Doesn't deism seem more logical?

[samiam1611]

I am an atheist but acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong (agnostic atheist), and it would be lovely to have some things explained. Namely, creation - how the universe came to be - what was there “before” the Big Bang. Of all the conceptions of God that I have heard of, deism is more acceptable to me than theism. Here is a definition of deism for you:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation

(~World Union of Deists)

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism.

Thoughts?

 

[Katholish]

I find the inclusion of the term “nonperfect” in your definition interesting. I am guessing it is someting you have given some thought to, and was wondering if you could elaborate just a little on why you might refer to a creative force as nonperfect.

I would have thought that classical deism had no problem with the attribute of perfection, and nonperfect didn’t seem to appear in the definition of the first definition you quoted.

 

[Simpleton]

I am an atheist but acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong (agnostic atheist), and it would be lovely to have some things explained. Namely, creation - how the universe came to be - what was there “before” the Big Bang. Of all the conceptions of God that I have heard of, deism is more acceptable to me than theism. Here is a definition of deism for you:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation

(~World Union of Deists)

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism.

Thoughts?

I personally never agreed with this view since IMHO it denies the reason for our intellect and will. Why would an impersonal God create beings that are drawn to know IT only to not allow them to know IT? Why even bother believing in a God you could never know? Also if creation was dependent on a God for its existence then how could it just discontinue its dependency and be self-sustaining? How could God just disappear without affecting the very existence on the things that depend on IT?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, I personally don’t find it more logical, exactly. More in tune with what humanity might THINK is logical, perhaps.

In fact, one of the reasons I think Catholicism is TRUE is that --surprise, surprise!–it CAN’T be ‘completely explained’ by human ‘intellect’. It has these ‘paradoxes’ and this feeling that there is something that is ‘outside’ the knowledge of men. . .for now.

Because, logically speaking, if there is an entity which created the universe (something that we cannot do ourselves or even understand how it was done), I would not EXPECT to be able to fully understand that entity’s communications, ‘plan’, teachings, etc.

Now we humans can build robots. We can build those robots (Like Watson, for example, from the Jeopardy! challenge) who can ‘understand’ a LOT of data and who can, to an extent, "think’. But even WATSON, on some really EASY questions, got things ‘wrong’. And we are never going to be able to create a robot which is going to ‘know it all’ (because humans don’t know it all) or be able to ‘outthink’ a human being. A creation will not ‘pass’ its Creator in knowledge. And humans, as I said before, are by no means a ‘perfect’ species or even that remarkably capable, as species go, even judging by the non-human ones we’ve seen on our planet alone. If there are other ‘intelligent beings’ somewhere they might, though still inferior to their creator, be able to ‘wipe the floor’ with the human intellect, so to speak. . .

The more ‘human’, and ‘logical’, and ‘likely’ a religious concept is, the more we can be sure this is a ‘man-made’ religious concept and not truly a ‘Divine’ one.

 

[ASimon]

As an atheist, I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with deism. I still reject it for the same reason I reject theism - there’s a lack of compelling evidence to support its claims.

The questions I find myself wanting to ask deists is “What’s the point? What’s the point of believing in an “impersonal, non-anthromorphic, non-perfect but non-evil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it?””

I understand the point for being a theist. If theism is true, then believing in it can have a significant impact on your existence. But from where I sit, there are no stakes involved in a deist. If deism were revealed to be true, it wouldn’t change a single thing about the way any atheist lives his/her life.

 

[Heuchler]

Deism seems too simple. It explains the fact that the universe was created but then it justs stops. We then have no purpose or reason. Deism seems to say that this being created the Universe for no reason and then left it and forgot about it. It seems like we’re a scribble in the sand that was just left. Yet, we all feel that there is a purpose to our lives and there is something of importance to it all. But, I guess it reconciles the fact that there is a God with a want for an impersonal being who doesn’t care or expect anything of us and if you like that type of thing there really won’t be anything we can do about it. So, good luck in your search and I hope you find the truth.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Seems illogical to me.

Why create but never participate? I don’t see the logic in that. Create a universe so vast, huge, and complex, with thousands of natural laws and rational beings…and then leave? Why waste the “energy?” No, there would have to be a purpose to that creation to be logical. Keep seeking!

 

[tonyrey]

Deism may seem more logical but it may well be due to wishful thinking. A remote god which does not (or cannot) take any interest in human beings liberates us from our duties or obligations!

 

[Benadam]

Deism seems too simple. It explains the fact that the universe was created but then it justs stops. We then have no purpose or reason. Deism seems to say that this being created the Universe for no reason and then left it and forgot about it. It seems like we’re a scribble in the sand that was just left. Yet, we all feel that there is a purpose to our lives and there is something of importance to it all. But, I guess it reconciles the fact that there is a God with a want for an impersonal being who doesn’t care or expect anything of us and if you like that type of thing there really won’t be anything we can do about it. So, good luck in your search and I hope you find the truth.

I agree. Creation is happening now just as it began. The act of creation is creating this moment, sustaining everything that exists. I don’t think the deist model can’t accomodate that concept of the creative act.

 

[ASimon]

Seems illogical to me.

Why create but never participate? I don’t see the logic in that. Create a universe so vast, huge, and complex, with thousands of natural laws and rational beings…and then leave? Why waste the “energy?” No, there would have to be a purpose to that creation to be logical. Keep seeking!

But theism falls into the same trap. Tragedies happen everyday that defy logic in a world where there’s supposed to be a God out there who’s all-powerful and cares about us. But when we ask “Why, God, why?,” we’re told things like “God’s will is mysterious, and his ways inscrutable.” We’re told our simply mortal logic isn’t fit to make sense of God’s wisdom.

Why does it make less sense that God created the Universe and walked away? Who are you to insist that this God just wouldn’t do a silly thing like that?

 

[samiam1611]

I find the inclusion of the term “nonperfect” in your definition interesting. I am guessing it is someting you have given some thought to, and was wondering if you could elaborate just a little on why you might refer to a creative force as nonperfect.

I would have thought that classical deism had no problem with the attribute of perfection, and nonperfect didn’t seem to appear in the definition of the first definition you quoted.

That may be true about classical deism, all I know of it is the Wikipedia article and I didn’t even read all of it. I just sort of used that idea and gave it my own twist.

I think if there’s a god it is not anthromorphic. When Catholics et. al call God perfect, I see that as anthromorphisizing. Trying to give Him human attributes (well no one is perfect, but you know what I mean.) Also, since the the world is not perfect, I would say that description is inaccurate anyway. Same thing with evil - that’s too human-like of a description to describe something that is not human.

I personally never agreed with this view since IMHO it denies the reason for our intellect and will. Why would an impersonal God create beings that are drawn to know IT only to not allow them to know IT?

I don’t think It did create beings. I think if there is a God, It created matter.

Why even bother believing in a God you could never know?

I can’t think of any reason. Maybe someone who is actually a deist could tell us. Mainly I just see it as an easy explanation for creation. It’s the only “gap” I find that warrants consideration of something to fill it.

Also if creation was dependent on a God for its existence then how could it just discontinue its dependency and be self-sustaining?

Maybe God just made it but did not make it dependent on Itself.

How could God just disappear without affecting the very existence on the things that depend on IT?

Good question. I was thinking maybe pandeism is better than deism for that reason.

Actually, I personally don’t find it more logical, exactly. More in tune with what humanity might THINK is logical, perhaps.

In fact, one of the reasons I think Catholicism is TRUE is that --surprise, surprise!–it CAN’T be ‘completely explained’ by human ‘intellect’. It has these ‘paradoxes’ and this feeling that there is something that is ‘outside’ the knowledge of men. . .for now.

Because, logically speaking, if there is an entity which created the universe (something that we cannot do ourselves or even understand how it was done), I would not EXPECT to be able to fully understand that entity’s communications, ‘plan’, teachings, etc.

I think Catholicism explains too much to be true. It’s not mysterious enough IMO. Too dependent on revelation.
What about this: Mother Nature, minus the mother. Just nature. The so-called higher power might just be Nature

As an atheist, I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with deism. I still reject it for the same reason I reject theism - there’s a lack of compelling evidence to support its claims.

The questions I find myself wanting to ask deists is “What’s the point? What’s the point of believing in an “impersonal, non-anthromorphic, non-perfect but non-evil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it?””

I understand the point for being a theist. If theism is true, then believing in it can have a significant impact on your existence. But from where I sit, there are no stakes involved in a deist. If deism were revealed to be true, it wouldn’t change a single thing about the way any atheist lives his/her life.

yep I agree. (I am not actually a deist.)

 

[sw85]

I am an atheist but acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong (agnostic atheist), and it would be lovely to have some things explained. Namely, creation - how the universe came to be - what was there “before” the Big Bang. Of all the conceptions of God that I have heard of, deism is more acceptable to me than theism. Here is a definition of deism for you:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation

(~World Union of Deists)

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism.

Thoughts?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Five Ways. It is not a question of what “seems” logical; an impersonal and imperfect God is an ontological impossibility.

 

[jdwood983]

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism.

Thoughts?

My first thoughts:
(a) Why would an un-involved creator necessarily be non-evil? What is evil?

(b) Why would a creator who created a perfect system (consider the fact that if Newton’s gravitational constant G were changed by one part in 10^50 of its value, the universe would have collapsed or exploded shortly after birth) be non-perfect?

(c) How would a being of such great power just disappear? Where would it go?

(d) Would such a creator leave impressions of his creating for potential life-forms to detect and interpret? Why or why not?

I think your choice of re-defining deism opens far more questions that it supposedly answer.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I don’t see Our Father as a deadbeat dad.

 

[OneTwo]

Actually, I personally don’t find it more logical, exactly. More in tune with what humanity might THINK is logical, perhaps… . .

The more ‘human’, and ‘logical’, and ‘likely’ a religious concept is, the more we can be sure this is a ‘man-made’ religious concept and not truly a ‘Divine’ one.

A. Whenever we judge those with other beliefs (by generalizing with ‘what humanity might THINK is logical’ as if you are not a part of humanity yourself), we can’t discard the fact that there are others who see your opinions as only what you feel is logical as well. Friendly reminder. Also, the numbers pretty obviously show that the majority of people in the world still have

B. How can you tell the difference between a man-made religious concept and a divine one? If one were truly divine, why could you, a lowly human, be able to discern their differences and identify one’s divinity? This makes no sense. Are you divine, or have you misinterpreted the concept?

Spouting about logic while not using it is a plan sure to backfire.

C. Also, you stated that you believe Catholicism is true because it cannot be completely explained, this defies logic as well. This is the definition of a non-logical thing to do, believing something despite acknowledging that it cannot be explained.

Please research what logic is.

 

[Heuchler]

A. Whenever we judge those with other beliefs (by generalizing with ‘what humanity might THINK is logical’ as if you are not a part of humanity yourself), we can’t discard the fact that there are others who see your opinions as only what you feel is logical as well. Friendly reminder. Also, the numbers pretty obviously show that the majority of people in the world still have

B. How can you tell the difference between a man-made religious concept and a divine one? If one were truly divine, why could you, a lowly human, be able to discern their differences and identify one’s divinity? This makes no sense. Are you divine, or have you misinterpreted the concept?

Spouting about logic while not using it is a plan sure to backfire.

C. Also, you stated that you believe Catholicism is true because it cannot be completely explained, this defies logic as well. This is the definition of a non-logical thing to do, believing something despite acknowledging that it cannot be explained.

Please research what logic is.

First and foremost welcome to the forums

Now, I think Tantum meant that the way we can completely understand this by pure logic is something that doesn’t represent our complex world with many posibilities. I think he means that the God who created the Universe would have purposes and a will that wouldn’t come naturally into our heads and that we should expect a complex plan instead of a simple one from an infinitely more intelligent being. In other words who would expect Christianity and its insanity of a 100% human 100% divine God, who would expect a God who is one but is also three. Who would expect that God would be our Father in Heaven, our Brother incarnate, and our Spirit who inspires us. This religion is very complex instead of the simple religion that would be needed to explain the universe. So, I think it was more a conflict of definitions in this case

 

[greylorn]

I am an atheist but acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong (agnostic atheist), and it would be lovely to have some things explained. Namely, creation - how the universe came to be - what was there “before” the Big Bang. Of all the conceptions of God that I have heard of, deism is more acceptable to me than theism. Here is a definition of deism for you:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation

(~World Union of Deists)

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism.

Thoughts?

The flaw in deism is that it ascribes creation to an intelligent entity, but neglects that entity’s motivations for creation. That’s like writing a novel without a plot and declaring that to be a really good idea. Figure on self-publishing.

Is that ugly mutt in your “signature” wearing a dress?

 

[ASimon]

The flaw in deism is that it ascribes creation to an intelligent entity, but neglects that entity’s motivations for creation.

This is hardly a flaw. Not when theism posits a Supreme Being of unimaginable power and goodness that so often causes tragedies to happen (or fails to prevent them), but we’re still supposed to take this as evidence of this Supreme Being’s unimaginable power and goodness. It’s merely our silly mortal logic that is so flawed so as to prevent us from understanding this Being’s motivation.

 

[tonyrey]

This is hardly a flaw. Not when theism posits a Supreme Being of unimaginable power and goodness that so often causes tragedies to happen (or fails to prevent them), but we’re still supposed to take this as evidence of this Supreme Being’s unimaginable power and goodness. It’s merely our silly mortal logic that is so flawed so as to prevent us from understanding this Being’s motivation.

The onus is on you to explain how an orderly physical universe can be devoid of tragedies…

 

[samiam1611]

The flaw in deism is that it ascribes creation to an intelligent entity, but neglects that entity’s motivations for creation. That’s like writing a novel without a plot and declaring that to be a really good idea. Figure on self-publishing.

What if it isn’t intelligent? (which I think makes it not deism but I am making this up as I go along) Intelligence is a human attribute. What if It did not have a motive? What if It just created matter (perhaps accidentally/unintentionally) but simultaneously became matter and so lost any sentience.

Is that ugly mutt in your “signature” wearing a dress?

Sort of. It’s a fairy costume. I like fairies. (Fairy artwork. I don’t think they are real or anything like that.) See avatar and picture album.