The reasons why we exist?

[PRmerger]

This is true. It is also true that God could, in principle, never intervene-- no miracles, no divine intervention – and still love you; it’s just that you may not readily understand God’s reasons for never intervening in human affairs.

The same would be the case with there being no afterlife, no immortal soul – a 5-year-old might not understand why death has to be the end, but cannot claim to comprehend the ways of God.

Indeed.

That is why Catholics do not use Reason Alone to apprehend the truths of God.

So one can be a deist who believes in a loving God who does not intervene in human affairs; or a deist who believes in a sadistic God who doesn’t intervene in human affairs; or, for that matter, a deist who believes in an indifferent God who doesn’t intervene in human affairs. God’s intervention or non-intervention is a separate question from whether or not God loves us. And the same would go for not believing in a life after death – for some, it would be the dictum of a loving God; for others, of a sadistic God; for still others, of an indifferent God.

True (save for the part about being a deist who believes in a loving God–that comes from revelation, not from reason.)

So I have to ask: how does one reason to the bolded conclusion? Or reason one conclusion while excluding the others?

 

[PRmerger]

You need to explain how **all **tragedies could be prevented.

Indeed.

And why stop at “tragedies”? What about just the little things such as preventing someone from cheating at black jack? Or preventing someone from lying to her spouse? Or even stopping someone from stubbing her toe?

In the Deist worldview, in which one rejects a God who intervenes because God doesn’t prevent tragedies, why not ponder why God doesn’t stop me from having this nagging hangnail?

 

[PRmerger]

The complete non-intervention of God, however, would not itself be proof of indifference, as it sometimes seems Christians assume it to be It would be proof of indifference *by human standards * (the 5-year-old analogy). In fact, the free will argument, used to respond to the problem of evil, could support God’s complete non-intervention no less than it is used to support God’s occasional, or frequent, non-intervention.

But this is begging the question, Portofino.

You are presupposing the complete non-intervention of God.

First, if one is embracing Deism, he needs to prove the non-intervention of God.

Even one incidence of God’s intervention would prove Deism wrong…correct?

I can easily conceive of a Deist who is convinced of the existence of God – as first cause – and yet who remains agnostic as to whether that God bears love for human beings or for animals, and who remains agnostic – or who flat out does not see the evidence – that God ever intervenes in human affairs (whereas even Christians acknowledge that God sometimes, or often, doesn’t, intervene in human affairs, at least to the extent that free will is posited to be important – e.g., God didn’t make the Holocaust happen but, it is true, did not intervene to stop it from happening, because of free will).

Sure. But he would first have to explain why he rejects all the other possibilities that reason alone could conclude–i.e. the sado-masochistic god.

 

[Portofino]

Indeed.So I have to ask: how does one reason to the bolded conclusion? Or reason one conclusion while excluding the others?

One doesn’t, I don’t think. It’s an intuition or a leap of faith. In my estimation, if one used reason alone, one would be agnostic on this point, concluding that there’s “not enough information to say.”

I think a Deist like Jefferson found God to be benevolent because God – as a creator – is the source of everything good (i.e., pleasurable) in our lives. To be sure, there are bad things, but they are not without remedy – through the use of reason, for example, one can improve the lot of human beings (even death, for someone like Jefferson, was not such a terrible thing, anymore than the period before one’s birth was terrible). It is thus a “glass half full” attitude, as to all of the pleasure or joy that is possible to human beings. Insofar as God made that possible, one is thankful to God, even to a Deistic God; after all, a Deistic God gave us reason and gave us the means to all of the blessings (the good things) which we enjoy.

That’s a notion of God’s benevolence – admittedly dependent on temperament, on a “glass half full” perspective – and I’m not sure it would go so far as to say that God loves us in a human sense of the word. But, again, I think someone like Jefferson was very grateful for all of the good things in life – of which even a non-intervening God would be the source and precondition – and so could join with the Christian in saying, “thanks be to God.” And when the bad stuff happens, such a Deist could ask himself, “now how can we fix this; how can we remedy this? Thanks be to God that we have reasoning minds that enable us to do so much for ourselves, to make this world into a better and better place. We are blessed,that there are so many good things that are possibile to us; we have so many possibilities.”

 

[PRmerger]

One doesn’t, I don’t think. It’s an intuition or a leap of faith.

It appears to me to be a random decision. Or a decision in which one designs a god that conforms to my own ideas, rather than a decision that conforms to truth.

In my estimation, if one used reason alone, one would be agnostic on this point, concluding that there’s “not enough information to say.”

And this would be a self-refuting position, to use reason alone, because reason alone doesn’t prove reason alone is the only means for apprehending truth.

I think a Deist like Jefferson found God to be benevolent because God – as a creator – is the source of everything good (i.e., pleasurable) in our lives

Benevolent does not equal all-loving.

And I am not even certain that one would conclude from looking at creation that an indifferent Creator is benevolent.

 

[PRmerger]

And this would be a self-refuting position, to use reason alone, because reason alone doesn’t prove reason alone is the only means for apprehending truth.

Incidentally, reason alone seems to suggest that reason alone is an untenable position.

Using my reason I can deduce this: if one is going to apprehend the truths of this world, it’s quite reasonable to conclude that there are some truths that I cannot comprehend from my reason alone.

QED.

 

[Portofino]

But this is begging the question, Portofino.

You are presupposing the complete non-intervention of God.

First, if one is embracing Deism, he needs to prove the non-intervention of God.

Even one incidence of God’s intervention would prove Deism wrong…correct?

Yes – even one incidence of direct intervention – one miracle, let’s say – would prove Deism wrong.

I think the impasse between the Deist and the non-Deist in on where one puts the burden of proof. Thus, does one need to prove that God has intervened, or does one need to prove that God hasn’t?

The Deist believes that God’s intervention has not been proven and that the default position is to assume the negative – the non-intervention.

I’m not sure it’s begging the question – again, whether one is begging the question depends on where one places the burden of proof – but I understand why you would say this.

I don’t believe in Zeus, because I have no evidence for Zeus, but I wouldn’t say I’m begging the question on this point (though perhaps I am, strictly speaking).

How could I prove the non-intervention of Zeus or Thor…. If the burden of proof is on me, I’m a question-begger

 

[oldcelt]

Jesus was God, and as such, volunteered for an excruciatingly painful death. That’s masochism, is it not, if it was done for no reason save the pain?

Not in Deism…there God allowed Jesus to be sadistically killed.

 

[oldcelt]

But this is begging the question, Portofino.

You are presupposing the complete non-intervention of God.

First, if one is embracing Deism, he needs to prove the non-intervention of God.

Even one incidence of God’s intervention would prove Deism wrong…correct?

Sure. But he would first have to explain why he rejects all the other possibilities that reason alone could conclude–i.e. the sado-masochistic god.

No more than a Christian need prove His intervention…which is none. One incident would disprove Deism, got any handy?

 

[oldcelt]

Yes – even one incidence of direct intervention – one miracle, let’s say – would prove Deism wrong.

I think the impasse between the Deist and the non-Deist in on where one puts the burden of proof. Thus, does one need to prove that God has intervened, or does one need to prove that God hasn’t?

The Deist believes that God’s intervention has not been proven and that the default position is to assume the negative – the non-intervention.

I’m not sure it’s begging the question – again, whether one is begging the question depends on where one places the burden of proof – but I understand why you would say this.

I don’t believe in Zeus, because I have no evidence for Zeus, but I wouldn’t say I’m begging the question on this point (though perhaps I am, strictly speaking).

How could I prove the non-intervention of Zeus or Thor…. If the burden of proof is on me, I’m a question-begger

It is an impasse, the same as it is in any systems that believe in the un-provable.

 

[nmgauss]

Jesus was God, and as such, volunteered for an excruciatingly painful death. That’s masochism, is it not, if it was done for no reason save the pain?

If God the Father begot His only son, Jesus, and that son is God, can we say that Jesus is His own Father? Is God the Father His own son? This reminds of the country-western tune, “I’m my own grandpa”.

A sadist gets pleasure from inflicting pain. A masochist gets pleasure, often sexual, from receiving. If God inflicts pain purposefully on a human, he is neither sadist or masochist. What other term is more appropriate? Did Jesus volunteer to be crucified? Do you suppose that He experienced some sort of satisfaction in being tortured on the cross?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes – even one incidence of direct intervention – one miracle, let’s say – would prove Deism wrong.

So let’s use reason to flesh this out…

For Deism to be true it would have to assert that there has never been a single incidence of the direct intervention of God in humanity. In the entirety of our existence…for millenia, a deist would have to know that God has never intervened. Ever.

How can Deism assert this?

 

[PRmerger]

The Deist believes that God’s intervention has not been proven and that the default position is to assume the negative – the non-intervention.

Only if one ignores the possibility of a sado-masochistic god.

I don’t believe in Zeus, because I have no evidence for Zeus, but I wouldn’t say I’m begging the question on this point (though perhaps I am, strictly speaking).

How could I prove the non-intervention of Zeus or Thor…. If the burden of proof is on me, I’m a question-begger

AFAIK, no historical text has ever claimed the intervention of Zeus or Thor. All cultures who embraced these mythical gods understood them to be mythical.

 

[PRmerger]

Not in Deism…there God allowed Jesus to be sadistically killed.

So why do you not claim that God is a sadist?

How can you as someone who rejects the Judeo-Christian paradigm of a loving God reject the possibility of a God who is a sadist?

Do you not see how you are simply creating a god who conforms to your own tastes, rather than conforming your views to reality?

If you use reason alone to apprehend the world, then you must, by reason, exclude all possibilities.

How is it that you know God is not a sadist?

 

[Portofino]

So let’s use reason to flesh this out…

For Deism to be true it would have to assert that there has never been a single incidence of the direct intervention of God in humanity. In the entirety of our existence…for millenia, a deist would have to know that God has never intervened. Ever.

How can Deism assert this?

What I understand Deism to be saying is, “in the entirety of our existence…for millennia, there has been no definitive evidence that God has intervened.” They’re placing the burden of proof on those who would positively affirm that God has intervened in human affairs.

Obviously, to state the obvious, they are not convinced in the doctrine of the incarnation or by claims of miracles, either miracles past or present present.

I suppose a good Deist would confirm that yes, it’s possible that God did intervene and that no one realized it.

As regards Zeus and Thor, there were gods that were believed by the ancients to intercede on behalf of humans – Isis, for example, who was a goddess both in Egypt and in ancient Rome. So that’s all I’m saying – I can’t prove that Isis has not intervened, nor can I disprove that Isis exists.

 

[PRmerger]

No more than a Christian need prove His intervention…

No, oldcelt. That is not our paradigm. We do not embrace Reason Alone.

Rather, we embrace that which Pascal proffered: “Two errors: to exclude reason; to include only reason.”

 

[PRmerger]

If God inflicts pain purposefully on a human, he is neither sadist or masochist.

He would be a sadist, nmgauss.

When Christ endured the Crucifixion for no purpose whatsoever, he would be a masochist.

What other term is more appropriate?

Perhaps “monster”?

Did Jesus volunteer to be crucified?

Absolutely, he did.

Do you suppose that He experienced some sort of satisfaction in being tortured on the cross?

Probably the thought that he conquered evil would provide some sort of satisfaction.

 

[PRmerger]

What I understand Deism to be saying is, “in the entirety of our existence…for millennia, there has been no definitive evidence that God has intervened.” They’re placing the burden of proof on those who would positively affirm that God has intervened in human affairs.

But they profess that God exists, and that he is removed from the world he created.

I still have not found a coherent response from any deist as to why they reject the possibility that God exists and that he purposely inflicts pain and suffering upon creation.

Why do they not entertain this possibility?

Obviously, to state the obvious, they are not convinced in the doctrine of the incarnation or by claims of miracles, either miracles past or present present.

Right.

I suppose a good Deist would confirm that yes, it’s possible that God did intervene and that no one realized it.

So they would be more of an agnostic deist, rather than a proclaimer that God has no interest whatsoever in humanit.

As regards Zeus and Thor, there were gods that were believed by the ancients to intercede on behalf of humans – Isis, for example, who was a goddess both in Egypt and in ancient Rome. So that’s all I’m saying – I can’t prove that Isis has not intervened, nor can I disprove that Isis exists.

My understanding is that all ancient cultures understood the gods to be mythological explanations for human events. That they prayed or worshipped them was human ritual for “just in case they’re real”.

 

[nmgauss]

He would be a sadist, nmgauss.

This implies that pleasure would be the motive for doing it. Do you suppose God would derive pleasure from being cruel?

When Christ endured the Crucifixion for no purpose whatsoever, he would be a masochist

.
Only if it was pleasurable to him. In other words the experience was more pleasurable than painful.

Perhaps “monster”?

How about brute, fiend, savage?

Absolutely, he did.

As to crucifixion, Jesus did not choose to be crucified. Pontius Pilate chose this form of execution. The form of execution used–crucifixion-- establishes that Jesus was condemned as a violator of Roman, not Jewish, law.

 

[PRmerger]

This implies that pleasure would be the motive for doing it. Do you suppose God would derive pleasure from being cruel?

Have you been following this discussion, nmgauss? It appears that you are not immersed in the dialogue from the question you ask.

But to answer your question: I reject the concept of God being a sadist. That is because I am a Christian.

However, a deist must answer the question as to why he doesn’t embrace this possibility. Deism professes that God doesn’t intervene at all. But it doesn’t offer any explanation as to how it’s not possible that God is a sadist.

How about brute, fiend, savage?

Yes. Those would be appropriate nouns to describe the non-Christian God.

Pontius Pilate chose this form of execution. .

How do you know this?