Easylogic, Thanks for Your great comments.

Really useful input in balancing the thought development of this thread.

I am on my way to my office and will revert later in the day.

Cheers.

easylogic:
Thanks deepsight for your response.I am happy that you are keeping it civil and hopefully we can get something out of this

Of course, civility must always be the plank guiding our interaction.

You in particular are an outstanding gentleman and I value your contributions immensely.

__________________________________________________________
2.   That the uncaused cause or “un-sourced” source is the One Supreme Eternal God who created all that exists.
_______________________________________________________________________

You see my contention with this statement is:

1.It does not follow that if something is uncaused then it is God,abstract objects such as numbers,logical are thought of being uncaused or neccesarily existing.no one believes that there was a time 1 or 2 did not exist.

Your concern is catered for by the fact that I have not merely said “uncaused” – but rather I said “uncaused cause” – thus indicating that God is said to be God not only because he himself is “uncaused” but also because he is also the “cause” of everything else that exists. Numbers may be “uncaused” but are not the “cause” of everything else that exists, and as such are not described as an “uncaused cause.”

2.The act of creating everything does not qualify one to be a God.

I urge you to ponder on this and see if there is any greater attribute that should qualify a being as the ultimate being of all existence – save that such a being is the cause of all existence.

The act of creation might show a being whose very powerful,but power alone is just one of the  3 major attributes that are traditionally associated with a maximised being.Knowledge and morals are the other key essential attributes.

How do you define morals? Is a God who creates laws to deal with all moralistic situations and therefore non-interventionist less moral than a God who creates a world he has to consistently tinker with?

It is very clear that the deist god is a non interventionist type of God.And this is exactly what sets apart Deism from traditional forms of Theism.I have never heard of a form of deism which includes revelations and intervention.

I already told you that not all Deists have this view.
Have a look at this and please note the bolded part -

Wikipedia

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] 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. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations.

Nevertheless I accept that Non-Interference is a major Deistic line of thought.

I also set out why I believe the concept does not in any way suggest an amoral God.

[I stated]
____________________________________________________________________
Now since God created all that exists, the following also necessarily holds true –

1.   Nothing exists that God is not responsible for; God spawns all existence – there therefore cannot be anything unknown to God. God is thus omniscient.
2.   The same principle holds true in rendering God omnipotent – namely that everything that exists derives from God. God thus has complete control over the entirety of existence.
______________________________________________________
[You responded -]
we can't really know if this is true,since the deist god does not reveal his character to humans,we will be guessing whether he has control of this universe.

It is odd for you to suggest that a being who is said to create ALL EXISTENCE would have no control over what he has created.

It could be said that infact,he has lost control of the universe,
a) there is untold moral evil and natural evil in  the world.

- I am aware some deist would say that the presence of natural evil is just "gods" way of bringing about natural process.While i agree that this point is indeed valid,this does not explain moral evil. Infact there is a paradox here

Please see my opening posts in this thread for my views on this.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=411142.msg5664703#msg5664703

       -  If a deist says that moral evil should not be viewed as being something bad,it is just a natural process encompassing natural selection and the fittest survive adage of evolution,then we can ask why are there behaviors that seem to go against this principle.Eg Why aren't human beings getting rid of beggars,lepers old people who are burdens to the society.If Africa was to follow "the fittest survive" policy, we should be killing off people who are burdens to society.Acts of altruism should be nonexistent.
       - But if a deist says indeed god does interfere or he set everything in the beginning in such a way that good will win over evil in the end,then we are obliged to ask,"How do you know that?" The deist god has not revealed his intentions in any book,video tape or written message.Secondly, according to the tenets of deism,god uses natural means to bring about his will,the only natural means we know as pertains morality,is through natural selection.so we are back at square one.

I don’t think that this is a problem: Altruistic acts also play a role in furthering the interest and survival of the species as the instinct to protect one another continuously saves people from many a danger.

Since this is the case it is only natural that both competitive and altruistic instincts should exist side by side.


As an aside, let me say that I am uncomfortable with the the “the Deist God.” I have said before that there is no such thing. There is only God and people may have different perspectives on God.

That is why natives and tribes worldwide have also had perspectives on the Supreme being. They did not need any “scriptures” to have such perspectives, did they? Would you conclude that the Yoruba “Olodumare” for example is not a reference to the almighty creator?
 

b) Current science and observations tell us Everything is tending towards disorder,the universe is headed for a heat death.Infact our own sun will obliterate us in 5 billion years,that is if an asteroid or comet will not have destroyed it by then.This does not show a God who is in control.A God whose creation will destroy itself,shows a god who either is unwilling to do anything or is unable.Again,a deist cannot say,that "God's plan is this and that, ", a deist has no way of knowing that.

I am struggling to see how a destruction of this world or even the whole universe implies a God who is not in control.

It is natural for finite things to have a beginning and an end – given that they are not the Infinite God Himself.

How does this fact imply a loss of control?

You are suggesting to me that the fact that you are born and you die implies that God has lost control of the universe!

I think that is a very strange assertion indeed.

1) We cannot know if this Deist god possesses foreknowledge,

2)We cannot know whether the deist god possesses middle-knowledge.

You see if god possessed middle knowledge he would look and see,under which circumstances that he would need to create and put peter so that he ends up willingly marrying jane.Eg, If peter meets jane at 25 when she has blossomed,he would fall for her.etc

What do you understand by a Being who is said to be responsible for ALL that exists. ALL EXISTENCE IN TOTALITY?

Is it rational to contend that such a being could be responsible for ALL existence in totality and at the same time be ignorant of parts of any component of existence, however conceived.

I think that is an eminently strange view to have.

It does! A couple brings forth a child.In his teenage days

1.he starts smoking bhang
- The father says nothing to him.
2. he starts sleeping with love-peddlers.
- the father says nothing
3. He drops out of school and threatens to kill his sister.
-the father says nothing
4.he actually goes ahead and kills his sister
-the father says nothing.

The only conclusion we can derive from this type of parent is that, he is either amoral,or he's truly evil.Inaction to acts of evil or goodness shows a god who has no sense of justice.An attribute even his own creations seem to have!

Did you miss that God is said to have created perfect laws that guide his creation?

How does that equate with haven done nothing?

Is it your realistic expectation that a voice would thunder out of “heaven” condemning every wrong deed of every human being once such deeds are done?

Come on.

Where are this laws? the natural laws?again if we to follow the evolutionary model of natural selection where the fittest survive,the world would be a very bad place,where weaker people in society would be terminated,universal health care would be a dream,basically it would be every man for himself,every society for itself.

I already explained that altruism also has evolutionary benefits for groups and species, so it is natural for it to exist side-by-side with competitiveness.

So actually,human beings have fashioned a better moral system than a deist god! by us ignoring the natural laws as pertaining to morality,we have been able to create societies which cater for old people,terminally ill people and basically most people who are of little value to the society.If we were to let nature run its cause,then ,as i have said before,the world would be a bad place to live.

It is very wrong to say this given that nature has already placed the love-instinct not just in humans but even animals.

Have you watched the Video “Battle at Kruger” – where an entire herd of buffalo unite to fight a pack of lions who had captured on of their own?

There. Both love and competition side by side.

All beautifully provided by nature.

[Quote]

[I said] -
__________________________________________________________
If you reflect on it: you may realize that only an imperfect God would actually create a world in which he has to return to tinker with things constantly
________________________________________________________________________

[You responded] -
MMh not really,but this is out of the discussion,though i'm willing to take it up in a different thread.[/quote]

This is absolutely within the discussion because it rather shows the concept of an interfering God to be internally inconsistent with the idea of perfection – thus showing that the Deist perception of a non-interfering God is both more plausible and does more honour to God.

In Conclusion

While the question of who's version of god is the right version is inconsequential to whether a God exists,i believe that any version of a god or any worldview, must fulfill two basic criteria

1. The concept of God must be internally consistent.
2. The concept of god must be consistent with what is observable in nature and life.

And Deistic thought fulfils both criteria!

e) the christian conception of God and Deist God are radically different and mutually exclusive.If one version of God exists,then necessarily the other one does not exist.Christians believe in a Tri-une,Omni and personal God who regularly intervenes and is knowable,whose plans he has revealed in scripture and who plans on revealing himself in his full nature sometime in the future. Whether this is true or not is not the question.But as we can see this concept of God is radically different from a non-interfering,non-interventionist,unknowable God who is not interested in the affairs of the world.Christians and deists cannot be speaking of the same God,it is not a matter of perception as Deepsight put it,this is a fundamental conceptual difference of Deity.

Come on. So the Christian, Muslim, Igbo, Yoruba and Greek worldviews which all have a conception of the Almighty Creator must have all been speaking about different Creators?


Haba. Considering human diversity is it likely that we would all conceive the Creator the same way?

The claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is at best, ridiculous.

^^^ Yep: It is amazing the things one hears on this Forum.

Purist:

The claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is at best, ridiculous.

They are not the same. To claim they are is factually demented.

^^^ Worever rocks ya boat Viaro!

^^Ditto, DeepSight.

Are you folks beginning to see the futility in trying to either convince or impose one's own idea of God on another?You can debate from now till the cow comes home but nothing will come out of it.Useless endeavour.

@viaro:

Of course they're not "the same thing". Whoever said they are? No two ideological or philosophical beliefs are ever "the same", otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to term them differently.

However, your claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is a bit far-fetched, and smacks of a desperate attempt to dissociate yourself from DeepSight in whichever way, even if it means uttering ridiculous statements, such as the one in contention at the moment, and finding every available word in the dictionary to defend that claim.

Certainly, it is common knowledge that in its philosophical and theological usage, pantheism, for example, varies significantly from theism. But it would be laughable for anyone to assert on this basis that pantheism is "not a shadow" of theism, because in the broad sense, both parties share the same fundamental belief - a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same argument applies to deism.

Even the wikipedia definition, which you chose to capitalise on states explicitly that theism "may" exclude deism, which translates that definition into meaning that there is an exception to that exclusion, perhaps when looking at both ideologies in the broad sense; and so, that already negates your claim that "deism is not a shadow of theism". Even Googler clarified this earlier.

@Purist,

Purist:

Of course they're not "the same thing". Whoever said they are? No two ideological or philosophical beliefs are ever "the same", otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to term them differently.

Thanks for your concerns, but I was not trying to make a clone out of any combination or comparison of worldviews. I hope that much is clear enough to see.

However, your claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is a bit far-fetched, and smacks of a desperate attempt to dissociate yourself from DeepSight in whichever way, even if it means uttering ridiculous statements, such as the one in contention at the moment, and finding every available word in the dictionary to defend that claim.

I didn't need to do any of all that at all. DeepSight came here to talk about his deism specifically, and that was in response to my prodding him on several occasions to do so. He must needs defend his ridiculous arguments by ferreting only those so-called definitions that make any 'resemblance' fit into his arguments, that's why I bothered to pull out other standard definitions for his consideration as well. When it comes to specifics, you will never see this sort of deist characteristic of DeepSight ever be willing to discuss anything further - they know why, because that is where indeed you get to see if their 'deism' reflects anything of theism. I have noted in post #28 why people confuse this particular issue to argue the ridiculous and yet never stand up to articulate anything on their assumptions.

Certainly, it is common knowledge that in its philosophical and theological usage, pantheism, for example, varies significantly from theism. But it would be laughable for anyone to assert on this basis that pantheism is "not a shadow" of theism, because in the broad sense, both parties share the same fundamental belief - a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same argument applies to deism.

It is quite laughable indeed to make such a connection between theism and pantheism and then arrive at such fundamentals for deism. Please read particularly my post at #16 and then expounding on the same in #28. I have discussed why informed authors do not include deism as a "form" of theism. Anyone can just lump them all together and ignore precisely what they are - and when closely examined, one cannot be fooled on this issue unless they have so chosen to do so on themselves.

Even the wikipedia definition, which you chose to capitalise on states explicitly that theism "may" exclude deism, which translates that definition into meaning that there is an exception to that exclusion, perhaps when looking at both ideologies in the broad sense; and so, that already negates your claim that "deism is not a shadow of theism". Even Googler clarified this earlier.

I think when you read post #28 it becomes obvious where your confusion on this issue is. Pardon me if I don't make sweeping generalizations as you suppose, which was why I made clarifications for what I stated.

I think the issue of "shadows" of Theism or Deism has been beaten to death already, but more importantly I believe it is not relevant to this thread.

Easylogic's questions and inquiries are much deeper and more topical, and I would be interested in pursuing that.

Where is Easylogic? You have not reverted to my resposne above.

@viaro:

I'm browsing from my phone, so I can't check those posts you referred me to right now, neither can I offer you a befitting rejoinder. One thing I noticed though (I may be wrong), is that you seem to be more pre-occupied with DeepSight's version of deism, that you fail to pay attention to the very fundamentals of the ideology in itself. Basically, theists believe in god(s). Basically, deists also believe in god(s). The "which" and "why" questions are quite irrelevant in this basic sense. So how would anyone, knowing these basics, then conclude that both ideologies are unrelated? Anyhow, I will like to respect the O.P's wish that this thread be not derailed any further.

Regards.

@Purist,

Thank you so much for highlighting your concerns, even though we may in deference to the OP let it stand as is. I should note my acknowledgement of your concern that my statement may sound 'ridiculous' where the context of what I stated may not have come across. Yes indeed, some may not be too concerned about specifics in these matters; that was why I was particular about DeepSight's deism, and not Deism in general.

Best regards.