Doesn't deism seem more logical?

[fhansen]

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?

OK, but what’s necessarily superior about that god being impersonal?Aloofness or distance is better? Impersonal is ipso facto superior to personal? I’d think the opposite would be true.

Why not the same "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 " who also happens to be capable of more than mere creativity (I would think such a being could somehow communicate with His creatures without resorting to “magic”), who also possesses, to an infinite degree, all the most positive traits that most of us might agree make humans great, summed up best by the term “love”.

That would only serve to make this being “more superior” yet.

 

[samiam1611]

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

I think evil is ill-will. Intentent to cause misery. I am proposing a higher power who/which created/became matter without any sentience. (I did not really indicate that in my OP admittedly.)

(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?

I would not call the universe a perfect system. For example, I was reading about that typhoon over in Japan and the Pacific islands. It said typhoons are beneficial and necessary for balancing out the earth’s climate and preventing drought. Well um, that sucks. A perfect system would not need something as destructive as that to sustain itself.

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

Pandeism says the creator became the universe so that’s one possibility. Deism says It’s still there. So maybe It didn’t really disappear, It just became something different (matter) or is there but inactive.

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

I am inclined to say no. Why not? I will think about it. Also, I am typing on my iPod right now which is a pain so I’ll answer when I get to my computer.

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

Interesting. Others have said it’s too simple. Although they were talking about deism not dei-ish-ism. I am proposing a relatively simple (nonsentient), practically undefinable higher power.

 

[Neildown]

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.

Not necessarily. You must understand that when Catholics look at God, we don’t see Him and understand Him perfectly [you may note how many different types of ‘catholic’ are on this website ]. Yes, we do declare that we have the greatest and most complete knowledge of God, but that doesn’t mean we understand Him perfectly. He exists in a higher state than us, thus our perception of Him is limited. You simply can’t expect to fully understand something out of your perception that is apparently infinite in everything. People are still trying to understand “infinity” in general.

One must also note that in Catholic doctrine we are not in any way meant to live in a world of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows [great song by Leslie Gore, btw]. We’re here to prepare ourselves for a greater life afterwards.

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?

Because God is the highest above all things in the universe - this would naturally include all the emotions and sensitivities we possess. If God exists in a higher state than us, how could we possess emotions and sensitivities greater than His own? That being said, He obviously has some reason for allowing pain in our lives. So far we know that offering this pain up can bring us closer to entering a better life when we die.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

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?

Except for “nonanthropomorphic,” this reads like a perfect definition of man making god in his own image. It also sounds like a perfect “out” for someone who, on one hand, doesn’t want to go as far as espousing atheism, but, on the other hand, still wants to do his own thing without having to think about Someone who is watching over his shoulder and who will someday call him to account for his actions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Simpleton;8346219:

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.

The analogy I frequently hear on that question is a watch maker makes a watch but the watch isn’t dependent on the watch maker’s continued presence.

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?

Good question. There is a thread titled “Supernatural Epistemology” that if it had an answer would be able to address that. Though it seems that when some are immersed in a man made religion that is reinforced by their community they don’t notice that it was man made.

 

[sw85]

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.

All of these would be ontological impossibilities. Intelligence and motivation are features that exist in creation; for Him to lack them would mean He is imperfect and therefore not God.

Again, I recommend you study up on the Five Ways. There is no state of being in the universe which is not possessed in some way by God.

Pandeism says the creator became the universe so that’s one possibility. Deism says It’s still there. So maybe It didn’t really disappear, It just became something different (matter) or is there but inactive.

God is *necessarily *unchanging. This isn’t really subject to speculation. If God were capable of change than God would not be God.

The analogy I frequently hear on that question is a watch maker makes a watch but the watch isn’t dependent on the watch maker’s continued presence.

Which is true as far as it goes – but the watch and the watchmaker both are dependent on God’s continued presence.

Good question. There is a thread titled “Supernatural Epistemology” that if it had an answer would be able to address that. Though it seems that when some are immersed in a man made religion that is reinforced by their community they don’t notice that it was man made.

God is knowable through the exercise of human reason. Check out the Five Ways.

 

[samiam1611]

OK, but what’s necessarily superior about that god being impersonal?Aloofness or distance is better? Impersonal is ipso facto superior to personal? I’d think the opposite would be true.

I agree. I would not say this god is necessarily (or at all) superior to a personal god. I just think dei-ish-ism avoids the “made in man’s image” criticism often [rightly ] used on theism.

Why not the same "universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind,

I like that too!

supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason "

oooh I don’t know about that. maybe though

who also happens to be capable of more than mere creativity (I would think such a being could somehow communicate with His creatures without resorting to “magic”), who also possesses, to an infinite degree, all the most positive traits that most of us might agree make humans great, summed up best by the term “love”.

Too anthromorphic IMO. especially the love part.

All of these would be ontological impossibilities. Intelligence and motivation are features that exist in creation; for Him to lack them would mean He is imperfect and therefore not God.

I quite disagree. I’m not sure I can articulate my thoughts fully but suffice it to say (for now anyway) that if there is a god, I do not think It is perfect. :dts: It’s just a very different god than yours. You gotta reallllly forget what you know about God to see this as a possibility (however remote it is.) You see God as perfect (fair enough) but I see no reason to think that. Surely you can admit there is at least a teeny tiny possibility that God is not perfect?

Again, I recommend you study up on the Five Ways.

Will do. I’ve seen a list but I have never looked into it further.

There is no state of being in the universe which is not possessed in some way by God.

You don’t know that. That is a bold assertion I’d say - I don’t believe you could arrive at that by reason alone - I think that is too dependent on Revelation, and deists reject revelation. But the deist (not necessarily my dei-ish-ist) god does not exclude that possibility anyway. I don’t think it really makes that assertion, but it doesn’t deny it either. I suppose pandeism does exclude that possibility. I think that’s okay

God is *necessarily *unchanging. This isn’t really subject to speculation. If God were capable of change than God would not be God.

Sure it is subject to speculation. God might be incapable of change - it would just be a very different God than you believe in.

Which is true as far as it goes – but the watch and the watchmaker both are dependent on God’s continued presence.

That’s the thing about pandeism - God is the watchmaker AND the watch. Hence, by this perspective, God** is** continually present.

God is knowable through the exercise of human reason.

Your God is quite dependent on Revelation too though. Deism is not.

 

[samiam1611]

addendum:
When it comes to our knowledge of God, I think we are no more special than animals. Animals don’t know why things are the way they are - they just are, and animals do not** try** to understand a deeper meaning behind existence. We are only special in the sense that we have a desire to understand why/how we exist.

The deist certainly deserves the accusation of believing in a God of the gaps. I simply think the less gaps one tries to fill, the more reasonable it is. That pretty much sums up my view - theism tries too hard to fill in those gaps - uses imagination, not reason, to fill them. Deism is more abstract…less imaginative…more reasonable - bc it does not try as hard to understand

(let me reiterate that I don’t know much about deism - just read the Wikipedia article. So I might be misrepresenting it. Hopefully not.)

 

[sw85]

I quite disagree. I’m not sure I can articulate my thoughts fully but suffice it to say (for now anyway) that if there is a god, I do not think It is perfect. :dts: It’s just a very different god than yours. You gotta reallllly forget what you know about God to see this as a possibility (however remote it is.) You see God as perfect (fair enough) but I see no reason to think that. Surely you can admit there is at least a teeny tiny possibility that God is not perfect?

Again, God’s perfection is nonnegotiable. It is a NECESSARY condition – there would be no existence if God were not perfect. Again, I suggest you study up on the Five Ways, which provide rational proofs for God’s existence and nature and outlines the conditions to which God’s existence MUST conform for existence to operate. Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition or *Aquinas *would be good places to start.

You don’t know that. That is a bold assertion I’d say - I don’t believe you could arrive at that by reason alone

You don’t believe that God’s existence and nature are knowable through the exercise of reason yet you insist on calling yourself a “deist”? I really strongly recommend you do your homework before continuing this thread.

• I think that is too dependent on Revelation, and deists reject revelation.

Wrong. The Five Ways are exercises in reason – not revelation. They begin with indisputable facts about existence, such as the tendency of objects to remain at rest unless acted on by another force, and reason forward from there.

There are specific features about Christianity that ARE revelational – the Resurrection is one such thing. But don’t worry about that for now; the point is that you can arrive at the conclusion of a monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God that is purely actual and utterly simple (exactly as the Christians claim He is) with nothing more than human reason unaided by revelation.

Sure it is subject to speculation. God might be incapable of change - it would just be a very different God than you believe in.

It would not be God at all. God is necessarily unmoving and unchanging. Again, brush up on the Five Ways. This is not a negotiable point – if you deny it you do so out of either ignorance, obstinacy, or madness.

That’s the thing about pandeism - God is the watchmaker AND the watch. Hence, by this perspective, God** is** continually present.

Yet not omnipresent, hence not God.

 

[samiam1611]

Again, God’s perfection is nonnegotiable. It is a NECESSARY condition – there would be no existence if God were not perfect. Again, I suggest you study up on the Five Ways, which provide rational proofs for God’s existence and nature and outlines the conditions to which God’s existence MUST conform for existence to operate. Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition or *Aquinas *would be good places to start.

You don’t believe that God’s existence and nature are knowable through the exercise of reason yet you insist on calling yourself a “deist”? I really strongly recommend you do your homework before continuing this thread.

*Not a deist. I’m like 99% atheist and just find the deist’s concept of God more likely than the theist’s. I read the Wikipedia article on deism and pandeism. That’s all I know about it. I also read about panendeism but didn’t like that one too much. Started this thread to hear y’all’s thoughts on it but I don’t claim to fully understand their beliefs, and in fact I may be misrepresenting their beliefs. Hopefully not too too bad. I think it’s been interesting so far!

I read the Wikipedia article on the Five ways. Some of the arguments do not rule out the deist’s conception of God so it didn’t really blow me away.

Can anyone more articulate than me counter sw’s assertion that God’s perfection is non-negotiable? Let’s negotiate

 

[Simpleton]

The analogy I frequently hear on that question is a watch maker makes a watch but the watch isn’t dependent on the watch maker’s continued presence.

A watch is not self-sustaining since it will wind down or run out of batteries at some point in time and cannot wind itself up or change its own batteries. If you can point me to a watch that can do this I will buy it my friend.

 

[samiam1611]

fhansen - ignore my response to you (post #27). I don’t know where my brain was when I wrote that.

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

You have listed your religion as heterodoxical theism. I’m interested in what your concept of God is. (or gods or whatever)

 

[Hubriss]

My answer to the OP question would be that yes Deism is more logical or reasonable because it has less things to prove or reason to. Going from Deism to Theism takes a lot more explanations. In Christianity’s case you would have to show that God is good, Jesus, answers prayers, etc.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

I agree. I would not say this god is necessarily (or at all) superior to a personal god. I just think dei-ish-ism avoids the “made in man’s image” criticism often [rightly ] used on theism.

…

That’s the thing about pandeism - God is the watchmaker AND the watch. Hence, by this perspective, God** is** continually present.

Greetings, and salutations brother, and behold!! For I am Pandeist Man and I have been summoned by the Power of Pandeism to shine the light of logic and reason upon the darkest corners of myth and theological reactionarianism. Immanuel Kant’s dissection of the Ontological Argument effectively demonstrated that the characteristics of our Creator can not be summoned into existence by wishful thinking; and Charles Hartshorne demonstrated how certain amongst the various perfections assigned to the deity were subjective, and so could only be relative and never absolute. Perfection may be labeled as ‘non-negotiable,’ but it is utterly meaningless as well.

Furthermore, ancient suppositions of the nature of our Universe have been surpassed by modern knowledge. To speak of infinities and eternities is to speak of the old Newtonian physics, before man knew time and space to be functions of one another. Similarly, conceptions of immovability are from an age when man was ignorant of the quantum nature of our Universe, wherein even the most staid appearing object is at base a whirlwind of constant movement and uncertainty. For an explication of a theological model which accords with the knowledge of modern physics – and yes, it is a pandeistic model – I recommend The God Theory by NASA PhD astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

 

[William_of_Ware]

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?

Deism is only plausible in a 17th century mechanistic conception of the universe; the universe is like giant watch that was set in motion by the watchmaker to run by itself.

if we reject this outdated view and accept the contingency of the universe or that the so-called laws of the universe are just regularities then deism becomes difficult to sustain. God cannot take a hands-off approach to the universe, he must take an active part in it. if the person accepts this he’s no longer a deist.

if god is not perfect, then he’s no god; he’s a demiurge. and will need an explanation for its existence outside of itself.

Catholics do not endorse anthrophormism, please read a basic book on philosophy of religion. And no, the incarnation does not remove the perfections of god.

if by magic you mean that god ought to follow some “laws” of nature, then you’re a couple centuries behind in terms of physics and philosophy of science.

 

[greylorn]

You have listed your religion as heterodoxical theism. I’m interested in what your concept of God is. (or gods or whatever)

It can be found scattered throughout my posts and threads on CAF. An organized version will be in print, I hope, by the end of this month.

 

[greylorn]

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.

You are correct. I apologize for not extending my deism flaw to theism, but was focused upon the single issue. Classical theism’s motivations for the creation of man are, IMO, so absurd that they would be rejected as the basis for a soap opera plot. Their only home is in non-rational, science-irrelevant religions, which probably includes all of them. I’ve stated as much, in several ways, often on CAF.

Thanks for pointing out my omission.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

Deism is only plausible in a 17th century mechanistic conception of the universe; the universe is like giant watch that was set in motion by the watchmaker to run by itself.

if we reject this outdated view and accept the contingency of the universe or that the so-called laws of the universe are just regularities then deism becomes difficult to sustain. God cannot take a hands-off approach to the universe, he must take an active part in it. if the person accepts this he’s no longer a deist.

Hence Pandeism. Our Creator has the most intimate conceivable relationship with our Universe; it IS our Universe. To understand quantum physics-- that a purity of force inflows and underlies all things perceived by our rough filters as matter and energy-- is to understand this. Naturally, this is demonstrable through other avenues, such as Duke University PhD physicist Robert G. Brown’s Pandeist Theorem, which demonstrates mathematically through information theory that an omniscient entity is necessarily equal to our Universe in operation. One of the remarkable aspects of the Hindu scriptures is that they coem closest to reflecting this knowledge of physics, in much the same way that they most accurately reflect our Universe to be billions of years old-- knowledge they provided hundreds of years before any extant scripture was conceived.

Now, once we realize that our Creator underlies our Universe, we must ask, what would a person who has some contact with that undying mind perceive? Well it would be incomprehensible, but the limited human mind might capture some fragments of truth, however poorly understood, and those fragments might be distilled along with other unrelated ideas or beliefs or biases into books deemed revelatory.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

You are correct. I apologize for not extending my deism flaw to theism, but was focused upon the single issue. Classical theism’s motivations for the creation of man are, IMO, so absurd that they would be rejected as the basis for a soap opera plot. Their only home is in non-rational, science-irrelevant religions, which probably includes all of them. I’ve stated as much, in several ways, often on CAF.

Thanks for pointing out my omission.

This issue is resolved in Pandeism, which proffers a wholly rational basis for our Creator choosing to become our Universe. Consider: an entity which is alone in it’s existence can experience no imposition of limitations upon it; and so it can not have the knowledge of the subjective experience of facing and overcoming (or failing to overcome) limitations. By entering into a fragmented form of existence wherein it shares in the subjective experience of facing limitations as we do in every moment of our lives, it is rationally able to obtain this experience.

 

[samiam1611]

Greetings, and salutations brother, and behold!! For I am Pandeist Man and I have been summoned by the Power of Pandeism to shine the light of logic and reason upon the darkest corners of myth and theological reactionarianism.

Welcome to CAF, and welcome to my thread! So glad to have an actual pandeist participating.

Can you explain how pandeism differs from pantheism? If I understand it correctly, pandeism says there was a creator but the creator is now the universe, while pantheism says there was no creator. Is that right?