Exactly what is Deism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
Probably not so. Causality is an unbroken endless chain of cause and effect.
Creating from nothing is not a chain. It is the creation of a chain. God is not a chain.
Click to expand...
God is the cause of the chain, so the laws of causation apply to Him.
 
JamesTheJust said:
In post #65, you responded “it should be” to my statement that something is untrue.
Click to expand...
What you said is not true, at least, not necessarily.
Aristotle’s “theology” e;g; was a result of his philosophy.
Aquinas, on the other hand, worked the other way round.
That’s why, although he was undoubtedly a great philosopher, he made the mistakes he did.
 
belorg said:
God is the cause of the chain, so the laws of causation apply to Him.
Click to expand...
The Creator is not the cause, because the Creator is not part of the causal chain. When we think of causality, we are thinking within the temporal realm of a causal chain. God is outside the temporal realm, and therefore not subject to its laws. That explains why miracles are possible. God interrupts the chain of causality he has created, not caused.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The Creator is not the cause, because the Creator is not part of the causal chain. When we think of causality, we are thinking within the temporal realm of a causal chain. God is outside the temporal realm, and therefore not subject to its laws. That explains why miracles are possible. God interrupts the chain of causality he has created, not caused.
Click to expand...
God, in the Aristotelean-Thomistic sense is the First Cause, hence He is the first part of the causal chain, not temporally but ontologically. The chain is created all at once, with every single part in place. To change this ‘chain’ means that God changes frpm being the creator of the original chain to being the creator of the secondary chain.
 
belorg said:
I won’t dispute the greatness of both your minds, but what Tony said is not the same as what you said. The laws of causation do not only encompass physical causation.
Click to expand...
Then it would seem that the objection of Bertrand Russell that God must have a cause is valid. But it’s not. God is uncaused, and therefore God is not subject to the principle of causality.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Then it would seem that the objection of Bertrand Russell that God must have a cause is valid. But it’s not. God is uncaused, and therefore God is not subject to the principle of causality.
Click to expand...
So, you don’t believe that God can cause non-physical beings to exist?
 
belorg said:
What you said is not true, at least, not necessarily.
Aristotle’s “theology” e;g; was a result of his philosophy.
Click to expand...
You have yet to prove this.
Aquinas, on the other hand, worked the other way round.
Click to expand...
While he often applied philosophy to his theology, he didn’t mix them. That doesn’t work.
That’s why, although he was undoubtedly a great philosopher, he made the mistakes he did.
Click to expand...
He didn’t, though. As others have pointed out, your understanding of causality and the Unmoved Mover is flawed.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Exactly what is Deism, and what is the rationale for being a Deist?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would imagine the compelling reasons for believing in deism is that 1. it explains why God often seems absent in our world and indifferent to human desires and feelings and 2. it explains why there is evil (because it presumes God has left the building).
 
tomarin said:
I would imagine the compelling reasons for believing in deism is that 1. it explains why God often seems absent in our world and indifferent to human desires and feelings and 2. it explains why there is evil (because it presumes God has left the building).
Click to expand...
The notion that God is “indifferent to human desires and feelings” has no basis in the Judeo-Christian tradition, where God is very much interested in and interacts with his creation. The existence of evil is not explained by the absence of God, but by the presence of Satan.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The notion that God is “indifferent to human desires and feelings” has no basis in the Judeo-Christian tradition, where God is very much interested in and interacts with his creation.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but nevertheless that is how things are perceived by people at times. They feel abandoned by God.
The existence of evil is not explained by the absence of God, but by the presence of Satan.
Click to expand...
For some people it is.
 
I think the root cause of choosing deism over theism is certainly a personal one. Deism is a grudging acknowledgment that God exists, but a refusal or inability to embrace God as Person, as Father. I have known many people (including myself) who have felt that way about their own fathers.
 
tonyrey said:
To believe the mass media are a more effective means of communication than the Incarnation is absurd. The teaching, life and death of Jesus have had far more impact on the world than the torrent of information churned out by advertising which fill the coffers of the plutocrats. The acid question is whether you reject His moral teaching.
Click to expand...
Not really -

The population in 4 BC of the Roman Empire :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

By contrast, it is estimated that around 50–60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire in the 4th century AD.[26]

The largest watched program:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts

Estimates for the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony global TV viewership varied between one and four billion,[1][2][3][4][5][6] including an estimated 842 million viewers watching on host Chinese broadcaster China Central Television.[1] A verifiable audience of 984 million tuned into the opening ceremony at some stage, averaging at 593 million, while 778 million watched the closing ceremony.[7]
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Estimates for the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony global TV viewership varied between one and four billion,[1][2][3][4][5][6] including an estimated 842 million viewers watching on host Chinese broadcaster China Central Television.[1] A verifiable audience of 984 million tuned into the opening ceremony at some stage, averaging at 593 million, while 778 million watched the closing ceremony.[7]
Click to expand...
This strikes me as an strange way to advance the notion that the modern media is more effective means of communication than the gospel of Jesus Christ, which has deeply influenced the lives of billions of Christians every day of their lives, as opposed to the vapid celebration of olympic opening and closing ceremonies.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
This strikes me as an strange way to advance the notion that the modern media is more effective means of communication than the gospel of Jesus Christ, which has deeply influenced the lives of billions of Christians every day of their lives, as opposed to the vapid celebration of olympic opening and closing ceremonies.
Click to expand...
I look at this way. Christianity took thousands of years and much bloodshed. The modern Olympic games took a little over a hundred and much less bloodshed (Munich) and is known and respected (pretty much universally) around the world. It reached more people in a far shorter amount of time, as evidenced by the television numbers. I’m sorry you think the Olympics are vapid, I ( and most of the world as well) think you are missing out. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top