Deists: Please explain why you are a deist and what attributes you put on god.

[True Scotsman]

I've learned that when Atheist demand proof they don't really want it.

Lucky for you since you can't offer any.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see the issue in acknowledging the existence of deists.

They may exist, and self-described deists do exist, but trying to link their beliefs to those of Deists in the past, to give Deists intellectual credence, is tenuous because Deists believed so many different things.

If one looks at the reality of the world we live in, the deist God has a higher degree of probability than the Christian God, IMO.

The reality of the world we live in? What does that mean? I'll tell you what, there's suffering in the world but also happiness. And sometimes strangely enough, the suffering in the world is transformed into happiness, particularly if we live in ways that are transformational and mindful. So it's hard to say the world is so bad that a benevolent deity could not exist, unless you simply dismiss the potential inherent in our existence as rational creatures with the freedom to choose our values.

If God is benevolent, why would he not be involved in the world in some way? No, I simply don't see Deism as plausible. Even existing as a moral influence, is involvement in this world. Existing as a judge of the afterlife, is involvement in this world. If God exists, he has to be relevant in a personal way to everything he creates. He has to be available. And this is possible for him to do, because he is God.

There are religions, BTW, that do not believe in a Creator in the classical Christian sense, but they do believe in a supreme being involved in the world. Certain forms of process theism (Unitarian and Christian), or certain Buddhist traditions (Jodo Shinshu), for instance. I find this much more plausible than suggesting that a benevolent supreme being created the universe, then abandoned it. Indeed, if this being is supposed to be reasonable, I just don't see why this is reasonable.

 

[quatona]

I've learned that when Atheist demand proof they don't really want it.

How exactly did you learn this?
Your almost makes it sound like you gave them proof and they rejected it.

 

[Gottservant]

Theism and deism are fundamentally opposed.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism); belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

No, sorry.

I believe in a God who sacrificed His life in Heaven to create Earth, but remains indifferent to whether or not He enjoys Heaven and therefore remains indifferent to what He created within the context of that personal relationship.

This is impossible if and only if you posit that he has no personal desire for His creation to be indifferent also (and thereby share that indifference with others in a personal way).

 

[FreedByte]

No, sorry.

I defined two terms. How can that be responded to with "no"?

 

[Gottservant]

I defined two terms. How can that be responded to with "no"?

Heard of the Zen remark "mu"?

You are creating an opposition which fails when the context is expressed as a continuum of possibility.

That you find someone pointing this out offensive, speaks of your unwillingness to do anything but trap people who answer your question.

 

[jacknife]

Heard of the Zen remark "mu"?

You are creating an opposition which fails when the context is expressed as a continuum of possibility.

That you find someone pointing this out offensive, speaks of your unwillingness to do anything but trap people who answer your question.

could you expand on this?

 

[FreedByte]

That you find someone pointing this out offensive

I don't find it offensive, I find it illogical. You're just redefining established terms.

 

[Gottservant]

could you expand on this?

in what way? the mu remark?

 

[Gottservant]

I don't find it offensive, I find it illogical. You're just redefining established terms.

No, I'm putting them in a context which is a continuum of possibility.

You are pretending the opposition explains all known interactions between the pair, I have shown you that the explanation for their interaction exists outside the mechanic you present.

Is it that my answer requires you to have faith that you don't like? Or something else?

 

[FreedByte]

Is it that my answer requires you to have faith that you don't like? Or something else?

No I just have no idea what you're talking about