Exactly what is Deism?

[Charlemagne_III]

I would say that I don’t find much comfort in the idea that God has abandoned our universe. But I can see its appeal to skeptical minds.

It appeals to skeptical minds because of their skeptical hearts. If you don’t want anything to do with God, it’s so easy to imagine that God has turned his back on you.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It appeals to skeptical minds because of their skeptical hearts. If you don’t want anything to do with God, it’s so easy to imagine that God has turned his back on you.

That’s an appeal to emotion not an intellectual explanation or exploration.

 

[oldcelt]

That’s an appeal to emotion not an intellectual explanation or exploration.

There’s a lot of that going around, particularly considering that none of the Deists here have done likewise. This is a matter of viewpoint, since no one can “prove” their position. I can only say what certain things aren’t.

 

[oldcelt]

It appeals to skeptical minds because of their skeptical hearts. If you don’t want anything to do with God, it’s so easy to imagine that God has turned his back on you.

I speak only for myself, and I am a skeptic, But I also like to base my beliefs on what little evidence there is. Or, in the case of God, isn’t.

However, you make it sound like we view God as having rejected us…not at all, he just has no interest in controlling our lives in any way. Personally, that is fine with me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

However, you make it sound like we view God as having rejected us…not at all, he just has no interest in controlling our lives in any way. Personally, that is fine with me.

As I said.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s an appeal to emotion not an intellectual explanation or exploration.

As if we are not supposed to appeal to our emotions?

Are emotions evil and not a torch to light our way to the truth?

 

[oldcelt]

As I said.

Maybe I was reading too much in to your statements, but you make it sound as if being a skeptic is a negative. Skeptics just don’t tend to accept anything without looking into the basis for that thing.

I view that as appropriate caution, given the importance of some of the issues.

 

[oldcelt]

As if we are not supposed to appeal to our emotions?

Are emotions evil and not a torch to light our way to the truth?

You can appeal to your emotions all you want, and they may provide proof to you. However, those who do not share your emotions will not be swayed.

I don’t think that emotions are evil, but they can muddle things a good deal. So far as a torch to light our way, I would prefer not to guided by my emotions…they are simply unreliable.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

As if we are not supposed to appeal to our emotions?

Are emotions evil and not a torch to light our way to the truth?

They aren’t evil, they aren’t logical either. Their value in a discussion is limited. You are basically saying - if you were in love with God (Catholic concept of God) you would love God (Catholic concept) and see Deism is mistaken. It doesn’t make sense from the outside.

Just as you are looking at “why would the God that I believe in make a world and abandon it?” The question only makes sense if you start with your concept of God. If the concept of God isn’t personified then a non-personal God could make a world and not “attend” to it. It wasn’t created by a person from love. It was just created an emmergent entity from the process of a nonpersonal God.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The power of self-determination implies that we are not subject to any laws which compel us to make our decisions.

Your possessiveness is misguided because the decisions are only yours in the sense that you are, in your opinion, an impotent implement.

3. If you are then neither “your” choices nor “your” decisions are yours. They just happen to be associated with you. To put it bluntly, we would all be just impotent cogs in an immense machine if “your” hypothesis were true.

On the contrary, if we are not subject to any laws then our decisions are simply random and we would be far worse off.

A false dilemma. There is nothing random about self-determination. We are the ones who make our decisions; otherwise you are passing the buck…

Anyway, the truth of something does not depend on whether we like it or not.

I haven’t implied that it does.

And, Tony, I think you are replying in a wrong thread, as this has nothing to do with deism.

Free will, belorg, has everything to do with deism because deism implies that God is impotent, i.e. incapable of intervention.

 

[tonyrey]

What evidence is there that the God of the deists even exists?

Then why are you a deist?

 

[tomarin]

It appeals to skeptical minds because of their skeptical hearts. If you don’t want anything to do with God, it’s so easy to imagine that God has turned his back on you.

If you’ve never felt that no one is listening when you pray, then I envy you. But I can assure you it’s a feeling (an emotion if you will) that isn’t uncommon, even among people of faith such as Mother Teresa.

 

[belorg]

Your possessiveness is misguided because the decisions are only yours in the sense that you are, in your opinion, an impotent implement.

A false dilemma. There is nothing random about self-determination. We are the ones who make our decisions; otherwise you are passing the buck…

You know, tony, i think you actually agree with me, you just don’t realize it.

Free will, belorg, has everything to do with deism because deism implies that God is impotent, i.e. incapable of intervention.

In this thread, Tony, I agree for the sake of the argument that God has free will. His inability to intervene has nothing to do with a lack of free will.

 

[tomarin]

Maybe I was reading too much in to your statements, but you make it sound as if being a skeptic is a negative. Skeptics just don’t tend to accept anything without looking into the basis for that thing.

I view that as appropriate caution, given the importance of some of the issues.

You and Hume, oldcelt.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you’ve never felt that no one is listening when you pray, then I envy you. But I can assure you it’s a feeling (an emotion if you will) that isn’t uncommon, even among people of faith such as Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa was a Catholic. She never believed there was no one listening to her, even if she was at times puzzled by the lack of an answer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If the concept of God isn’t personified then a non-personal God could make a world and not “attend” to it. It wasn’t created by a person from love. It was just created an emmergent entity from the process of a nonpersonal God.

So are you saying that God is not a person? You know this how?

Love is an emotion. When we love, we are able to overcome obstacles to doubt. We are able to overcome many other things. The notion that God is not love has no basis in fact. If God made the universe (what you call an emergent entity) there is no reason to believe it was made without a reason, or without love of the thing created. You have a long way to go to prove such an assumption as that God is not a person, when you are yourself a person and therefore (apparently) more informed than God.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So are you saying that God is not a person? You know this how?

Love is an emotion. When we love, we are able to overcome obstacles to doubt. We are able to overcome many other things. The notion that God is not love has no basis in fact. If God made the universe (what you call an emergent entity) there is no reason to believe it was made without a reason, or without love of the thing created. You have a long way to go to prove such an assumption as that God is not a person, when you are yourself a person and therefore (apparently) more informed than God.

From the Deist perspective God isn’t a person, it’s the unmoved mover. All it is a statement of “it must of started somewhere.”

Again for creation to have a purpose, the creator must have been a person. If the creator is not a person, it doesn’t have to have a purpose. Not to say it is without meaning, we bring the meaning.

 

[tomarin]

Mother Teresa was a Catholic. She never believed there was no one listening to her, even if she was at times puzzled by the lack of an answer.

Religious people do have doubts sometimes. According to her letters she had a long crisis of faith. I don’t think it makes her less of a Catholic.

 

[tomarin]

From the Deist perspective God isn’t a person, it’s the unmoved mover. All it is a statement of “it must of started somewhere.”

Again for creation to have a purpose, the creator must have been a person. If the creator is not a person, it doesn’t have to have a purpose. Not to say it is without meaning, we bring the meaning.

What does it mean to say that God exists but he is not a person? You earlier mentioned the tide not caring about the sand bar it made - is that an analogy for a God that is not a person? That is, it’s not sentient?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What does it mean to say that God exists but he is not a person? You earlier mentioned the tide not caring about the sand bar it made - is that an analogy for a God that is not a person? That is, it’s not sentient?

Not exactly. Transcendent rather than personified or anthropomorphized.