Deism!

[The Nihilist]

To my deist friends, I'd like to ask the following question:


Are you guys serious? I don't know if you know, but the 18th century is over, and no one cares about the first cause argument anymore. And while no one has all the answers, it's pretty clear by now that science is better at coming up with better answers than any philosophy, and science does not require the supposition of any god. The god of deism is superfluous. Come into the fold; go get a red lightsabre, start eating kittens, and become atheists. (If you must, you can be agnostic, but we're just going to have to have this same talk again.)

Or have I missed something?

 

[Chesterton]

It might help to get them into the fold if you could explain to them where science says the universe came from.

 

[The Nihilist]

Granted, we're not there yet. At there's a way to have knowledge about where the universe came from, rather than just belief, it's through science.

 

[Sphinx777]

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in what is now the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. It included some of the Unitarian ideas that emerged with Socinianism around 1574. Initially deism did not form any congregations, but in time it strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism and Universalism. Many ideas of modern secularism were developed by deists. Two forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To my deist friends, I'd like to ask the following question:


Are you guys serious?

Pretty much.

I don't know if you know, but the 18th century is over, and no one cares about the first cause argument anymore.

Most gnostic theists adhere to it.

And while no one has all the answers, it's pretty clear by now that science is better at coming up with better answers than any philosophy, and science does not require the supposition of any god.

Not yet.

The god of deism is superfluous. Come into the fold; go get a red lightsabre, start eating kittens, and become atheists. (If you must, you can be agnostic, but we're just going to have to have this same talk again.)

Or have I missed something?

Perhaps that scathing vitriol towards someone's position doesn't exactly enamour them to you?

 

[The Nihilist]

Pretty much.


Most gnostic theists adhere to it.


Not yet.


Perhaps that scathing vitriol towards someone's position doesn't exactly enamour them to you?

If it wasn't obvious, I'm just playing. (That was what the suggestion about eating cats was supposed to indicate.) In all seriousness, though, why Deism? Why do you think a god isn't superfluous?

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Prove God doesn't exist (using science).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If it wasn't obvious, I'm just playing. (That was what the suggestion about eating cats was supposed to indicate.

Poe's Law strikes again.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

In all seriousness, though, why Deism?

They think the universe requires an intelligence to create it, but don't think such a being (or beings) interfere with us humans in the way most religions describe.
But that's just the definition. Perhaps they subscribe to this view because of the teleological argument, or the ontological argument, or the Kalam argument.

Why do you think a god isn't superfluous?

Presumably, for the same reason as every other theist: they think, for whatever reason, that there must be a god.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Prove God doesn't exist (using science).

Prove God does exist (using science).

 

[nolongerhome]

As an agnostic, I'm interested in to what my version of "the talk" is

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Prove God does exist (using science).

I'm not the one suggesting science has a direct bearing on the existence God...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not the one suggesting science has a direct bearing on the existence God...

Neither is anyone else. Either god exists, or he doesn't. Scientific discoveries are unlikely to make him poof into (or out of) existence. It's not even clear if science can ascertain whether he exists, let alone cause him to exist (or cease to exist).

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Neither is anyone else.

Perhaps I missed the point of the OPs post where he said "...it's pretty clear by now that science is better at coming up with better answers than any philosophy, and science does not require the supposition of any god. The god of deism is superfluous."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Perhaps I missed the point of the OPs post where he said "...it's pretty clear by now that science is better at coming up with better answers than any philosophy, and science does not require the supposition of any god. The god of deism is superfluous."

Where did the OP say that science has a direct impact on the existence of God? Where did the OP say that scientific discoveries can cause God to be non-existent?

 

[The Nihilist]

Perhaps I missed the point of the OPs post where he said "...it's pretty clear by now that science is better at coming up with better answers than any philosophy, and science does not require the supposition of any god. The god of deism is superfluous."

You did. The philosophy section is for grownups, go play somewhere else.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Granted, we're not there yet. At there's a way to have knowledge about where the universe came from, rather than just belief, it's through science.

Well, you just hit the nail on the head, as soon as science explains it, I'll abandon the first cause theory. Deal?

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, you just hit the nail on the head, as soon as science explains it, I'll abandon the first cause theory. Deal?

Why assume a first cause, when an infinite causal chain works just as well?
More than that, though, your argument is wrong. Betting on a god of the gaps has never worked out well, and it's always losing ground. But let me ask you, when a tree falls on a house, do you just assume that little fairies did it until you have good evidence that they didn't? If not, why make the same assumption for the universe?

 

[nolongerhome]

As an agnostic, I'm interested in to what my version of "the talk" is

Nihilist?

 

[The Nihilist]

As an agnostic, I'm interested in to what my version of "the talk" is

Oh, it's something we do every 18 months or so here. It's basically that it's silly to say you're agnostic, and that you should be atheist. There's more to it, but I've been drinking.

 

[nolongerhome]

Oh, it's something we do every 18 months or so here. It's basically that it's silly to say you're agnostic, and that you should be atheist. There's more to it, but I've been drinking.

I would really like to hear it, though. I quite like being agnostic.