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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clough

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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"?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

It offers no hope that good will finally overcome evil.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthmama

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.