How do you know that there is a deist god?

[TruePathFinder]

As I understand Deism, god put creation in motion and then withdrew to let it develop on its own. He was the first cause. How do you know that that god exists?

 

[WalterTrull]

Doesn't

 

[columbus]

As I understand Deism, god put creation in motion and then withdrew to let it develop on its own. He was the first cause. How do you know that that god exists?

Here's how I see it.
The reason that there is something, rather than nothing, can be called God. That's the end of it.
Nothing about God wants this or that. God doesn't have wishes or plans that can be thwarted. God just is.

Tom

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As I understand Deism, god put creation in motion and then withdrew to let it develop on its own. He was the first cause. How do you know that that god exists?

We don't. There are only two reasonable positions on how the universe came to be--spontaneously or by a divine initiation. For us in this natural, rational universe, the only difference for us between atheism and deism, is hope.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It would be a lot nicer to see something that can be confirmed as being created rather than formed naturally.

I'm not sold on intelligent design brought about by a deity, but if a person is a theist at least deism is a step up in the right direction.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It would be a lot nicer to see something that can be confirmed as being created rather than formed naturally.

How was the universe formed naturally?

 

[Twilight Hue]

How was the universe formed naturally?

Don't know. But I haven't yet seen anything unnatural about it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Don't know. But I haven't yet seen anything unnatural about it.

Since that nature started at the Big Bang, or at least there's absolutely no natural evidence from before, we can assume neither a natural or supernatural cause that initiated it. It's the ultimate impetus behind philosophical agnosticism vis a vis God.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

We don't. There are only two reasonable positions on how the universe came to be--spontaneously or by a divine initiation. For us in this natural, rational universe, the only difference for us between atheism and deism, is hope.

I would say a third reasonable position is the universe came to be through highly advanced science, perhaps by human scientists in the far future.

This third position would therefore be a natural cause since scientists are part of nature.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I would say a third reasonable position is the universe came to be through highly advanced science, perhaps by human scientists in the far future.

This third position would therefore be a natural cause since scientists are part of nature.

Highly advanced science where? When? This universe in the future? That future of our universe, and we, still have a common beginning. That's like going back in time an killing yourself. That's probably why the timeline of our universe is solid and immutable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's how I see it.
The reason that there is something, rather than nothing, can be called God.

On what grounds?

What are you assuming "God" to mean that it would capture any "reason that there is something?"

 

[tayla]

As I understand Deism, god put creation in motion and then withdrew to let it develop on its own. He was the first cause. How do you know that that god exists?

Deism is no better at proving the existence of God than any other religious belief. And logic can't prove God either.

 

[osgart]

Deism is no better at proving the existence of God than any other religious belief. And logic can't prove God either.

Are you a God believer?

 

[columbus]

On what grounds?

On the grounds that there is something, not nothing. It's excruciatingly simple.

What are you assuming "God" to mean that it would capture any "reason that there is something?"

I don't pretend to know anything important about "God".
I don't assume anything about God. I am, for all practical purposes, an atheist. Not because I don't believe in God. Rather, because I don't believe in religion.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the grounds that there is something, not nothing. It's excruciatingly simple.

“There is something, not nothing, therefore God created the universe?” Doesn’t seem logically coherent to me.

I don't pretend to know anything important about "God".
I don't assume anything about God.

You assume that God is the reason we have “something.” Why assume this reason is something rightly called “God?” Why assume it was only one thing (“God” as opposed to “Gods” or “gods”)?

I am, for all practical purposes, an atheist. Not because I don't believe in God. Rather, because I don't believe in religion.
Tom

If you believe in a god, then you fail the only requirement for atheism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

On the grounds that there is something, not nothing. It's excruciatingly simple.

Hm. Maybe if I poke you, Id get something.

If a child came to you as his parent and sees a toy in front of him, he may ask who gave him the toy. You could say you did. Thats fine. Say the toy is there and you, nor your husband, nor the nieghbor john down the street put it there.

Your son asks you who gave him the toy and you say god

By what logic can the child derive meaning between the toy in front of him and someone only known by a name?

Pretend those of us who dont believe in any gods are children.

The toy being there isnt enough to satisfy the childs curiousity. He wants something he can understand and make sense of the nature of his toys existence and the "name" that gave it to him.

Can you explain to your child how the name say santa is responsible for the gift. No imagination. Connect the dots.

Deist to me is more confusing. Religious explain god via culture, history , and practice. How does a deist explain god?

 

[tayla]

Are you a God believer?

Yes, very much so, deist monotheist agnostic panentheist. From my about me page:

These words (from my religion) have multiple meanings. My use of them...

1. Deist -- I reject (for myself) revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths. I reject revealed truth claims from these.
   
2. Monotheist -- I believe in one God, the creator of everything good and beautiful, a personal God with whom I have a moment by moment personal relationship.
   
3. Agnostic -- I don't believe we can know anything about the structure and functioning of the spiritual realm.
   
4. Panentheist -- I believe God indwells and inhabits everything that exists, material and spiritual.

 

[osgart]

Yes, very much so, deist monotheist agnostic panentheist. From my about me page:

These words (from my religion) have multiple meanings. My use of them...

1. Deist -- I reject (for myself) revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths. I reject revealed truth claims from these.
   
2. Monotheist -- I believe in one God, the creator of everything good and beautiful, a personal God with whom I have a moment by moment personal relationship.
   
3. Agnostic -- I don't believe we can know anything about the structure and functioning of the spiritual realm.
   
4. Panentheist -- I believe God indwells and inhabits everything that exists, material and spiritual.

But you dont take it on logic or proof?

Perhaps experience then.

 

[tayla]

But you dont take it on logic or proof?

Perhaps experience then.

Anything I believe that is not provable by the scientific method operating within it's proper domain is based on unprovable evidence. Yes, it just seems right to me. And it gives me hope. And it explains things.

 

[osgart]

Anything I believe that is not provable by the scientific method operating within it's proper domain is based on unprovable evidence. Yes, it just seems right to me. And it gives me hope. And it explains things.

Thankyou for responding . I base a lot of my beliefs on the eternal through my experiences. It goes right past my mind and into my heart. Like when i hear beautiful music, like i like enya, it brings out the irish in me.