Link between Deism & Catholicsm

[belorg]

belorg and thinkingsapien:

I do not think that deism is a coherent position because just like theism it argues for a timeless changeless being, except it also argues that that being must either not be conscious or not be interested in the world or not be powerful enough to interact with the world.

No it does not arhue that it is not powerful enough to interact with the world. It argues that, because it is chnageless and yimeless, it fpllows logically that it cannot interact with the world.

All of those are philosophically less simple answers than arguing for a limitless being (meaning limitless in all categories). Deism does not make sense because if the being is the only necessary thing then how could other things possibly be contingent upon it but at the same time it has nothing to do with those things?

It has everything to do with those things; It’s the creator of those things and it is in fact more prefect than a thiest God because it is able to do everything right from the outset, intsead of having to interfere to correct slight ‘mistakes’. The creation of a deist God is so perfect it does not need interference.

Just because something involves less power does not make it a better explanation especially considering that explanations are means to explain All facts and not just some.

It does not ‘involve less power’. A theist God in fact has more limits than a deist one.
That’s why a deist God is more aceeptable than a theist one

 

[cc42]

belorg:

I am not sure why a timeless changeless being cannot interact with the world. Maybe you can explain.

I would not argue that a theistic God has to interfere to correct mistakes that He has made but rather interacts with the world because that is His very nature and wants to intereact with His creation.

I also do not see why a theist God has more limits, when you said that deist god cannot interact with the world, unless you think that a theistic god has to correct mistakes but I do not see that has being required.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

I am not sure why a timeless changeless being cannot interact with the world. Maybe you can explain.

Well, He is supposed to be timeless and changeless. I should think it is actually you who has to explain how such an entity can interact with an obviously changing and temporal world. At which time exactly is this timeless entity acting and at which other time is He doing nothing?
An interaction with a temporal world means that there is a clear distinction between an instanrt of interaction .and other instants of non-interaction. There is no way that this does not involve a change.

I would not argue that a theistic God has to interfere to correct mistakes that He has made but rather interacts with the world because that is His very nature and wants to intereact with His creation.

A deist God’s creation is perfect and leads to perfect results without any need for interaction. If there is a need for interaction, creation wasn’t perfect.

I also do not see why a theist God has more limits, when you said that deist god cannot interact with the world, unless you think that a theistic god has to correct mistakes but I do not see that has being required.

It’s not that a deist God cannot interact with the world, it is that any timeless and changeless entity can, by definition, not interact with a temporal world. A timeless and changeless entity cannot possible be an interacting, theist God. Deism is the only logical possibility given a-temporality and immutability. Aristotle realised this. Unfortunately, Aquinas didn’t.

 

[cc42]

belorg:

I don’t see why there are instances where God would have to not be interacting with the world. I believe that God is always interacting with the world, but since He is outside of time He completes all of these interactions at once. So for us it seems He is interacting at every moment but for God all things are done at the same point.

I don’t think that the fact that God interacts with His creation represents a flaw. God interacts with His creation because He cares about it. I interact with my dog, car, and television set but that’s not because they’re flawed.

Again I don’t see why a timeless changeless being can’t interact with the world. I believe that He can, but perhaps you could provide Aristotle’s reasoning.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

I don’t see why there are instances where God would have to not be interacting with the world. I believe that God is always interacting with the world, but since He is outside of time He completes all of these interactions at once. So for us it seems He is interacting at every moment but for God all things are done at the same point.

Which is exactly what a deist God would do. His creative action suffices to make everything exactly the way He wants it to be.

I don’t think that the fact that God interacts with His creation represents a flaw. God interacts with His creation because He cares about it. I interact with my dog, car, and television set but that’s not because they’re flawed.

The point is that a deist God does not have to interact with His creation because, “left alone” His creation evolves in the best possible way.

Again I don’t see why a timeless changeless being can’t interact with the world. I believe that He can, but perhaps you could provide Aristotle’s reasoning.

Aristotle’s reasoning is quite simply based on a consistent view of immutability and timelessness. For Aristotle, God (or the Prime Mover) is truly timeless and truly immutable. He does not belive the pseudo-timeless and pseudo-immutable God of Theism makes any sense.

 

[cc42]

belorg:

I don’t think that it is a limit on God that He interacts with His creation, it should rather be seen as an interest. If we ahve free will and He wants to have a relation with us then it is logically required that He interact with the world. It isn’t because of lack of power it is because of His desire.

I understand that you are saying that God is timeless and changeless, but I still don’t see why that prevents Him from interacting with the world, even if Aristotle did. It seems like an assertion but I don’t follow it.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

I don’t think that it is a limit on God that He interacts with His creation, it should rather be seen as an interest. If we ahve free will and He wants to have a relation with us then it is logically required that He interact with the world. It isn’t because of lack of power it is because of His desire.

If God did everything right fropm starters, He wouldn’t need any such ‘desires’.

I understand that you are saying that God is timeless and changeless, but I still don’t see why that prevents Him from interacting with the world, even if Aristotle did. It seems like an assertion but I don’t follow it.

Any idea what ‘timeless’ and ‘immutable’ mean, cc? They are not just words that can mean just anything you want them to mean. I would think that a timeless God who can act in time (which is what ‘interfere’ or ‘interact’ means) is a clear contradiction. Claiming that a timeless entity can do so seems like an assertion to me. I have never seen any actual argument for it.

 

[cc42]

belorg:

God has desires because He is fully conscious and rational being, it isn’t matter of economy.

I think the belief that if God is timeless that He can’t act in the world as being an assertion that is need of argument. God is outside of time and He can create the universe which is a time ordered system. If He can create it then He has already interactd with it and since He is outside of time He can interact with all points of the universe at once.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

God has desires because He is fully conscious and rational being, it isn’t matter of economy.

An absolutely perfect entity cannot have desires.

I think the belief that if God is timeless that He can’t act in the world as being an assertion that is need of argument.

No, that’s just a consistent use of a definition. That’s what timeless and chnageless means. If you want it to mean something else, then the onus is on you. you have to argue for it.

God is outside of time and He can create the universe which is a time ordered system. If He can create it then He has already interactd with it and since He is outside of time He can interact with all points of the universe at once.

A timeless, changeless being cannot by definition create anything, but even if, for the sake of the argument, I concede that it can, ‘interactionwith all points at once’ is a description of the ‘actions’ of a deist God, who created everything ‘at once’ and, since He is timeless, cannot intercat with Hs ‘creation’ anymore.

 

[cc42]

belorg:

Why can a perfect entity not have desires? Because that shows He would be lacking? If that is what you are arguing I don’t think that that would show that He would be lacking because He can desire to do something not because He needs to but because He chooses to, a deistic God would have to desire that the world be created as well.

Ok, the theistic God ineracts at all points at once. Time doesn’t act upon God so He can do all His work at once. You want to say that means only acting at one time, okay but that one time would be every time because God acts at all points at once. I don’t see a problem with that for theism.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

Why can a perfect entity not have desires? Because that shows He would be lacking? If that is what you are arguing I don’t think that that would show that He would be lacking because He can desire to do something not because He needs to but because He chooses to

If He chooses to do something it is because He wants to do something. And He can only want to do something if it would be better to do it than not to do it, which is impossible, since nothing can be better than something prefect.

a deistic God would have to desire that the world be created as well.

Yes, that’s another reason why I think Aristotles God does not make sense either.

Ok, the theistic God ineracts at all points at once. Time doesn’t act upon God so He can do all His work at once. You want to say that means only acting at one time, okay but that one time would be every time because God acts at all points at once. I don’t see a problem with that for theism.

The problem is that you are describing deism. there is no sigificant diiffernce bertween what you are describing and deism. So, where is the supposedly big difference between theism and deism?

And how can such a God, who acts at all points at once, be reconciled with Catholicism?
It seems that Calvinsim is the only option here.

 

[cc42]

Belorg:

God chose to do it for our sake, not because He needed it. Creating the world was not a lacking on God’s part.

This is not deism because a deist god does not care about the world and may not even be aware of the world. A being who creates and instills is not an unware or careless being. Which is why deism is incoherent.

I don’t think that this position necessitates Calvinism (I assume you mean determinism by this). I think that God is the prime mover so causes everything to happen, but someone’s will can be caused but still be directed by that person. So free will is compatible with God being the prime mover. God acts at all points, but does not force the will.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

God chose to do it for our sake, not because He needed it. Creating the world was not a lacking on God’s part.

Logically prior to God’s creation, there was no ‘for our sake’. So God created us because He needed it. By your logic, God should create aevery possible creature, all for ‘its own sake’. That would lead to a contradiction. Fact is that the need (or call it the volition) to create something entails that the reality as it is is not complete, which contradicts God’s perfection.

This is not deism because a deist god does not care about the world and may not even be aware of the world.

The reason why a deist God does not care about the world is that this deist God knows the wolrd is necessarily OK without His care. And ‘not being aware of the woeld’ is not part of the definition of a deist God.

A being who creates and instills is not an unware or careless being. Which is why deism is incoherent.

Nobody says a desit God has to be ‘careless’.

I don’t think that this position necessitates Calvinism (I assume you mean determinism by this). I think that God is the prime mover so causes everything to happen, but someone’s will can be caused but still be directed by that person.

The bolded part will hopefully make clear why this is a huge contradiction.

So free will is compatible with God being the prime mover. God acts at all points, but does not force the will.

Then there are points at which He does not act.

 

[cc42]

belorg:

God could have decided to create us because He wanted to not because He needed to. Someone could adopt a child to help that child not because the ‘need’ to.

I am not sure what is or isn’t part of the definition but a deist god does not interact with the world for whatever reason and to me that doesn’t make sense because we are made in God’s image.

A god who doesn’t care about their creation would have to be careless.

I could tell someone to they have to pick an apple or an orange, but it doesn’t mean I made them pick the apple or the organge just that it would one or the other. Likewise God causes changes to happen which includes our choices, but we have the ability to direct what that choice is.

 

[belorg]

belorg:

God could have decided to create us because He wanted to not because He needed to. Someone could adopt a child to help that child not because the ‘need’ to.

A ‘want’ is the result of a need, cc. In the case of God there are no children to adopt. There is nothing. So the only ‘need’ is on the part of the creator.

I am not sure what is or isn’t part of the definition but a deist god does not interact with the world for whatever reason and to me that doesn’t make sense because we are made in God’s image.

Maybe it would be a good idea if you made sure what was the definition of a concept you want to discuss before you actually start discussing it.
I can assure you, there is nothing in the definition of a desit God that says a desit God cannot make things ‘in His own image’. And there is no need for a painter, who paints a picture in his own image to interact with his painting after it’s finished. In the case of a timless creator, everything has always been finished, so there is not only no reason to interact, there is no possibility to interact.

A god who doesn’t care about their creation would have to be careless.

Your view of God is far too anthropomorphic. If creation is perfect, then why would the cretor ever need to interact?

I could tell someone to they have to pick an apple or an orange, but it doesn’t mean I made them pick the apple or the organge just that it would one or the other. Likewise God causes changes to happen which includes our choices, but we have the ability to direct what that choice is.

As I said, that may be possible, but it definitely means that God does not act at all points.