pathways to God.The pathways start out differently,but all end up in the same place.(heaven)? Just a simple thought.

I agree with you, but the thought is not simple to those who wish to be right. Being right is a part of feeling sane. It's not simple to those who are smart enough to question what appears (to us) be obvious. Those who have logic and intelligence as their strong suit and have not been brainwashed by childhood indoctrination of a mainstream religion, have issues with faith. Thinking about it and winning in the world with intelligence and logic makes the simplicity suspect to many.

Nope.

Caddie posted "Why not Deism?"

So far, no one has put forth even one advantage of being a Deist.

Of course, you are entitled to your own ideas.

But why be a Deist? You get to the same bottom line as the Atheist.

I think I have answered the OP question of why NOT Deism.

Nope.

Caddie posted "Why not Deism?"

So far, no one has put forth even one advantage of being a Deist.

Of course, you are entitled to your own ideas.

But why be a Deist? You get to the same bottom line as the Atheist.

I think I have answered the OP question of why NOT Deism.

But religion is suppose to be about what is true, not what sounds the best or what we'd like to be true. Deism makes the most sense, I suggested, because it satisfied first cause arguments many believe are necessitated by the improbability of the universe having come into existence on its own, or the impossibility of something coming from nothing, and also comported with history, both modern and ancient, which seems to lend support to the notion that if there is a god he or it appears uninvolved in human affairs.

I don't understand your remarks about the "bottom line" for deism being the same as atheism (you mean I can do whatever I want without having to worry about upsetting god?).

Cadillac,

I can only answer this question for myself. I can't answer why OTHER people aren't deists.

Deism is the belief that G-d created the world/universe and then stepped back away from the day to day operation of that world/universe, and allows it to operate on its own without direct intervention.

For me, it comes down to this... I have seen and experienced too much to think that G-d is not involved intimately with my life. I have experienced too many "coincidences" in my life to think that G-d isn't there. I've had my own life saved too many times to think that the universe is operating on "automatic". As an EMT, I've helped too many other people that I really didn't have the power to help on my own to think that there wasn't someone "out there" helping me do it. I've both experienced too much tragedy and avoided too much tragedy to think that anything is happenstance. I've done and seen too much to believe that the world is that random.

Is it a scientific answer to your question? Nope. But that's MY reason for not being a Deist.

As for your questions about Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc... there's a good book out there called "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" by Harold Kushner. I don't agree with everything in the book (in fact, there are some parts of the book I strongly disagree with), but he does a good job of exploring the nature of good and evil in the world and why tragedies happen, and why G-d acts or doesn't act to prevent things from occuring. It might help answer some of your questions. Or it might just leave you with more questions. But I think it's worth a read.

Elliot

Yes, I hear that a lot from theists: certain things happened to the believer (always good it seems) in such a way and at such a time to lead to the belief that god must have had something to do with it (saving the day, whatever it may have been). Of course when bad things happened and god seemed silent were not those times just conveniently forgotten? You really have to wonder. Isn't it then all just so much wishful thinking?

As I said (or maybe intimated) before, if you really looked a human history you'd have to come to the conclusion that there really is no pattern to it such as to suggest god is involved. I just don't see it. If anything the pattern appears to be non-involvement and disinterest. There's more evidence for that than the contrary.

Nope.

Caddie posted "Why not Deism?"

So far, no one has put forth even one advantage of being a Deist.

Of course, you are entitled to your own ideas.

But why be a Deist? You get to the same bottom line as the Atheist.

I think I have answered the OP question of why NOT Deism.


One of life's biggest questions is, "why suffering?"

I think atheists will have to say, that is just the way it is and so you deal with it the best you can. Depressing in my opinion :( You live, you die, what is the purpose?

I think it would be harder to be a Deist actually. To believe there is a god or gods, that either 1] don't care that there is suffering, or are powerless to do anything about it, or 3] get some enjoyment out of it :eek: Imagine growing up with a parent with this parenting style.

I don't see any advantage at all.


G&P

Nope.

Caddie posted "Why not Deism?"

So far, no one has put forth even one advantage of being a Deist.

Of course, you are entitled to your own ideas.

But why be a Deist? You get to the same bottom line as the Atheist.

I think I have answered the OP question of why NOT Deism.

Not even close. If you think no one has put forth an advantage of Deism, its because you are ignoring them because they don't fit with your view of things.

The main advantage of Deism (and the reason why its NOT the same as Atheism) is that it answers questions about the creation of the universe that Atheism doesn't answer. As I said in my first response, for me the complexity of the design of our physical universe is so great that I find it hard to believe that it resulted from coincidence. That complexity leads me to believe there was some intelligence guiding the creation.

On the other hand I see no conclusive (for me) evidence that the intelligence that created our universe has done anything since then. That this intelligence is watching over us, listening to our prayers, answering some, meddling in in our lives, etc. is just not believable to me. Therefore, Deism satisfies my logical mind by explaining the complexity of the universe and allows me to reject organized religion as man made.

While religion is largely a matter of opinion, the post I quote above contains statements of fact that are just plain wrong. As I just pointed out the advantage of Deism HAS been stated, so saying that no one has done so is wrong. Second, there is a major difference between Deism and Atheism. The Atheist does not believe in any god at all, while the Deist believes in a being that created the universe. And Finally you have not answered the question of why NOT Deism, but rather explained why Deism is wrong for YOU. There is a difference there and my issue with your posts here is based on the fact that you don't seem to understand that difference.

Yes, I hear that a lot from theists: certain things happened to the believer (always good it seems) in such a way and at such a time to lead to the belief that god must have had something to do with it (saving the day, whatever it may have been). Of course when bad things happened and god seemed silent were not those times just conveniently forgotten? You really have to wonder. Isn't it then all just so much wishful thinking?

Oh, I've had bad things happen too. People that I have cared for have died. I've lost jobs. I've lost money. I'm going through a rather nasty divorce right now... all bad things.

And yet I have experienced a level of support, even at the worst of times, that was from a source that I cannot identify physically. Sure there were people who supported me, but there was always something else... just the right twist of fate when I needed it. The right song playing on the radio when I needed it most, the comment from a complete stranger that changed my perspective... whatever. These things could NOT have been random. They were too well-targeted. The only thing that explains it to me is that there is SOMEONE working in the background. Even when the bad stuff happened, G-d was there. He may have had a reason that he couldn't or wouldn't keep that bad thing from happening, but He was there to support me and comfort me when it did.

Call it wishfull thinking if you'd like. But wishfull thinking has a power too... "miraculous" things can be accomplished through the power of wishful thinking. That too is one of G-d's tools.


As I said (or maybe intimated) before, if you really looked a human history you'd have to come to the conclusion that there really is no pattern to it such as to suggest god is involved. I just don't see it. If anything the pattern appears to be non-involvement and disinterest. There's more evidence for that than the contrary.

I disagree. Perhaps the fact that my training and profession is as an analyst allows me to see patterns that you might miss. Or perhaps it is my religious upbringing that allows me to see the patterns that those without that upbringing might miss. Or perhaps it's the fact that I enjoy studying history and seek patterns in all areas of history... it's a knack that I have after years of study. Perhaps looking for patterns is a skill that must be learned, it doesn't just happen. Just a thought.

Elliot

Or perhaps it is my religious upbringing that allows me to see the patterns that those without that upbringing might miss.
That's the odd part for me. I had a religious upbringing but I didn't see any "value" (for lack of a better word) in it. I had no problems managing my life without worshipping something nor do I hear voices guiding me. It's funny how similar events can have different outcomes.

The main advantage of Deism (and the reason why its NOT the same as Atheism) is that it answers questions about the creation of the universe that Atheism doesn't answer. As I said in my first response, for me the complexity of the design of our physical universe is so great that I find it hard to believe that it resulted from coincidence. That complexity leads me to believe there was some intelligence guiding the creation.

And you're saying that the intelligence is eternal, or that it itself must have had a creator? Do you think that the intelligence must be at least as complex as its creation?

I don't understand your remarks about the "bottom line" for deism being the same as atheism (you mean I can do whatever I want without having to worry about upsetting god?).

What I mean is that whether there is no God or whether He cannot be known or contacted amounts to the same thing.

You still haven't shown any benefit to being a Deist.

I doubt many people are ever going to embrace it.

What's the benefit to believing in a god?

And you're saying that the intelligence is eternal, or that it itself must have had a creator? Do you think that the intelligence must be at least as complex as its creation?

I don't know if that intelligence is eternal or not. And yes, there is the argument of whether that intelligence had its own creator. But that just leads one around in circles.

You do pose an interesting question about the intelligence being as complex as the creation. I'm not sure if I can answer that. I often feel that our universe is a plaything. That there are other universes created by the same intelligence or siblings of it as playgrounds to watch what develops. Some playgrounds may have been cast aside as too boring, others remain of intense interest. If the intelligence is continuing to monitor their toy, they are more likely to be fomenting the tragedy and other things just to see how their creation will deal with them.

I do not believe I can know or understand such an intelligence, only that I believe one existed.

Oh, I've had bad things happen too. People that I have cared for have died. I've lost jobs. I've lost money. I'm going through a rather nasty divorce right now... all bad things.

And yet I have experienced a level of support, even at the worst of times, that was from a source that I cannot identify physically. Sure there were people who supported me, but there was always something else... just the right twist of fate when I needed it. The right song playing on the radio when I needed it most, the comment from a complete stranger that changed my perspective... whatever. These things could NOT have been random. They were too well-targeted. The only thing that explains it to me is that there is SOMEONE working in the background. Even when the bad stuff happened, G-d was there. He may have had a reason that he couldn't or wouldn't keep that bad thing from happening, but He was there to support me and comfort me when it did.

Call it wishfull thinking if you'd like. But wishfull thinking has a power too... "miraculous" things can be accomplished through the power of wishful thinking. That too is one of G-d's tools.



I disagree. Perhaps the fact that my training and profession is as an analyst allows me to see patterns that you might miss. Or perhaps it is my religious upbringing that allows me to see the patterns that those without that upbringing might miss. Or perhaps its the fact that I enjoy studying history and seek patterns in all areas of history... it's a knack that I have after years of study. Perhaps looking for patterns is a skill that must be learned, it doesn't just happen. Just a thought.

Elliot


When you talk about that level of support you cannot seem to identify or feeling someone was in the background is something I can relate to as well. Yes, I know what you mean and I think that's the reason I've been reluctant to fully embrace atheism.

I like what is supposedly inscribed at Sigmund Freud's memorial in Vienna, "The Voice of reason is still but very persistent."

What's the benefit to believing in a god?

You haven't been paying attention. I posted that earlier.

Besides, that is not the question of the OP.

What I mean is that whether there is no God or whether He cannot be known or contacted amounts to the same thing.

You still haven't shown any benefit to being a Deist.

I doubt many people are ever going to embrace it.

I'm a Deist.

I have to ask, what benefits are their to being a Christian?

Scott said it best and covered the Deist belief very well.

I am not the typical Deist. I do believe in prayer, not as a way to request anything, because I don't believe that God listens to or answers prayers, but as a spiritual renewal, cleansing of the soul. That's the best way I can describe it. It's more like meditation then prayer. Besides, some of my Lutheran background stuck with me. ;)

There are more Deists then you know. As for embracing it, we're not a religion, we don't have a church or Sunday services, we don't ask for donations so we can build gold statues and have stained glass windows. We have a belief system, and that's it. We don't solicit people to accept our beliefs, there's no need. We don't need more sheep in our flock, because there isn't a flock. We don't have preachers, we don't preach.

I know that you'll counter this with "well you're preaching now". No, I'm not, not at all. The OP asked about Deism and I'm simply here to express why I am a Deist.

We believe what we believe, live our lives the best we can, being the best people we can be, and that's it.

I hope that explains it to your satisfaction. :)

How does a deist answer the question of suffering in life?

We all know there is, so when confronted with it, does a deist think that god does not care, is powerless to do anything or gets enjoyment out of our suffering? How is that an advantage to not believing in god?

If, as a child you were hungry and your parent[s] did not feed you, how is that an advantage to having no parents? If you had health insurance and became ill, and the insurance did not help pay for treatment of your illness, how is that insurance any better than not having insurance? In fact it is worse.

That is "why not" deism.


G&P

How does a deist answer the question of suffering in life?

We all know there is, so when confronted with it, does a deist think that god does not care, is powerless to do anything or gets enjoyment out of our suffering? How is that an advantage to not believing in god?

If, as a child you were hungry and your parent[s] did not feed you, how is that an advantage to having no parents? If you had health insurance and became ill, and the insurance did not help pay for treatment of your illness, how is that insurance any better than not having insurance? In fact it is worse.

That is "why not" deism.


G&P

Suffering is a part of life, there is no answer to that question.

Your God obviously doesn't put an end to your suffering, why is that? Maybe it's because he has nothing to do with the people on this earth that he created.

If a child is hungry and his parents don't feed him then someone else takes over or the child dies. God doesn't save the child, people do. If you become ill and your insurance doesn't pay for the treatment then you either have to pay or you die. God doesn't intercede, people do.

Deists believe in God, just not a God that meddles in the lives of the humans on this earth he created. There's so much proof that he doesn't, the rest, all these so called "miracles" are only heresay, written in the bible, a book written by men.

If God did care about all the people on earth then why so much suffering? That's the question I have.

How does a deist answer the question of suffering in life?

We all know there is, so when confronted with it, does a deist think that god does not care, is powerless to do anything or gets enjoyment out of our suffering? How is that an advantage to not believing in god?

If, as a child you were hungry and your parent[s] did not feed you, how is that an advantage to having no parents? If you had health insurance and became ill, and the insurance did not help pay for treatment of your illness, how is that insurance any better than not having insurance? In fact it is worse.

That is "why not" deism.

G&P

No, in fact, your post eloquently answers the question of WHY Deism. Because a Deist DOES believe in a god. But a Deist sees the suffering and tragedy in this world and wonders why the god that created this world allows such suffering to go on. The only logical answer to that (faith is not a logical answer) is that the creator does, either not care, is powerless to act, enjoys the suffering or chooses not to act. I don't pretend to know which of those is correct or maybe there is some other factor, I haven't considered. But the evidence is overwhelming to me that the Creator is, in fact, not acting. I do not believe the tragedies and suffering are deliberate. I believe they are a result of the groundwork laid in creating our world. For example, the physical universe was setup to allow for earthquakes, tidal waves, killer storms etc. So these things happen because the physical laws of the world allow them to happen.

Your analogies don't hold water, by the way. You were created by your parents. What they do after that creation is up to them. Society has created safety nets to provide for parents who abuse their children that way. If your insurance does not pay what they are supposed to pay, our society has laws that compel them to pay.

In neither case, however, does it equate to not believing in a god that meddles in the lives of its creations.

Suffering is a part of life, there is no answer to that question.

Your God obviously doesn't put an end to your suffering, why is that? Maybe it's because he has nothing to do with the people on this earth that he created.

Or perhaps it is because there's a reason that the suffering has to take place... in order for OTHER things to happen.

A good example, though I am loath to use it... many people say that the Holocaust HAD to happen to the Jews in order for us to be reunited with our Homeland of Israel. Had the Holocaust never occurred, the State of Israel would never have been created in modern times, and we would still be exiles with no home. The suffering HAD to occur for the good to come about.


If a child is hungry and his parents don't feed him then someone else takes over or the child dies. God does save the child, people do. If you become ill and your insurance doesn't pay for the treatment then you either have to pay or you die. God doesn't intercede, people do.

And what of the cases of people suddenly being cured of incurable diseases that their doctors gave them no chance of survival for? People who were dying of terminal cancer who woke up one day, went to their doctor's office and found that they tumor was inexplicably shrinking away. There are literally thousands of documented cases of "unexplained" recoveries from diseases that people should not have recovered from. Which "PEOPLE" interceded in those cases?


Deists believe in God, just not a God that meddles in the lives of the humans on this earth he created. There's so much proof that he doesn't, the rest, all these so called "miracles" are only heresay, written in the bible, a book written by men.

If God did care about all the people on earth then why so much suffering? That's the question I have.

And I have answered it as well as humanly possible. Sometimes the suffering is necessary for something else to occur... maybe not even in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes... but somewhere down the road, something is meant to occur that could only happen if certain events come to pass, even if those events cause suffering.

If one postulates an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being, couldn't it be that this being knows more than we do about the cause-and-effect relationships of our suffering?

Elliot

The only logical answer to that (faith is not a logical answer) is that the creator does, either not care, is powerless to act, enjoys the suffering or chooses not to act.

There's another possibility that you seem to miss: that He has a plan that REQUIRES that this particular bit of suffering take place for a greater good, and that if He intervenes to stop that suffering, he undermines that greater good. I don't pretend to understand what that greater good might be... but isn't that a possibility?

You seem to assume that inaction implies a being that either lacks caring or lacks ability to do anything about it. I say that it could imply a being with more information than we have about the nature of pain and suffering and it's effects, and a being with a longer-term plan than we can see.

Elliot

Or perhaps it is because there's a reason that the suffering has to take place... in order for OTHER things to happen.

A good example, though I am loath to use it... many people say that the Holocaust HAD to happen to the Jews in order for us to be reunited with our Homeland of Israel. Had the Holocaust never occured, the State of Israel would never have been created in modern times, and we would still be exiles with no home. The suffering HAD to occur for the good to come about.



And what of the cases of people suddenly being cured of incurable diseases that their doctors gave them no chance of survival for? People who were dying of terminal cancer who woke up one day, went to their doctor's office and found that they tumor was inexplicably shrinking away. There are literally thousands of documented cases of "unexplained" recoveries from diseases that people should not have recovered from. Which "PEOPLE" interceded in those cases?



And I have answered it as well as humanly possible. Sometimes the suffering is necessary for something else to occur... maybe not even in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes... but somewhere down the road, something is meant to occur that could only happen if certain events come to pass, even if those events cause suffering.

If one postulates an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being, couldn't it be that this being knows more than we do about the cause-and-effect relationships of our suffering?

Elliot

I always like to refer to Bertrand Russell's comments about the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god wherever someone makes the argument by design, and I think it is relevant here as well: 'If you were granted omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence and millions upon millions of years in which to perfect your world do you really think the best you could come up with would be the Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan?'

It's pretty funny when you think about it.

You seem to assume that inaction implies a being that either lacks caring or lacks ability to do anything about it. I say that it could imply a being with more information than we have about the nature of pain and suffering and it's effects, and a being with a longer-term plan than we can see.

But doesn't God love you? Aren't you all his children?

I don't know about you, but I would never let my children suffer and hope for a greater good. I protect them, with my life if need be. If I can prevent their suffering then I will. That's what love is.

This is the reason that I don't believe that God intervenes, nor do I believe in the God of the bible, one that both loves his children yet destroys them.

From a theists point of view, I believe that the suffering in this world or the hardships in this world when a person endures without breaking the moral values, when a person endures without harming others or oneself, it is in itself a blessing for that person which is counted as a good deed and as per my own beliefs multiplied many times.

As Elliot pointed out a Creator as marvelous will know every single breathe inhaled or exhaled, every deed every person did.
When death occurs, I believe in either one of these reasons, the person is rid of the worldly sufferings,or the world is rid of his misdeeds.

How many hard hearts have softened in tragedy, while others have changed their whole lifestyles, these are measurable changes. How many people have given in charity from seeing others suffer,how many helping hands have opened because of mass tragedy.
We can never know the reasons some suffer and others don't because we do not know the hearts and lives of every person intimately.We are onlookers,outsiders looking in and some tragedies touch us personally, how many times do we change priorities due to losses.Every event that occurs in this world has consequences.

The last link in my signature is one of those goods that came out of suffering,when we see things like that it makes sense, some need motivation in different ways, some need positive reinforcement others need hardships to see a different perspective.

Imagine, we call the world a global village,because we are connected right around the globe, imagine the Creator who created the universe and everything in it, how much more possibilities can we imagine of a Creator that created everything we have been able to grasp till now of this universe.
How much more that we do not know and how much the Creator knows and sees.

Purely looking at the Creator from a human perspective or comparing the Creator to humans is I think where it becomes hard, humans with our limited facilities, of hearing, seeing and knowing, it will never make sense that our lives in this world has ups and downs.That some have many times more than others,that some suffer while others live luxurious lives without a care.
That the consequences of a person/s actions or in-actions effects, which has echoes all around the world.

There's another possibility that you seem to miss: that He has a plan that REQUIRES that this particular bit of suffering take place for a greater good, and that if He intervenes to stop that suffering, he undermines that greater good. I don't pretend to understand what that greater good might be... but isn't that a possibility?


No, I didn't miss that possibility, I reject it. You see that argument is based on faith. You HAVE to believe that God has some grand plan or scheme of things otherwise the suffering makes no sense. My point is that the suffering just makes no sense. If we postulate that there is an omnipotent being that is supposed to care for the beings and world it created then the suffering makes no sense to ME!

But if there is no god that intevenes in suffering, how cruel is that?

In the OT, God does intervene in the suffering of His chosen people, in the NT, God obviously intervenes in the sacrifice of His son.

For the agnostic, suffering is just that, what purpose is there, just something you have to endure till you die.

If you are a deist, suffering has what purpose? Does the deist god bring justice after death? Does the deist god promise relief or life everlasting? Then why deism?

From the Christian, perspective our suffering is just a moment compared to eternity. The God we believe in suffered for us himself. The epistles are very clear that there is going to suffering, and in suffering there is the opportunity for compassion [ corinthians ] action [ james ], for love. There is a purpose for suffering, though we might not know all the time, in this life and it has eternal implications. Yes, it requires faith and trust, but if there is no god or a god that does not interfere or promise anything, what purpose is there in suffering for this life?


G&P

There's never a purpose to suffering, whether you believe in God or not. That's my opinion.

Does believing in a God that intervenes lessen your suffering? Do I suffer more because I'm a Deist, even if our situations are exact? No.

I don't want to live my life hoping for something better after I die. I'd rather find the better while I'm still alive and can enjoy it.

As for what's stated in the OT and the NT, that's the bible, a man written book. Why would I believe anything written in a book written by fallible men just because they claim it's the "word of God".

If God wanted to talk to us, he would, he wouldn't leave it up to a bunch of guys.

But if there is no god that intevenes in suffering, how cruel is that?

In the OT, God does intervene in the suffering of His chosen people, in the NT, God obviously intervenes in the sacrifice of His son.

For the agnostic, suffering is just that, what purpose is there, just something you have to endure till you die.

If you are a deist, suffering has what purpose? Does the deist god bring justice after death? Does the deist god promise relief or life everlasting? Then why deism?

From the Christian, perspective our suffering is just a moment compared to eternity. The God we believe in suffered for us himself. The epistles are very clear that there is going to suffering, and in suffering there is the opportunity for compassion [ corinthians ] action [ james ], for love. There is a purpose for suffering, though we might not know all the time, in this life and it has eternal implications. Yes, it requires faith and trust, but if there is no god or a god that does not interfere or promise anything, what purpose is there in suffering for this life?


G&P

If you are a deist, suffering has what purpose? Does the deist god bring justice after death? Does the deist god promise relief or life everlasting? Then why deism?


Every time I read comments like this I am amazed. What does what we want, or what seems fair and just to us, determine what is real? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You would never apply that kind of reasoning in studying science, or any subject other than religion. What if reality is just what it is, whether you like it or not? Too bad. Just get over it.

I like what Altenweg said about living for today, not some pie-in-the-sky idea of some wonderful afterlife. I also like what she said questioning why we should have to follow what some Middle Eastern sheepherders thought 2000 years ago: who cares? What do their opinions about anything have to do with us today? Just because some of these ignorant men said god spoke to them and told them this, that and some other thing, we are suppose to believe it ? Why? No. No thanks, I can think very well for myself.

If you are a deist, suffering has what purpose? Does the deist god bring justice after death? Does the deist god promise relief or life everlasting? Then why deism?

I've explained this several times. It might help if you pay attention. Once more; a Deist believe that an intelligence (call it a god, a deity or whatever you want "May the Force be with you!") created the universe. In doing so, certain natural laws were set up. The Deist believe in this intelligence because, logically, the complexity of the universe seems to indicate (to them) an intelligent design. That's why Deism rather than Atheism.

From there the Deist and the Atheist follow similar paths. We do not believe that whatever intelligence created the universe is continuing to monitor their creation or to meddle in its operation. This is because we cannot believe that a deity that is watching and meddling could allow the suffering that exists.


Yes, it requires faith and trust, but if there is no god or a god that does not interfere or promise anything, what purpose is there in suffering for this life?


And that's another place where you aren't paying attention. A Deist does not operate on faith. I don't believe suffering has any purpose. I believe it's a side effect of other portions of the creation. I don't believe the intelligence that created the universe was perfect. I believe mistakes were made and suffering is a byproduct of those mistakes. At least that is what I believe. I don't speak for anyone else.

I'm going to add one more point here. The thread was started with the question of why deism is a valid belief. I believe that question has been answered thoroughly and eloquently. Along the way other people opined as to why Deism was not viable. Those people failed because the crux of their arguments (as yours) is that a level of faith in the teachings of their religion is required. But a Deist rejects or doesn't believe in those teachings because it requires such faith.

I have not and will not put anyone down for having such faith. If that level of faith in the teaching of their religion provides them comfort, then I am happy for them. But MY beliefs are not in faith, but in logic. If I respect your belief in faith, then do me the courtesy of respecting my belief in logic.

I have not and will not put anyone down for having such faith. If that level of faith in the teaching of their religion provides them comfort, then I am happy for them. But MY beliefs are not in faith, but in logic. If I respect your belief in faith, then do me the courtesy of respecting my belief in logic.

Scott, this is where the problems arise.

As Christians it is their mission to convert everyone to Christianity, to their beliefs. They cannot accept our beliefs because their bible tells them to spread the word.

As Deists we don't need to "spread the word" because there is no "word" to spread. Our beliefs are based more on logic, science, the world as it is, the Christian belief is all about faith.

They cannot extend the same courtesy you've extended them. I've been in this boat many times on the religious forums, all it's gotten me is more preaching.

Well said Altenweg.

I always like to refer to Bertrand Russell's comments about the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god whereever someone makes the argument by design, and I think it is relevant here as well: 'If you were granted omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence and millions upon millions of years in which to perfect your world do you really think the best you could come up with would be the Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan?'

It's pretty funny when you think about it.

Yes, it's a very witty comment.

But it also is based on the assumption that RUSSELL knows all there is to know about the past, present and future, and how all events in the world tie together.

He assumes that the KKK and the Nazis and the suffering they caused are the end goal and not simply one necessary step toward a greater goal that we haven't even glimpsed yet.

So Russell is right... the Nazis are NOT the best that G-d could come up with.

Using a "laboratory" metaphore, the Nazis and the KKK are the rejected experiment that had to take place so that we could eliminate them from the possibilities of the future. They are the stuff in the garbage of G-d's lab, not the successful experiment that will bring the greater good. Or better yet, they are the gooey byproducts of the "chemical process" by which G-d is bringing about the greater good.

Please don't try to take the laboratory metaphore too far. G-d is NOT a scientist seeking knowledge. An omniscient G-d already HAS the knowledge. I am simply arguing that there is a PROCESS that must take place and that the experience of the Nazis and the KKK and every other natural and man-made disaster in history is part of that process. As is all the good that has happened throughout history.

You can't eliminate parts of that process without changing the outcome any more than you could eliminate the ingredients from a cake receipe and expect it to come out tasting right. (And again, don't try to take the metaphore too far.)

Elliot

No, I didn't miss that possibility, I reject it. You see that argument is based on faith. You HAVE to believe that God has some grand plan or scheme of things otherwise the suffering makes no sense. My point is that the suffering just makes no sense. If we postulate that there is an omnipotent being that is supposed to care for the beings and world it created then the suffering makes no sense to ME!

That's because you have postulated that G-d's purpose is to "take care for the beings and the world it created". Why do you make the assumption that G-d's purpose, assuming he exists, is to take care of us? Couldn't he have some other goal or purpose in mind than that?

I instead assume that G-d's purpose is to bring about his master plan for a "greater good", whatever that is. Taking care of us might SOMETIMES be a part of that plan, but not necessarily all the time. Sometimes allowing what we define as "evil" to occur is necessary for that "greater good" to come about.

Elliot

In response to one of Altenweg's comments, and just for the record:

I am not Christian. I am an Orthodox Jew. Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism actively avoids converting others to Judaism as much as possible.

So I am not here trying to convert anyone. This really is just an intellectual excersize for me, not an attempt to change anyone's religious beliefs. I'm just trying to bring a different perspective to some of the comments and question certain assumptions about the nature and purpose of G-d that I have read here. I have no ulterior religious motive.

Elliot

So Russell is right... the Nazis are NOT the best that G-d could come up with.

But aren't the Nazis and the KKK God's children too? Doesn't he love all his children? If so how could he let this happen? If he has the power to grant miracles then how could he allow people like this to be in the world he created?

The bible says that God loves all of us, he loves us so much that he gave his only son. That son died on the cross for our sins. If he can impregnate a virgin, part the seas and all of the other things spoken of in the bible, then surely he could stop wars, stop hate, stop the Nazis and the KKK.

The fact that he doesn't just provides more evidence towards either Deism or Atheism.

That's because you have postulated that G-d's purpose is to "take care for the beings and the world it created". Why do you make the assumption that G-d's purpose, assuming he exists, is to take care of us? Couldn't he have some other goal or purpose in mind than that?

I instead assume that G-d's purpose is to bring about his master plan for a "greater good", whatever that is. Taking care of us might SOMETIMES be a part of that plan, but not necessarily all the time. Sometimes allowing what we define as "evil" to occur is necessary for that "greater good" to come about.

Elliot

But that is YOUR belief, Elliot, not mine. You have faith that the god of Abraham, Isaac, etc. has some grand plan for us. And that suffering is part of that plan to provide for some nebulous greater good. I have lost that belief. I do not believe that we are being played with, made to suffer so some undefined greater good will result. Again, if that belief comforts you, then I'm happy for you.

But the question here was why and how some people choose Deism. And that question has been well answered. Even the question of why people do not choose Deism has been answered. Because they believe in and have faith in the teachings of their religion.

But you are trying to argue why a Deist is wrong for being a Deist, not just some intellectual exercise. If it were just that, then you would not argue whether one of us is wrong or right. And the only arguments you come up with are because you believe in some grand plan, some afterlife, etc. And those arguments are not applicable in this thread, because the Deist has rejected those arguments, has decided to not place blind faith in the teachings of any one religion. I would be very surprised if anyone became a Deist without considering those arguments.

So, I say again, please respect my right to put my faith in the physical world, not the one I can't confirm.

But you are trying to argue why a Deist is wrong for being a Deist, not just some intellectual exercise. If it were just that, then you would not argue whether one of us is wrong or right. And the only arguments you come up with are because you believe in some grand plan, some afterlife, etc. And those arguments are not applicable in this thread, because the Deist has rejected those arguments, has decided to not place blind faith in the teachings of any one religion. I would be very surprised if anyone became a Deist without considering those arguments.

So, I say again, please respect my right to put my faith in the physical world, not the one I can't confirm.


Excuse me, Scott, but where have you seen me say that you are wrong in your beliefe of Deism?

When you have stated the assumptions that you claim have led you to believe in Deism, I have simply questioned those assumptions and asked you to do the same. If you see that as telling you those assumptions are wrong, then I apologize, but that is NOT what I was doing. Nor am I telling you that your assumptions are wrong... I'm just giving another point of view that might let you check those assumptions. Or not.

If your assumptions are correct, they OUGHT to be able to withstand intellectual scrutiny. If they do, then great.

But the one thing that I won't tell you is what to believe. That's for you to decide.

From my point of view, you have given a set of reasons, based on assumptions, that you believe that a G-d exists, but that he doesn't take a day-to-day interest in the world. My problem is that the assumptions you have made seem arbitrary.

You ASSUME that if G-d has a day-to-day interest in the world, that interest MUST be to take care of people. Since he seems not to be doing that, he must therefore not be taking a day-to-day interest in the world.

The problem is that your assumption... that an "active" G-d's purpose is to help people... has no basis. It is arbitrary. I'm asking you to look at another possibility that is EQUALLY likely... or equally unlikely, if you prefer to look at it that way.

In fact, it is actually MORE likely than your assumption, since it fits the facts on the ground BETTER than your assumption or your conclusion does.

You see, there have been documented cases of "unexplained occurences" throughout history. These events have often been labeled "miracles". As I have mentioned in prior posts, there are scientifically documented cases of people's deadly tumors suddenly and inexlicably shrinking or unexplained survival and cure from other terminal diseases. That these events have occurred is not open for dispute... they are well documented.

But they don't happen all the time, and they don't happen to everyone.

On one hand you have "miraculous" events that seem to point to a divine being that is taking a personal hand in these events.

On the other hand, this same divine being seems incredibly deaf to other people who seem equally "worthy" of such "miraculous" interventions.

So... what explanation best covers these facts?

A complete lack of any divine entity? (Atheism)

A divine entity that NEVER takes a hand in the world? (Deism)

Or a divine entity that SOMETIMES takes a hand in the world, but only when it best suits His needs? (Theism with a Plan)

Or is it a divine entity that ALWAYS takes a hand in the world because his sole purpose is to help people? (what I call "Purely Benevolent" or "Moral" Theism)

Seems to me that Theism with a Plan (my own term for it) fits the facts on the ground best. It fits all the assumptions and all the facts and all the outcomes to date.

But it could STILL be wrong.

The point that I'm making is that we should constantly be checking our assumptions based on the facts as they really are. And your assumption that a hands-on G-d must be one that helps people doesn't seem to fit the facts.

And yet you may be right in your conclusion anyway.

Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that covers all the facts is usually (not always) the correct explanation. All I am asking you to do is determine whether Occam's Razor fits your explanation of G-d and all the facts available.

And even if it doesn't, know that you may still be right, and I may still be wrong. But also know that your assumptions aren't as clean-cut as you make them out to be.

This isn't about telling you what to believe... it's about examening it.

Elliot

you believe that a G-d exists, but that he doesn't take a day-to-day interest in the world. My problem is that the assumptions you have made seem arbitrary.

Not quite. I believe an intelligent force existed (note past tense) to create the universe as we know it. Call it a god, a deity, an enfant terrible or whatever. Whether that force still exists or not, I do not know. I just do not believe I have seen any conclusive evidence that it meddles in the lives of its creations.

And, again, the other possibilities that you present and ask me to consider are things I have considered and rejected because they don't have factual or logical support FOR ME!

Not quite. I believe an intelligent force existed (note past tense) to create the universe as we know it. Call it a god, a diety, an enfant terrible or whatever. Whether that force still exists or not, I do not know. I just do not believe I have seen any conclusive evidence that it meddles in the lives of its creations.

And, again, the other possibilities that you present and ask me to consider are things I have considered and rejected because they don't have factual or logical support FOR ME!

I just have to agree with Scott on this. I'm still not entirely sure there even is a god but if there is, it has to be one who does not intervene in human affairs. There's just no evidence of intervention.

Glad I stared such an interesting thread but I'm sorry I've been so left out of it!

Every time I see the title "Why not Diesm" I want to kick myself. Someone's going to start a thread, "Why can't Cadillac59 spell?? ":)

But I see the title as "Why not Deism?"

But I see the title as "Why not Deism?"

Me too. :)

Oh! Wait!

The title when you look at the forum listing, it says Why not Diesm ?"

The heading when you open this thread says "Why not Deism?"

Wonder why?

You see, there have been documented cases of "unexplained occurences" throughout history. These events have often been labeled "miracles". As I have mentioned in prior posts, there are scientifically documented cases of people's deadly tumors suddenly and inexlicably shrinking or unexplained survival and cure from other terminal diseases. That these events have occurred is not open for dispute... they are well documented.

And you have proof that God made them happen? Your faith leads you to the conclusion that God healed them. I don't have that faith.


You ASSUME that if G-d has a day-to-day interest in the world, that interest MUST be to take care of people. Since he seems not to be doing that, he must therefore not be taking a day-to-day interest in the world.

I don't know much about the Jewish faith, so please forgive me if I'm wrong, but you do follow the bible, nes pas? If so, then isn't the God of the bible the all loving "father" of the all the people on earth? Do you have children? If one of your children had cancer and you had the power to take it away, wouldn't you? Your God, according to you, seems to pick those he'll heal. He also seems to let very bad things happen to a lot of his children. Where was he when my cousin was molesting me? Where was he when I was being raped? I believed in the God of the bible then, but he did nothing to stop my suffering. What "greater good" can come out of the things I and so many other people have been put through?


This isn't about telling you what to believe... it's about examening it.

We have. If Scott is anything like me (sorry Scott if I'm wrong) he thought long and hard, researched, questioned and soul searched for a long time before choosing Deism. I went to Catholic school for 10 years, I was raised a Lutheran, I wasn't a devout Lutheran or Catholic, but I did have bible study and plenty of time to research and question.

The way I was treated in the Catholic school, because I wasn't Catholic, lead me to start questioning things, to start wondering if there is in fact a God that cares for the people on this earth.

I was very close to choosing Atheism, but it made no sense to me. I believe that some greater force, Deity, God, had to have a hand in creating this world, but all evidence points to this God wiping his hands of the world right after he created it.

Was Jesus real? I'm sure there was a man named Jesus, I'm sure he did claim to be the son of God. Was he? I don't know. Why would a God put a human on this earth? To die for our sins but to keep testing us? What kind of God is this? So we suffer for 60+ years, if we're lucky, and then, if we accept the suffering, kneel before this unseen force, pray, etc. etc. etc. then we finally get the big reward? Where's the logic in that?

I respect your right to believe, I respect your faith, but, if you allowed yourself to see our side of things you may just understand why Deism is an acceptable belief.

You may notice from my other postings in the religious forums that I have many times said, to someone that believes, God bless. That is their belief, I have no problem with that belief and speaking to them in a way that I know will bring them comfort. If a "God bless" will help them, well, that's the least I can do.

I, on the other hand, have been told by more then one member on this site, that I'm going to hell, that I'll burn, that my "God" will be judged by their God, etc. etc. etc.

Interesting isn't it? I can accept others but, because I won't conform I'm going to hell and worse and will not be accepted by people with faith.

I wonder how God feels about that. I'm not being snide, but really, if your God exists then how do you think he feels about all his loyal followers treating his "lost children" like dirt on the bottom of their shoes?

Oh! Wait!

The title when you look at the forum listing, it says Why not Diesm ?"

The heading when you open this thread says "Why not Deism?"

Wonder why??

I do know that Caddy man (I made a nickname) misspelled it originally and then changed it. Maybe it didn't change on the forum, only on the thread.

Curious.

Oh! Wait!

The title when you look at the forum listing, it says Why not Diesm ?"

The heading when you open this thread says "Why not Deism?"

Wonder why??

That's the thing. I goofed up on the spelling and I was able to correct the thread title but not the forum listing. So now I feel like a dummy.:)

Everytime I see the title "Why not Diesm" I want to kick myself. Someone's going to start a thread, "Why can't Cadillac59 spell???":)
Oh, noooooooooooooo! I thought Cadillac misspelled it deliberately to get our attention!

Oh, noooooooooooooo! I thought Cadillac misspelled it deliberately to get our attention!

I should have for that reason if none other. No one pays much attention to me on this board anyway. I start a nice thread and everyone chats with each other and I get left out in the cold.;)

I should have for that reason if none other. No one pays much attention to me on this board anyway. I start a nice thread and everyone chats with each other and I get left out in the cold.;)

LOL! If you want to chat then you have to come to our chat threads. Chatting here will get your butt smacked. Trust me, I know. Mine is still sore from the last time it was smacked. ;)

We have to stay on topic here, there is the God of AMHD watching. ;)

There's never a purpose to suffering, whether you believe in God or not. That's my opinion.

.

My wife states that the pain of labor and delivery is offset by 1] it will end 2] the joy of life that is born. There is a PURPOSE

As humans we all go through relationship problems and suffering, the PURPOSE, is to learn from errors [ hopefully ], or to move on, or to empathize with those going through tough time.

When someone has an open heart bypass their chest is split causing pain, but the PURPOSE was to help save a life or improve a life.


G&P

I've explained this several times. It might help if you pay attention. Once more; a Deist believe that an intelligence (call it a god, a diety or whatever you want "May the Force be with you!") created the universe. In doing so, certain natural laws were set up. The Deist believe in this intelligence because, logically, the complexity of the universe seems to indicate (to them) an intelligent design. That's why Deism rather than Atheism.

From there the Deist and the Atheist follow similar paths. We do not believe that whatever intelligence created the universe is continuing to monitor their creation or to meddle in its operation. This is because we cannot believe that a diety that is watching and meddling could allow the suffering that exists.



And that's another place where you aren't paying attention. A Deist does not operate on faith. I don't believe suffering has any purpose. I believe its a side effect of other portions of the creation. I don't believe the intelligence that created the universe was perfect. I believe mistakes were made and suffering is a byproduct of those mistakes. At least that is what I believe. I don't speak for anyone else.

I'm going to add one more point here. The thread was started with the question of why deism is a valid belief. I believe that question has been answered thoroughly and eloquently. Along the way other people opined as to why Deism was not viable. Those people failed because the crux of their arguments (as yours) is that a level of faith in the teachings of their religion is required. But a Deist rejects or doesn't believe in those teachings because it requires such faith.

I have not and will not put anyone down for having such faith. If that level of faith in the teaching of their religion provides them comfort, then I am happy for them. But MY beliefs are not in faith, but in logic. If I respect your belief in faith, then do me the courtesy of respecting my belief in logic.



A very nihilistic view of suffering. Besides the question of suffering is PHILOSOPHICAL and not necessarily scientific or physiologic. But if you insist, pain is the body's way of telling you that it is being harmed or to stop a harmful activity - a physiological PURPOSE.

Accepting science and reason is not dependent on one's religion or lack thereof, so why deism? If science and evidence are neutral?


G&P

My wife states that the pain of labor and delivery is offset by 1] it will end 2] the joy of life that is born. There is a PURPOSE

As humans we all go through relationship problems and suffering, the PURPOSE, is to learn from errors [ hopefully ], or to move on, or to empathize with those going through tough time.

When someone has an open heart bypass their chest is split causing pain,, but the PURPOSE was to help save a life or improve a life.


G&P

What does labor have to do with God?

Yes, labor pains are offset by the fact that you know the pain will end and then you'll have a beautiful child. My question is, why the pain to begin with if there is a God that cares?

Yes, we all learn from our mistakes, we all move on, most people have empathy towards others going through tough times. That, if anything, proves Deism much more then Theism.

So your God wants us to suffer? He wants our lives to be full of pain and suffering to prove our love for him? And if we take all the suffering he dishes out then we'll have eternal life?

If that's true then there is no hell, we're already living in it with the hopes of going to heaven.

Sorry, but if the God of the bible does exist then he's supposed to care, he's supposed to love all of his children. Why would any parent put their child through hell?

None of you have answered that question yet. Is it because there's no answer?

Labor pain is an analogy:
God lets us go through suffering, but the joy is in eternal life with God. An analogy for deism is going through labor pain, but not actually giving life.

You have posted that there is no purpose in suffering and I have posted reasons and purposes and good that may come of it, now you turn it all around.

As to suffering, there are a whole lot of people seeking relief or escape from it in substance abuse or hedonism, is that what you think the solution to suffrering is?

Yes, life can be "hell," for a deist is that all there is? For an agnostic is that all there is? No purpose, no hope? Again why deism?


G&P

Labor pain is an analogy:
God lets us go through suffering, but the joy is in eternal life with God. An analogy for deism is going through labor pain, but not actually giving life.

You have posted that there is no purpose in suffering and I have posted reasons and purposes and good that may come of it, now you turn it all around.

As to suffering, there are a whole lot of people seeking relief or escape from it in substance abuse or hedonism, is that what you think the solution to suffrering is?

Yes, life can be "hell," for a deist is that all there is? For an agnostic is that all there is? No purpose, no hope? again why deism?


G&P

First, your analogies do not hold up to scrutiny. The suffering an tragedy that Alty, Caddy and myself have referred to are on a much grander scale. Yes the pain felt by a single person in labor or injury does have a purpose. But that purpose is the result of physical laws that were setup as part of the design of the universe. They do not equate to suffering we refer to in having thousands of lives lost in a tsunami, or even the pain parents might experience in the loss of a child. There is no specific cause and effect there.

So we learn from our mistakes, but what mistake did we make that resulted in an earthquake taking hundreds of lives? Or maybe our security forces made mistakes that allowed some nut jobs to plow a plane into a building. Was it worth losing thousands of lives to tighten our security?

And how much pain does someone go through in open heart surgery? Haven't you heard of anesthesia?

And you have proof that God made them happen? Your faith leads you to the conclusion that God healed them. I don't have that faith.

No. I don't have "proof" that G-d made them happen. But I have no other explanation. And logic suggests that if every other possibility has been exhausted, then what's left, no matter how implausible, must be the answer. Science has ruled out all other possibilities for these events. Ergo, the only thing left is divine intervention.


I don't know much about the Jewish faith, so please forgive me if I'm wrong, but you do follow the bible, nes pas?

Yes.


If so, then isn't the God of the bible the all loving "father" of the all the people on earth?

That is the incorrect assumption you are making.

What makes you think that G-d loves everyone. It may say that in the New Testament, but Judaism doesn't accept the New Testament. The Old Testament has no source that says that G-d loves everyone equally. In fact, there are several sources within the bible that say the exact opposite.


Do you have children?

Yes, two, a boy and a girl, 8 & 7.


of your children had cancer and you had the power to take it away, wouldn't you?

Yes I would.


d, according to you, seems to pick those he'll heal.

Yes he does.

Using a variation of your own example, would I heal my worst enemy? Especially if doing so is damaging to my own goals to better the world around me?

Hell no.

Would you?

Now... would I heal a complete stranger, or someone with whom I had only a passing relationship? Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Are you any different?

Should G-d be any different?


He also seems to let very bad things happen to a lot of his children.

Yes he does...


Where was he when my cousin was molesting me? Where was he when I was being raped?

Probably the same place he was when I was being molested at the age of 10 by a camp counselor or having the crap kicked out of me by "teachers" who thought beating up a student was a good motivator for learning.


I believed in the God of the bible then, but he did nothing to stop my suffering. What "greater good" can come out of the things I and so many other people have been put through?

Perhaps the "greater good" is a greater realization today of the harm that these people cause and a greater effort to stop them. That is certainly the trend we are seeing in modern society. Or perhaps the greater good is something we haven't seen and simply don't know yet.


We have. If Scott is anything like me (sorry Scott if I'm wrong) he thought long and hard, researched, questioned and soul searched for a long time before choosing Deism. I went to Catholic school for 10 years, I was raised a Lutheran, I wasn't a devout Lutheran or Catholic, but I did have bible study and plenty of time to research and question.

I believe that both of you have examined your beliefs before you came to them. I am not questioning that. All I am saying, and what I try to practice for myself, is that such examination can't be a one-time thing. It has to be CONSTANT and ongoing through the lens of new experience and new information received. I hope that you do that, and Scott as well.


The way I was treated in the Catholic school, because I wasn't Catholic, lead me to start questioning things, to start wondering if there is in fact a God that cares for the people on this earth.

I was very close to choosing Atheism, but it made no sense to me. I believe that some greater force, Deity, God, had to have a hand in creating this world, but all evidence points to this God wiping his hands of the world right after he created it.

If all the evidence points to G-d wiping his hands of the world right after creating it, then how do you explain documented cases of "unexplained" phenomenon like the spontaneous shrinking of terminal tumors like the examples I gave earlier in this thread? How do you explain that within the Deist philosophy?


Was Jesus real? I'm sure there was a man named Jesus, I'm sure he did claim to be the son of God. Was he? I don't know. Why would a God put a human on this earth? To die for our sins but to keep testing us? What kind of God is this? So we suffer for 60+ years, if we're lucky, and then, if we accept the suffering, kneel before this unseen force, pray, etc. etc. etc. then we finally get the big reward? Where's the logic in that?

If you would like to understand my own way of thinking regarding Jesus, please see this link. It's off topic, but you might find it interesting.
[/URL]
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/judaism/who-jesus-christ-339003-2.html#post1701021 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/judaism/who-jesus-christ-339003-2.html#post1701021)


I respect your right to believe, I respect your faith, but, if you allowed yourself to see our side of things you may just understand why Deism is an acceptable belief.

In my post to Scott, I went out of my way to state that such is an acceptable beliefe at least 3 times. I have no qualms with that.


You may notice from my other postings in the religious forums that I have many times said, to someone that believes, God bless. That is their belief, I have no problem with that belief and speaking to them in a way that I know will bring them comfort. If a "God bless" will help them, well, that's the least I can do.

I, on the other hand, have been told by more then one member on this site, that I'm going to hell, that I'll burn, that my "God" will be judged by their God, etc. etc. etc.

Not a Jewish belief. Judaism simply doesn't believe that you go to hell if you aren't Jewish. Please see this link for more information: [URL]https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/judaism/5-questions-about-396895.html#post1981488 Specifically, check out the section regarding "conversions" in the answer to the 4th question. You will NEVER hear me tell anyone they are going to hell because they don't believe in G-d the same way that I do. If I said something like that, it is much more likely that I would be the one going to hell than you. I find such behavior abhorrent, both personally and religiously.


Interesting isn't it? I can accept others but, because I won't conform I'm going to hell and worse and will not be accepted by people with faith.

Like I say, I find it disgusting. And it is NOT my beliefe system. It is, in fact, one of the major differences between Judaism vs Christianity and Islam. And one that I happen to be rather proud of... Judaism accepts EVERYONE to the same heaven that we go to, regardless of religion.


I wonder how God feels about that. I'm not being snide, but really, if your God exists then how do you think he feels about all his loyal followers treating his "lost children" like dirt on the bottom of their shoes?

I can't speak for G-d, but I think I have made it fairly clear how the Jewish People in general and myself in particular feel about that sort of thing.

Moreover, Jews have been on the receiving end of too many pogroms, inquisitions, blood libels, holocausts, expulsions, forced conversions, and intifadas to accept that sort of behavior.

I fully accept your beliefs for yourself. I am just trying to examine the assumptions that underlay those beliefs. And I still have a lot of questions about them. I still don't think they fit all the facts on the ground.

But if you are satisfied with them, then I'm happy for you. I just know that in the same position, I wouldn't be quite so satisfied... which of course is the reason that you and I have different beliefs.

Elliot

Using a variation of your own example, would I heal my worst enemy? Especially if doing so is damaging to my own goals to better the world around me?

Hell no.

Would you?

Now... would I heal a complete stranger, or someone with whom I had only a passing relationship? Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Are you any different?

Should G-d be any different?

The Christian God should be different. The Christians believe that God loves everyone, all his children. If we're all equally his children then yes, he should be different. He's not a human being, he's a God. He's not supposed to be limited to our narrow view of the people on this earth, he's supposed to love us all equally. I don't see that happening.

No, I probably wouldn't heal my worst enemy, but I'm not God, I'm human, fallible.


I believe that both of you have examined your beliefs before you came to them. I am not questioning that. All I am saying, and what I try to practice for myself, is that such examination can't be a one-time thing. It has to be CONSTANT and ongoing through the lens of new experience and new information received. I hope that you do that, and Scott as well.

I can only speak for myself but yes, I do still question. If evidence came about that there is a God that loves us, intervenes on our behalfs, then I'd be a fool not to believe. I'm not a fool.

So far all my research, all my questions, lead to Deism. So for the time being that's where my beliefs will remain.


If all the evidence points to G-d wiping his hands of the world right after creating it, then how do you explain documented cases of "unexplained" phenomenon like the spontaneous shrinking of terminal tumors like the examples I gave earlier in this thread? How do you explain that within the Deist philosophy?

Science. That's how I explain it. These phenomenon may not be explained yet, but there is an explanation, we just haven't found it yet.


You will NEVER hear me tell anyone they are going to hell because they don't believe in G-d the same way that I do

True. I should have been more clear, I apologize. I've never been told that by a person of the Jewish faith, only Christians, not all but enough that it's hurtful.


Judaism accepts EVERYONE to the same heaven that we go to, regardless of religion.

I'm going to read the links you provided. I do admit that I don't know anything about the Jewish religion.


I fully accept your beliefs for yourself. I am just trying to examine the assumptions that underlay those beliefs. And I still have a lot of questions about them. I still don't think they fit all the facts on the ground.

Thank you. I'll try to answer any questions you have. Sadly, when talking about ones beliefs it's often hard to make those beliefs clear and understandable to others, at least for me. Trust me when I say that I didn't make the choice of Deism lightly. I thought long and hard about it and Deism simply makes the most sense to me.

I'm always willing to learn more about others beliefs, but so far I've never seen any evidence pointing to faith in a God that does care about us.

I have to say that this discussion is going very well. Most of us are listening to each other and that doesn't usually happen on the religious threads.

The Christian God should be different. The Christians believe that God loves everyone, all his children.

I'm not Christian. Jews don't believe in turning the other cheek either. I think we tend to be more pragmatic than the Christians.


If we're all equally his children then yes, he should be different. He's not a human being, he's a God. He's not supposed to be limited to our narrow view of the people on this earth, he's supposed to love us all equally. I don't see that happening.

Why is he "supposed" to love us all equally? Who says so? Again, this is one of the assumptions that you have made that are the basis for your belief system that I'm questioning.


No, I probably wouldn't heal my worst enemy, but I'm not God, I'm human, fallible.

You assume that not healing your worst enemy is a "mistake" and a "fallibility". Again, why is that your assumption?


I can only speak for myself but yes, I do still question. If evidence came about that there is a God that loves us, intervenes on our behalfs, then I'd be a fool not to believe. I'm not a fool.

No you're not. In fact, I find you to be anything but.


So far all my research, all my questions, lead to Deism. So for the time being that's where my beliefs will remain.

Fair enough.


Science. That's how I explain it. These phenomenon may not be explained yet, but there is an explanation, we just haven't found it yet.

The problem is that "science" can't explain it. So you are basically saying that you have faith that science will someday figure it out. That's fine. I have no problem with that beliefe.

But I have already found the explanation. At least for myself.


True. I should have been more clear, I apologize. I've never been told that by a person of the Jewish faith, only Christians, not all but enough that it's hurtful.

An understandable reaction. I wonder, though, if some of your reluctance to accept a hands-on G-d might not be related to the pain and anger that such comments from people claiming to believe in such a G-d might cause. Just a thought. In any case, I feel very sad for what that pain has cost you.


I'm going to read the links you provided. I do admit that I don't know anything about the Jewish religion.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. I enjoy talking about my religious, philosophical and cultural beliefs.


Thank you. I'll try to answer any questions you have. Sadly, when talking about ones beliefs it's often hard to make those beliefs clear and understandable to others, at least for me. Trust me when I say that I didn't make the choice of Deism lightly. I thought long and hard about it and Deism simply makes the most sense to me.

I'm always willing to learn more about others beliefs, but so far I've never seen any evidence pointing to faith in a God that does care about us.

I have to say that this discussion is going very well. Most of us are listening to each other and that doesn't usually happen on the religious threads.

My experience is similar to yours. I much prefer this way.

Elliot

And how much pain does someone go through in open heart surgery? haven't you heard of anesthesia?

Anesthesia does not take care of the post operative pain. Sternotomy wires are not the most comfortable.



G&P

Anesthesia does not take care of the post operative pain. Sternotomy wires are not the most comfortable.



G&P

And what does this have to do with God?