Deism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Freethinker43
Student
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:18 pm

Deism

Post #1

Post by Freethinker43 »

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Post #81

Post by American Deist »

hoghead1 wrote: Yes, but see, if God has no body, then I have something God doesn't, hasn't experienced, and therefore I transcend God.
And? How do we know God never had a body? Maybe God did and ascended to a higher state of being. Don't make presumptions.
hoghead1 wrote:Also when you call God "intelligent," you, too, are anthropomorphizing God. If human attributes cannot be ascribed to God, then forget "intelligence," as that as a very human attribute.
My German Shepherd is also intelligent, and it is not human. Intelligence is not limited to human beings.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Post #82

Post by William »

[Replying to post 79 by American Deist]

Do you think such could be accomplished without any idea of GOD at all, or will it require the deist idea of GOD to accomplish this?

I think if any idea of GOD is to be useful it has to require more than just some distant non-participating entity. I do not see anything of significant difference in a deists position and an atheists, apart from that one lacks and the other does not lack a belief in GOD existing.

Apart from that, the nature of the deist idea of GOD is that one might as well lack belief in it for all the good it is able to do.

I may of course have the wrong end of the stick, but you are the first personality I have encountered who self identifies as deist and in that you may not even be the greatest advocate anyway.

Each to their own of course. The deist idea of GOD does not appear to acknowledge the different layers where other aspects of that GOD reside between that GOD and human beings...so in that, I find it to be lacking.

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Post #83

Post by American Deist »

William wrote: I think if any idea of GOD is to be useful it has to require more than just some distant non-participating entity.
If we have free will, which I believe in, then said deity does not have to participate. We are not automatons.
William wrote: I do not see anything of significant difference in a deists position and an atheists, apart from that one lacks and the other does not lack a belief in GOD existing.
Pretty much.
William wrote: Apart from that, the nature of the deist idea of GOD is that one might as well lack belief in it for all the good it is able to do.
Deists honor God as the Creator. We give thanks for life. However, we do not pray in order to ask for things. Anything I receive in this life will be because of my effort.
William wrote: Each to their own of course. The deist idea of GOD does not appear to acknowledge the different layers where other aspects of that GOD reside between that GOD and human beings...so in that, I find it to be lacking.
Deists typically reject divine revelation, which is the ONLY way that other religions "know" anything about God. If you study history, you find where one is just a copycat of what came before. It persists to this day.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #84

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 81 by American Deist]

When you attribute "intelligence" to your dog, yes, you are anthropomorphizing your dog.

I find no evidence of a higher state of being than having a body. If no body, then no extension; and if no extension, then no entity. True, major schools of Hellenic philosophy, especially Plato, had a great deal of distain for the world of time and physicality, enshrined the immaterial and the immutable. But I do not share that disdain, view it as an undue prejudice.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Post #85

Post by William »

[Replying to post 84 by hoghead1]
When you attribute "intelligence" to your dog, yes, you are anthropomorphizing your dog.
This is not true. What you are doing is acknowledging intelligence because that is what is observed.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Post #86

Post by William »

American Deist wrote:
William wrote: I think if any idea of GOD is to be useful it has to require more than just some distant non-participating entity.
If we have free will, which I believe in, then said deity does not have to participate. We are not automatons.


I think that in the fact of free will, this is relative to the environment and has much to do with providing at least circumstantial evidence that GOD is indeed involved intimately with this universe, through that connection.
William wrote: I do not see anything of significant difference in a deists position and an atheists, apart from that one lacks and the other does not lack a belief in GOD existing.
Pretty much.
Therefore it could be seen as a type of atheist manoeuvre in order to claim that there is a GOD but that GOD is irrelevant in relation to individuals and the universe. This is apparent in some of your arguments, which atheists also use. You are simply defining a GOD for atheism - a God one can have when there is no GOD at all.
William wrote: Apart from that, the nature of the deist idea of GOD is that one might as well lack belief in it for all the good it is able to do.
Deists honor God as the Creator.
All well and good. There is an intelligent designer behind the process of the formation of the universe but it was set in motion and left to its own device...like an automation.
We give thanks for life.
Consciousness is able to do this (depending on the ability of the form it is within), because consciousness IS life.
However, we do not pray in order to ask for things.
Anything I receive in this life will be because of my effort.
Not the truth at all. Here is a graphic example of this {LINK} (youtube video 2:00)
William wrote: Each to their own of course. The deist idea of GOD does not appear to acknowledge the different layers where other aspects of that GOD reside between that GOD and human beings...so in that, I find it to be lacking.
Deists typically reject divine revelation, which is the ONLY way that other religions "know" anything about God. If you study history, you find where one is just a copycat of what came before. It persists to this day.
What I find in this is contradiction. Deists claim GOD does not intervene, is not personal and any such thing which someone understands as 'answer to prayer' is 'just coincidence'.

If intelligence is seen to be active within the ongoing process of creation, then that intelligence is not simply mechanical as an AI program which is fixed. The intelligence is GOD within the creation.

All consciousness within the creation was not created BY the proces of the creation. It is GOD within the creation, and one cannot get more personal than that.

Serendipity and synchronicity are not merely coincidences without conscious directive. Only consciousness can identify and experiences this and assigning agency to such events is the logical thing to do - as a deist does with evolution. To not do it in relation to the events which coincide with evolution is to contradict oneself.

If you can recognize intelligent design within the creation, you need also to recognize it within the 'coincidences' for the coinciding events are the parts of the whole process and cannot be distinguished as separate as they are all the same process.

Without some aspect of GODs intelligence being within creation, it would be a lifeless, purposeless, conscious-less dead thing.

I do not disagree that GOD exists outside the universe, but neither do I think that the universe could be seen as an intelligent process which also has intelligence within it without some aspect of the external GOD being involved internally - inside of the universe, essentially giving it LIFE.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #87

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to William]

No, you are projecting a human attribute onto the dog. And the same holds if you say the dog is hungry or thirsty. Again, you are projecting what you know of your experiences, what you are most familiar with, onto the dog.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Post #88

Post by William »

[Replying to post 87 by hoghead1]

Intelligence is not just a human attribute.

Dogs are obviously intelligent.

User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Post #89

Post by American Deist »

William wrote: You are simply defining a GOD for atheism - a God one can have when there is no GOD at all.
Negative, as atheists do not believe in God, period. Deists do believe in God. Big difference.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #90

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 88 by William]

When we say that dogs are intelligent, we have read our mental states into the dog. That is necessary and that is anthropomorphizing, generalizing from what we are familiar with, our human existence, to the dog's mind. And because it is anthropomorphizing, those scientists, such as behaviorists, who are against any and al anthropomorphizing, would not attribute intelligence or anything else to the dog. They would just describe external behavior. That's why Skinner used the neutral terms positive and negative "reinforces," not "rewards" or "punishments," as the latter would be anthropomorphizing.

Post Reply