[Alty]

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.

[firmbeliever]

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.

[ScottGem]

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!

[inthebox]

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

[Alty]

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.

[cadillac59]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[Alty]

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.

[NeedKarma]

Well said Altenweg.

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[Alty]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[ScottGem]

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!

[cadillac59]

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?? ":)

[firmbeliever]

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

[Alty]

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

Me too. :)

[firmbeliever]

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?