Doesn't deism seem more logical?

[samiam1611]

No, I don’t think theism falls into the same trap. I do not think there are tragedies that defy logic of a loving God. Not at all. Suffering has a purpose, and a very important purpose. A parent that coddles their child and does not let them experience suffering is not the most loving parent.

A perfectly good, powerful, intelligent and loving God could have figured out a MUCH better way to make the world. Christianity’s response to the problem of suffering is laughably inadequate to support the assertions it makes about the benevolent nature of the God.

God’s ways are mysterious and beyond us…

Ain’t that the truth The problem with theism, I find, is that it tries too hard to solve the mystery. It tries to answer lots of questions, and in fact, offers definitive answers for many. Claiming ANY sort of advanced knowledge (other than the acknowledgment that MAYBE a higher, mysterious power exists) is wishful thinking transformed into delusional conviction that one holds the truth.

Kudos to deism and pandeism for not making so many assumptions about God’s ways. They make some, yes, and for that, I disagree with them, but kudos nonetheless, for their demonstration of humility when speaking of God. :tiphat:

but the concept and value of suffering is something we can comprehend easily if we choose to.

To some extent, yes. The problem is in the veracity of [most] theists’ claims about the goodness of God.

The eternal rewards of heaven will make even the most devastating tragedy on earth make complete sense, and not seem nearly as tragic as from our current point of view.

Eternal rewards of heaven = wishful thinking, and is based on Revelation, not logic.

Again, a good and loving and powerful God could do a heck of a lot better job. We do indeed have some devastating tragedies, such as the typhoon in Japan and the Pacific Islands, which has killed many people and their pets and destroyed many homes and businesses. A typhoon is the LAST thing the Japanese need right now! They have gone through ENOUGH already, what with the earthquake and tsunami a few months ago. A perfect, loving, and good God would NOT make those people go through something like that again. There are much better ways to end drought and balance out the earth’s climate without causing massive destruction and hardship, God! In this regard, dystheism seems more likely than the Abrahamic God.

…or, a nonperfect but nonevil creator made the Big Bang happen (or something like that) without full knowledge of how it would all play out. Hey guys, I think I just thought of a new word to sort of describe the god I am proposing! Dysdeism! dysdeism= dystheism (god is not wholly good but not necessarily evil) + deism (god made the universe to run by itself without Its intervention). What do you think? Is it easier to say than dei-ish-ism, the word I made up earlier in this thread?

I think it makes less sense that God created the Universe and walked away because I see God’s involvement in the Universe. I can insist God did not do such a silly thing because he has reached out to and visited his people throughout the ages. This might not have been the answer you were looking for to satisfy you, but it is my answer! I’d be happy to expound upon it if you’d like.

Thank you for answering, Gary. I welcome you to expound.

 

[Garyjohn2]

A perfectly good, powerful, intelligent and loving God could have figured out a MUCH better way to make the world. Christianity’s response to the problem of suffering is laughably inadequate to support the assertions it makes about the benevolent nature of the God.

I disagree with you, I do not think they are laughably inadequate. I think they are perfectly adequate. At the same time though, if you have the power claim that a perfectly good and intelligent God has not been doing a good enough job, how can a mortal like I argue with you!

Ain’t that the truth The problem with theism, I find, is that it tries too hard to solve the mystery. It tries to answer lots of questions, and in fact, offers definitive answers for many. Claiming ANY sort of advanced knowledge (other than the acknowledgment that MAYBE a higher, mysterious power exists) is wishful thinking transformed into delusional conviction that one holds the truth.

I disagree with those statements. I think that revelation from God is not claiming any sort of advanced knowledge other than that which was explicitly revealed, or that which was logically realized from that revealed knowledge. I call that the opposite of wishful thinking and delusional conviction!

Kudos to deism and pandeism for not making so many assumptions about God’s ways. They make some, yes, and for that, I disagree with them, but kudos nonetheless, for their demonstration of humility when speaking of God. :tiphat:

I also think it is wise to remain modest in one’s claims about God. At the same time, ignoring what has been explicitly revealed is the opposite of wise.

Eternal rewards of heaven = wishful thinking, and is based on Revelation, not logic.

I don’t think its unreasonable to know that revelation trumps logic, unless we have differing definitions of revelation. I think that if there is something revealed to you to be true, and logic is not able to come to the same conclusion, there must be something wrong with your logic. Logic is a powerful tool, but it is not a tool for all jobs. The realm of spirituality is just one of the areas where logic can reach its limit of usefulness. The other being women. JUST KIDDING. Really, the realm of emotions is another place where logic can show some limitations, just as an example.

Again, a good and loving and powerful God could do a heck of a lot better job. We do indeed have some devastating tragedies, such as the typhoon in Japan and the Pacific Islands, which has killed many people and their pets and destroyed many homes and businesses… A perfect, loving, and good God would NOT make those people go through something like that again. There are much better ways to end drought and balance out the earth’s climate without causing massive destruction and hardship, God!

I disagree with you. I hope you are not offended if I choose to agree with the actions of a powerful all knowing God rather than a more limited mortal who thinks this type of God does not live up to his expectations of what powerful and all knowing ought to be. At the same time, if you can truly discern what is true perfection is and what is not…I have no grounds to argue with such a being!

I’ve had lots of discussions like this before, and they all kind of begin and end with these two differing points of view being so far removed from each other, its hard to even communicate on the same terms. I’m saying that God is perfect, and faith in that precludes all knowledge. If we think that the actions of this God are less than perfect, than something is wrong with our thinking. You are coming form an opposite view, that knowledge ought to be able to define God, what He is like, and if He exists on its own.

For an example of Japan, I must admit that I have no idea how a perfect God would allow this…it just doesn’t make any sense, and I’m kind of stumped…JUST KIDDING.
In a nutshell, death and destruction are not the worst thing. It is a sad but inevitable part of life. The people in Japan who lost their lives were simply called home early by their loving creator. Those who survived will have to endure suffering and hardships. Some of these sufferers will be strengthened by their experience, becoming greater humans. Some will be humbled, learning to rely on God even more. Some will lose possessions and businesses, and learn the fleeting nature of attaining wealth. Some will go hungry, and learn the meaning of having to go without, and sacrifice. Some may lose hope, and fall into despair indefinately, but this is a choice. There are hundreds of imaginable consequences, and just as many unimaginable ones. No suffering is done in vain. In the end, suffering will increase the strength of a soul…until we are perfect. Perfection from imperfection is part of the glory of this God, and the purpose of creation…and the purpose of suffering. God is perfect, but Earth is not heaven. It’s more like a school. Once we leave this life, the time spent here will be like a painful, but very brief blink of an eye. In that way, it is silly to confuse suffering as evidence contrary to a perfect loving God.

Suffering is the result of imperfection, but can also be a catalyst for its cure. The existence of suffering can in no way point to any imperfection in God. I’m sorry, I simply do not understand why people say this, unless they just haven’t thought about it long enough.

This is a complex universe, so the place of suffering in the world is also a complex idea. I’m just trying to share a bit of my perspective, and maybe help you understand it. Thanks for inviting discussion, and thanks for sharing your ideas as well!

 

[tonyrey]

A perfectly good, powerful, intelligent and loving God could have figured out a MUCH better way to make the world.

How do you know that? Can you produce a **feasible **blueprint for us?

 

[samiam1611]

I disagree with you, I do not think they are laughably inadequate. I think they are perfectly adequate. At the same time though, if you have the power claim that a perfectly good and intelligent God has not been doing a good enough job, how can a mortal like I argue with you!

I disagree with those statements. I think that revelation from God is not claiming any sort of advanced knowledge other than that which was explicitly revealed, or that which was logically realized from that revealed knowledge. I call that the opposite of wishful thinking and delusional conviction!

I also think it is wise to remain modest in one’s claims about God. At the same time, ignoring what has been explicitly revealed is the opposite of wise.

I don’t think its unreasonable to know that revelation trumps logic, unless we have differing definitions of revelation. I think that if there is something revealed to you to be true, and logic is not able to come to the same conclusion, there must be something wrong with your logic. Logic is a powerful tool, but it is not a tool for all jobs. The realm of spirituality is just one of the areas where logic can reach its limit of usefulness. The other being women. JUST KIDDING. Really, the realm of emotions is another place where logic can show some limitations, just as an example.

I disagree with you. I hope you are not offended if I choose to agree with the actions of a powerful all knowing God rather than a more limited mortal who thinks this type of God does not live up to his expectations of what powerful and all knowing ought to be. At the same time, if you can truly discern what is true perfection is and what is not…I have no grounds to argue with such a being!

I’ve had lots of discussions like this before, and they all kind of begin and end with these two differing points of view being so far removed from each other, its hard to even communicate on the same terms. I’m saying that God is perfect, and faith in that precludes all knowledge. If we think that the actions of this God are less than perfect, than something is wrong with our thinking. You are coming form an opposite view, that knowledge ought to be able to define God, what He is like, and if He exists on its own.

For an example of Japan, I must admit that I have no idea how a perfect God would allow this…it just doesn’t make any sense, and I’m kind of stumped…JUST KIDDING.
In a nutshell, death and destruction are not the worst thing. It is a sad but inevitable part of life. The people in Japan who lost their lives were simply called home early by their loving creator. Those who survived will have to endure suffering and hardships. Some of these sufferers will be strengthened by their experience, becoming greater humans. Some will be humbled, learning to rely on God even more. Some will lose possessions and businesses, and learn the fleeting nature of attaining wealth. Some will go hungry, and learn the meaning of having to go without, and sacrifice. Some may lose hope, and fall into despair indefinately, but this is a choice. There are hundreds of imaginable consequences, and just as many unimaginable ones. No suffering is done in vain. In the end, suffering will increase the strength of a soul…until we are perfect. Perfection from imperfection is part of the glory of this God, and the purpose of creation…and the purpose of suffering. God is perfect, but Earth is not heaven. It’s more like a school. Once we leave this life, the time spent here will be like a painful, but very brief blink of an eye. In that way, it is silly to confuse suffering as evidence contrary to a perfect loving God.

Suffering is the result of imperfection, but can also be a catalyst for its cure. The existence of suffering can in no way point to any imperfection in God. I’m sorry, I simply do not understand why people say this, unless they just haven’t thought about it long enough.

This is a complex universe, so the place of suffering in the world is also a complex idea. I’m just trying to share a bit of my perspective, and maybe help you understand it. Thanks for inviting discussion, and thanks for sharing your ideas as well!

Very good talking to you Gary As I mentioned somewhere or other a few pages back, this thread is an exercise in being openminded so by sharing our thoughts with each other, we learn about how diverse we all are
p.s. thanks for making me laugh a few times too!

How do you know that? Can you produce a **feasible **blueprint for us?

Um how about just a regular amount of rain to prevent drought instead of hurricanes?

 

[samiam1611]

Gary,
p.s.s. By Revelation, I was referring to knowledge that the Church distinguishes from knowledge obtained by reason alone, see scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm. Deists reject revelation.

 

[William_of_Ware]

Consider this analogue to your line of questions:

1 Most pharmacy thermometers contain Mercury, yes or no?

2 Mercury has a planetary diameter of several thousand kilometers, yes or no?

3 So it follows that most pharmacy thermometers are of sufficient size to contain an object several thousand kilometers in diameter

The error there is a -]definitional/-] category mistake, because Mercury is -]both/-] an element and a planet – -]and one might even slip in something there about a God with winged sandals.

/-]

This no analogue of mine since I never made any category mistake.

The definitional fallacy in your question is a particularly devilish one, for it uses (unwittingly, I am sure) Bill Clinton’s trick -]of switching between/-] -]definitions/-]-] of /-]equivocally using ‘is’ – which might comparably be set forth as follows:

1 Barack Obama is the Head of State of the United States

2 Barack Obama is a Democrat

3 The United States is a country with a Democrat as Head of State

But

4 The United States is a democracy, wherein any party’s candidate may become Head of State

which would entail

5 A Republican may become Head of State of the United States

6 The United States is a country with a Democrat as Head of State

And so

7 Barack Obama is -]not/-] a Democrat

so how did Obama become a republican, again? bad example, I take it you were trying to exemplify a category mistake but ended up writing a non-sequitur:doh2:

Do you see the problem with suddenly switching between ‘is’ as solely denoting a present state of things, with ‘is’ as denoting the definition of the thing itself? Do you see how that allows a false argument to be dressed in the appearance of truth?

When did I call you pantheist? When did I “devilishly” switch meanings for “is”? When did I use “is” to imply two different things? Show evidence that I misrepresented you . If the only thing you have going for are vague intuitions or you think or assume that I switched meanings, do us a favor and save it for yourself.

Besides it is irrelevant if you’re a pantheist, panentheist, pan-deist. it is irrelevant whether you think god joined the universe yesterday. it does not matter if you think god is made of gravy and yogurt. or you think god is composed of pure vodka. The argument I gave relies on god having parts. We know you’re pandeist,and I’ll continue to say god is the universe to rub in the fact that it does not make any difference in the conversation.

1 - The Creator of our Universe presently exists as our Universe itself.

Yes. I don’t know what you meant by ‘first principle’ for a ‘principle’ first or otherwise is not an entity which is capable of design and creation except if by a highly unusual use of the word; and so I have never described our Creator as being a ‘principle’ and reject that characterisation until an explanation is provided of how a principle may be a Creator.

First principle simply means that nothing logically precedes it. If you think god is not the first principle of the universe, then you’re saying something precedes god.

No. I have stated before that I am not going to go deeply into quantum mechanics here, but I hope it will be simple enough for me to explain that all manner at base is a wave function, and at the Planck length the supporting wave function is nothing more than a zero point energy field (a singular field of energy fluctuating at the lowest wavelength at which fluctuation is possible, before becoming inherently fuzzy and irresolute). Hence, our Creator is not made of parts; it (god) is a single state which we, with our rough macroscopic filters of perception, (we) perceive as parts. But unless you deny that our Creator is omnipresent, you can not deny that all of the ‘parts’ of our Universe are necessarily contained within it anyway.

This is what you’re trying to sell here:

The Creator of our Universe presently exists as our Universe itself.

1-God is the universe.

our Creator is not made of parts

2-the universe has no parts. (objectively speaking we’ve no hands, there are no tables, planets, atoms, stars or any individual things)

(God) is a single state which we…perceive as parts

3-the appearance of diversity is all in your head. your hands, your loved ones and everything you see and perceive are results of your feeble and “rough macroscopic filters”.

Also, despite what Pandeist Man say there’s no “we” or “you” or “I” . remember, there are no parts in the universe so no individual human can possibly exist.

And you want us to buy into this.

I think we’re though here, there are better things than to argue with someone that think god became an imperfect universe , that he’s god and manages to suggest that things (including himself) do not exist. thanks for making me laugh, though. :tiphat:

 

[shoe]

No, I don’t think theism falls into the same trap. I do not think there are tragedies that defy logic of a loving God. Not at all. Suffering has a purpose, and a very important purpose.

Agreed. Jesus suffered greatly on the cross, and also during the hours that led up to His death, at the hands of evil people; but God used that suffering as the means to save mankind.

 

[William_of_Ware]

I

On this question, I adhere to the views of Charles Harteshorne – perfection is subjective, and so it is meaningless to speak of it in many dimensions; stagnation is imperfection; inability to change and learn in a Universe capable of generating infinite new experiences is imperfection. Can a deity paint a perfect painting? Write a perfect limerick? Perform perfect oral sex?(how tasteful of you) The designation of our Creator as ‘perfect’ is a meaningless platitude, a hollow compliment by which men mean that it adheres to whatever their own imaginations of it might be.

There are good reasons why paintings or limericks cannot be perfect; They are finite, contingent things. I can think of a better painting or limerick and so on setting off an infinite regress. Does that mean perfection is meaningless? not at all. There’s only one concept and one thing only that can fit the word perfect: God. you cannot “add” anything to the notion of god to improve him. Charles Harteshorne was aware of this when he talked of god’s necessary existence and he used his own brand of perfect being theology.

It is possible for perfection to be, in the end, meaningless or impossible. what would would it mean to say that perfection is impossible, then? It would mean that god is impossible.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

/-]

so how did Obama become a republican, again? bad example, I take it you were trying to exemplify a category mistake but ended up writing a non-sequitur:doh2:

I thought it was generally considered bad form to edit the post of another so as to make it appear that their words were something other than what they were, and then to argue against your modification of their words, instead of their own actual words.

Perhaps you made a category mistake, perhaps you did not; your argument contained vagaries of phrasing which made it appear to me that you were conflating concepts; I simply sought to offer an answer to the argument as it would have been presented had the terms used been wholly clear – without, however, editing your initial comments to make it appear as though those were the actual words you’d used.

 

[kbwall]

I don’t mean to stomp too hardly on other people’s beliefs, but I believe deism is essentially a religion based almost entirely on ignorance, and is very outdated. Deism mostly rose about late enough to where people started to question the church/religiion, but early enough to where there was no other explanation.

At the risk of sounding overly crude, deism was for wannabe atheists. They didn’t believe in God, but since the theories of evolution and the Big Bang had not really developed during that time, they had no other explanation for how the universe came to be. At least theism has a God that does stuff and loves His creations. Deism is nothing more than an unnecssary explanation to a question we have already answered. With present day understand of physics and biology, deism is an outdated concept.

So no, I wouldn’t say it’s more logical than theism at all. If anything, it’s quite illogical, not to mention unnecessary.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

/-]
…

3-the appearance of diversity is all in your head. your hands, your loved ones and everything you see and perceive are results of your feeble and “rough macroscopic filters”.

Also, despite what Pandeist Man say there’s no “we” or “you” or “I” . remember, there are no parts in the universe so no individual human can possibly exist.

And you want us to buy into this.

I think we’re though here, there are better things than to argue with someone that think god became an imperfect universe , that he’s god and manages to suggest that things (including himself) do not exist. thanks for making me laugh, though. :tiphat:

Glad to give you some amusement – I recall that a priest once mocked Sir Eddington over the latter’s proposition that the reason we do not sink into the floor was because the swarm of electrons within its atoms were constantly bouncing up against our feet. The priest, in his mockery, decried this on the basis that in that case Sir Eddington would have to confess that his feet too were a swarm of electrons. Yes, I can see how somebody would think absurd such a proposition – that our bodies are made of electrons and protons and neutrons, worse yet that our bodies are made of quarks, even worse still that our bodies are made of a singular underlying Zero Point Energy field which behaves at some times like particles and at other times like waves.

But allow me to make a theological argument.

Do you believe our Creator is capable of sustaining our Universe?

Do you believe our Creator is capable of becoming our Universe, if that were its wish? There is a trilemma here; either it is not capable, but then is less able than a wholly conceivable entity which is capable of such a thing (and so the entity to which you direct your worship is an imposter, beneath a more powerful true Creator); or our Creator is capable of such a thing and the Universe which it becomes would be one thing which simply appears to observers within it to be multiple things (as quantum physics is now on the edge of demonstrating); or our Creator is capable of dividing itself into parts, which would be a necessary condition for it to exist on a single planet as a single human for 30-odd years, had such a thing ever happened (or to exist as, let’s imagine, three entities which are still one entity). Was it your goal to disprove Christianity with your whole/parts argument?

But I asked you the underlying question earlier in this thread, and you seem not to have an answer for it:

Is your Creator powerful enough to create a Universe which appears as ours does, in every particular, by doing no more than setting forth governing dynamics designed to bring about such a Universe, and providing sufficient energy to be operated on by these governing dynamics, without needing to intervene after the moment of Creation?

 

[samiam1611]

Glad to give you some amusement – I recall that a priest once mocked Sir Eddington over the latter’s proposition that the reason we do not sink into the floor was because the swarm of electrons within its atoms were constantly bouncing up against our feet. The priest, in his mockery, decried this on the basis that in that case Sir Eddington would have to confess that his feet too were a swarm of electrons. Yes, I can see how somebody would think absurd such a proposition – that our bodies are made of electrons and protons and neutrons, worse yet that our bodies are made of quarks, even worse still that our bodies are made of a singular underlying Zero Point Energy field which behaves at some times like particles and at other times like waves.

But allow me to make a theological argument.

Do you believe our Creator is capable of sustaining our Universe?

Do you believe our Creator is capable of becoming our Universe, if that were its wish? There is a trilemma here; either it is not capable, but then is less able than a wholly conceivable entity which is capable of such a thing (and so the entity to which you direct your worship is an imposter, beneath a more powerful true Creator); or our Creator is capable of such a thing and the Universe which it becomes would be one thing which simply appears to observers within it to be multiple things (as quantum physics is now on the edge of demonstrating); or our Creator is capable of dividing itself into parts, which would be a necessary condition for it to exist on a single planet as a single human for 30-odd years, had such a thing ever happened (or to exist as, let’s imagine, three entities which are still one entity). Was it your goal to disprove Christianity with your whole/parts argument?

But I asked you the underlying question earlier in this thread, and you seem not to have an answer for it:

Is your Creator powerful enough to create a Universe which appears as ours does, in every particular, by doing no more than setting forth governing dynamics designed to bring about such a Universe, and providing sufficient energy to be operated on by these governing dynamics, without needing to intervene after the moment of Creation?

that’s what I’m talkin’ 'bout!!!

 

[Pandeist_Man]

I don’t mean to stomp too hardly on other people’s beliefs, but I believe deism is essentially a religion based almost entirely on ignorance, and is very outdated. Deism mostly rose about late enough to where people started to question the church/religiion, but early enough to where there was no other explanation.

At the risk of sounding overly crude, deism was for wannabe atheists. They didn’t believe in God, but since the theories of evolution and the Big Bang had not really developed during that time, they had no other explanation for how the universe came to be. At least theism has a God that does stuff and loves His creations. Deism is nothing more than an unnecssary explanation to a question we have already answered. With present day understand of physics and biology, deism is an outdated concept.

So no, I wouldn’t say it’s more logical than theism at all. If anything, it’s quite illogical, not to mention unnecessary.

The Big Bang and evolution may dispose of scriptural accounts, but why was there a Big Bang? If it was simply a result of gravity, why is there gravity, and why is it able to generate a Universe capable of going through an amazing set of steps culminating in intelligent life able to ask questions about it? And as to outdatedness, the aspects of Deism which have left open questions which seem to place it in that category are surpassed by continuing developments within the philosophy of Deism itself, as with Pandeism and Panendeism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t mean to stomp too hardly on other people’s beliefs, but I believe deism is essentially a religion based almost entirely on ignorance, and is very outdated.

As I understand it deism is a religious classification of philosophy but isn’t a religion. Much like theism isn’t a religion (If you are one of the followers of Allah or Yahweh you would be considered a theists, but not of the same religion).

 

[tonyrey]

A perfectly good, powerful, intelligent and loving God could have figured out a MUCH better way to make the world.

How do you know that? Can you produce a **feasible **blueprint for us?
Um how about just a regular amount of rain to prevent drought instead of hurricanes?

Is that supposed to be a feasible blueprint for an entire world?

 

[Simpleton]

A perfectly good, powerful, intelligent and loving God could have figured out a MUCH better way to make the world. Christianity’s response to the problem of suffering is laughably inadequate to support the assertions it makes about the benevolent nature of the God.

Last time I checked the Christian God made the world with zero sin, zero suffering, zero death, perfect weather and every one had free will. What exactly could have been done better than that?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Last time I checked the Christian God made the world with zero sin, zero suffering, zero death, perfect weather and every one had free will. What exactly could have been done better than that?

Zero trees of forbidden fruit?

 

[Simpleton]

Zero trees of forbidden fruit?

In order for this to be a flaw though we would have to show how the tree itself was something evil. From what I can tell the tree was dangerous but does danger = evil?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In order for this to be a flaw though we would have to show how the tree itself was something evil. From what I can tell the tree was dangerous but does danger = evil?

I haven’t called it a flaw or evil, but the absence of the three may have been an improvement. I don’t see it as being any more evil than rat poison or kitchen chemicals. Like the tree if you eat any of these you will surely die. When my nephew is around I make sure that these substances and others are not withing reach as I don’t want him to do something that will cause him to surely die.

Not that I see the story of Adam and Eve as being literally true. But those are just my thoughts.

 

[samiam1611]

Pandeist Man,
Do pandeists such as yourself (or deists, if you know any), have any sort of practices or rituals, such as praying?
and I was also wondering, do you believe there is an afterlife?