What reasoning allows for the transition from Deism to Theism?

I don't know that it amounts to an argument, per se, but many (most?) religions rely on divine revelation.

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

This may not be exactly parallel, per se; but I kind of already approached this topic elsewhere. Result? 30+ pages which went nowhere:

"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

I think what it usually comes down to is, there is no proof the Universe was designed or created, so people who make the leap that not only was it created, but created by their God of choice is something people believe via faith not empirical evidence. If I have faith in something, that faith will only work for me; not everybody else.

cvanwey said:

This may not be exactly parallel, per se; but I kind of already approached this topic elsewhere. Result? 30+ pages which went nowhere:

"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

Click to expand...

30 pages which went nowhere? You wouldn't be making the assumption that because nobody was converted to another way of thinking, that the conversation went nowhere would you?

SocratesNow said:

That's absolutely true, although it's also true that "divine revelation" simply isn't a reliable standard for receiving truth, since there are millions upon millions of individuals who receive totally contradictory "revelations", such as a Muslim, and a Catholic both feeling that God told them that their separate denominations are God's one true church and no other denomination is.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if the point was only for God to touch the person, to overwhelm them with a personal experience that pulls them away from some feeling of reductive atheism. But that the people just take the experience way too far and start making up a bunch of connected dots that aren’t really there.

Whether you believe there’s any merit or not in Biblical prophets proving themselves (which is obviously a whole different topic), at least the Biblical prophets were expected to prove their claims inside the framework of strict Biblical rules of being a true prophet

Ken-1122 said:

30 pages which went nowhere? You wouldn't be making the assumption that because nobody was converted to another way of thinking, that the conversation went nowhere would you?

Click to expand...

No one seemed to further their positive case for theism, namely Christianity. So, in a nutshell, even if I was to concede a great many arguments, it still appears, that at least the ones whom engaged, weren't able to present sufficient rationale for why they believe what they believe, as Christians.

cvanwey said:

No one seemed to further their positive case for theism, namely Christianity. So, in a nutshell, even if I was to concede a great many arguments, it still appears, that at least the ones whom engaged, weren't able to present sufficient rationale for why they believe what they believe, as Christians.

Click to expand...

Some people like having their beliefs challenged, some people like learning how and why other people think the way they do. Furthering a personal agenda is not the only way a conversation can go somewhere.

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

Well a deist is a theist as a deist believes in a being that created the universe. A theist does not have to believe in a personal , involved loving God. Not only Deists but AFAIK every polytheist religion does not make either interventionist of loving a requirement for a god. Some of the polytheist gods are as apathetic as the Deist clockmaker deity and some of them are completely malevolent and not at all loving. I think the question you are attempting to ask is only related to the other monotheists not to theists in general. AFAIK all but the Deists of the monotheists believe in an interventionist loving God.

I'm an atheist (lack belief in god(s)).

I understand that there are many people who believe in various gods and I understand that there are various sacred texts for many of the gods.

As I understand it, many of these beliefs ascribe miracles or things that don't obey the laws of physics or nature e.g. walking on water, coming back from the dead etc. Hence special pleading e.g. unbelievable things that are accepted as having happened just this once in this one special case.

I have often wondered why people believe in gods, maybe it is drilled into them as a child? Maybe it is circumstantial (perhaps an unlikely event happened) maybe in times of turmoil a person "felt" a presence???

But that's one thing. Then it comes to the topic of this thread.
How do they go from "well the universe must have had a beginning as it is impossible to get something from nothing so there must have been an all powerful god that created it all" to "and I know that god is Zeus, or Allah, or Tane, or Yahway or Brahma or etc"


But then they also go beyond that to "I know my god exists, but I won't ever see or hear my god, I will never find evidence for my god, my universe will behave in a way as if there is no god, and yet my god definitely exists"

Then they go to
"Even though my god is "hidden" and never speaks, I can know what my god wants because I can use logic. Even though my god is a personality, I can predict my gods wants and desires just by doing logic, as if my god was a preprogrammed machine, always logically consistent, always perfect.

Personally I don't know how to reconcile a "logically consistent, always perfect" and predictable thing with a personality, a consciousness capable of making wise decisions. It seems we are trying to make the argument that a conscious intelligent life is no better than a pre-programmed predictable machine.

Anyway, back onto topic. It is interesting to understand how people go from "there is a god" to "...and that god is..."

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

Is this an Axiological inquiry? It doesn't look like it ...

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is the question of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

Why is "reasonably" important?

My understanding is that theistic belief comes as a gift of grace, in the Christian understanding. Its not reasoned-toward at all.

SocratesNow said:

In that case then yes, I agree it is overly broad to subject the entirety of deism to this question, for the reasons you laid out, although I feel that the question is equally as relevant from the perspective of monotheistic apologists or defenders, such as Frank Turek speaking on Christianity. And for the record, in case there's any confusion, Merriam-Webster defines Deism as ": a movement or system of thought advocating natural (see NATURAL entry 1 sense 8b) religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe", while Theism is defined as "
: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Click to expand...

Theism as defined in the Merriam-Webster below. Including the part you failed to quote. IMO the piece of their definition you provided which defines it as including fewer religious POV's than Monotheism would, is incorrect and M-W is wrong to include that in the definition. When you look up monotheism in M-W the definition is "the belief that there is only one God.". It is quite strange to have a less inclusive definition for a more general term( theism) than it is for a subset of that term (monotheism). Using Theism to represent only Abrahamic style Monotheism is simply wrong from my perspective. IMO one cannot contrast Deism to Theism as Deism is a subset of Theism. To me, your question makes no more sense than asking What reasoning allows for the transition from Belgians to Human Beings. If you wish to ask people how a Deist could use reason to see the Creator as a benevolent interventionist God, don't conflate bother using the word theism as both Deism and the monotheistic religions where God is a loving interventionist are theists in nature. The opposite of theism is atheism not deism. Deists are theists they are not atheists, nor are they agnostic.
theism
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

the·ism | \ ˈthē-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of theism


: belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world


To answer your question as I believe you intended it to be asked. One can use reason to convince oneself of anything one decides to convince oneself of. Reason always starts with a set of assumptions. Let us assume that for the most part we have similar sets of basic assumptions already in common between Deist and monotheists of the loving interventionist God types before continuing further. From there, if one assumes a Creator, as Deism does, Then one only might also assume that a Creator would be interested in what that Creator created using the reason that otherwise why create at all? Then one can reason that if one is interested in something because one took the time and effort to cause it to be, one is likely to care about it rather than be indifferent toward it and at the least be curious as to what it is up to. It is not likely that one would create something just to be scornful of it or to be hateful toward it. So, if one is interested enough to create a thing and curious enough to want to follow its progress, one is also likely to be inclined to see to it that it does not come to any lasting harm. If that is the case then one would likely be inclined to interact with one's creation for the good of that creation.

stevil said:

I'm an atheist (lack belief in god(s)).

I understand that there are many people who believe in various gods and I understand that there are various sacred texts for many of the gods.

As I understand it, many of these beliefs ascribe miracles or things that don't obey the laws of physics or nature e.g. walking on water, coming back from the dead etc. Hence special pleading e.g. unbelievable things that are accepted as having happened just this once in this one special case.

I have often wondered why people believe in gods, maybe it is drilled into them as a child? Maybe it is circumstantial (perhaps an unlikely event happened) maybe in times of turmoil a person "felt" a presence???

But that's one thing. Then it comes to the topic of this thread.
How do they go from "well the universe must have had a beginning as it is impossible to get something from nothing so there must have been an all powerful god that created it all" to "and I know that god is Zeus, or Allah, or Tane, or Yahway or Brahma or etc"


But then they also go beyond that to "I know my god exists, but I won't ever see or hear my god, I will never find evidence for my god, my universe will behave in a way as if there is no god, and yet my god definitely exists"

Then they go to
"Even though my god is "hidden" and never speaks, I can know what my god wants because I can use logic. Even though my god is a personality, I can predict my gods wants and desires just by doing logic, as if my god was a preprogrammed machine, always logically consistent, always perfect.

Personally I don't know how to reconcile a "logically consistent, always perfect" and predictable thing with a personality, a consciousness capable of making wise decisions. It seems we are trying to make the argument that a conscious intelligent life is no better than a pre-programmed predictable machine.

Anyway, back onto topic. It is interesting to understand how people go from "there is a god" to "...and that god is..."

Click to expand...

You are not correct in thinking that a Deist would say to him/herself "I know my god exists, ( omitted part they would say) I will never find evidence for my god, my universe will behave in a way as if there is no god, and yet my god definitely exists". I think that a Deist would say that he/she does find evidence of the existence of a creator/god and the universe behaves as that creator/god desined it to behave before ignoring it thereafter.

Otherwise you make good points in relation to the question of the OP.

SocratesNow said:

No, it is not an axiological inquiry, and it is not intended to be one. I am simply wondering at a common jump from deism to theism, in the sense that once an individual feels that it has been established that there was an intelligent creation of the universe (itself a highly debatable point), they have established that the God of Christianity or Islam or Judaism is the one true God who condones their religious beliefs and their beliefs alone, and is also directly involved in our lives when it comes to various matters.

Click to expand...

Ok. That's somewhat reasonable, but I was just wondering if you were paying attention to the overall context in which you've embedded the subject of your thread ...

SocratesNow said:

The debate about God's existence is a common one. However, one issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed with enough focus, is thequestion of what arguments can be used to show how the belief that there was a first creator, an intelligent designer of the universe, can be reasonably translated into a belief in a theistic, or directly and lovingly interventionist God. I'm curious what all of your opinions are on this question, and hope to allow for some productive discussion in seeking the truth of this matter!

Click to expand...

I believe the earliest known monotheism was introduced in Egypt by Akenhaten in the 1300 BC era. As I recall, the Hebrews didn't become monotheists until about 1000 BC. But the OT God is only loving and forgiving towards those who properly obey and revere him. The Bible states God is jealous and can be angry, and vindictive towards those who worship other gods and ignore his commandments.

I suspect the idea of one god who is involved in the world, has a loving nature, but demands righteousness and obedience is based in 2 aspects of human psychology:

1) Belief in a caring and benevolent supreme being provides peace of mind. Especially in the ancient world--when everyday life was hard and uncertain--it's comforting to believe in an all-powerful deity who loves you and will protect you. Which basically is wishful thinking.

2) Belief in an authoritarian, imperious, and fearful supreme being, who punishes wrongdoers comes from a need to maintain social order. I think it was largely invented by the priestly class to keep the tribe well-behaved and cohesive. (The word religion derives from the Latin re-ligare, to tie together.) It exists to reinforce tribal bonds. And it keeps the priesthood in power.