Na wa!!!

Did you two by any chance ever compete for the same woman?

^^^ oooohhh, here he goes again!!

Great thread. I think what we are dealing with here is a definitional problem. If theism is the opposite of atheism, then theism will take in deists. They both affirm the existence of God, first and foremost. But when we consider all the definitions, deism becomes a distinct world view.

Where have you been googler?

Here and there. Hardly come this way, really. How are you doing?

N'bad, my brother. . .

In truth the argument about Theism and Diesm is neither here nor there. . .

I should get back to discussing the essentials of this very simple worldview. . .

Be right back. . .

As debated in this thread, it is neither here nor there.

Hello Deep sight, I like your signature " be still", but can you explain further what you mean by it. I love the quote " be still, and know that i am within" and in fact, is one of my favourite verses in the Bible. The way i understand it is that, "i am" is your inner self and you cannot get in touch with your inner sel,f unless you are still and quiet (meditate and contemplate). The new christian christian practices as adopted by Africans is too noisy and cacophonous and so lacks the vital connection with "I am". And that is what i believe is responsible for the confusion of both the individual christian and the Church, in relation his obligations to himself, his immediate surroundings and the larger society as a whole.

Be still and know that i am."I am" being the true self, the atman, is usually covered up by all the static noise of the ego or the false self.

jagunlabi:

Be still and know that i am."I am" being the true self, the atman, is usually covered up by all the static noise of the ego or the false self.

Can you please explain further. What is atman ?

The atman is your uncreated self, or consciousness, the one that perceives all that you perceive, the uncreated and eternal you that never dies and was never born, but merely transmute from one form to another at different lifetimes in different realities.
To explain it in very simple terms;there are three levels of consciousness to which man is connected.
1)The universal consciousness:-which has been regarded to as GOD since the ancient.The vedic literature refers to it as the Brahmin.It is from this consciousness that all that is, in this universe and any other universe, arises from.Think of this consciousness as all the body of the oceans of the world together.

2)The individual consciousness(The Atman) :- Is like a droplet or wave crest of that universal ocean.It is part of the ocean and the ocean is part of it.This individual consciousness is in all living things, and i mean ALL.That is the very stillness that is in all of us that has been covered up.It is the part of us that remain untouched by any event that we experience in this reality we live in.It can neither be killed nor can be manipulated by no human, deity, demon or devil.It is this consciousness(the atman) that people who meditate try to reconnect back with in order to find peace within.And when you connect to the true self(the atman), you have reconnected to God itself, the source of all things, the Brahmin, they are in each other.There is no beginning and no end.Just like the wave crests on the ocean, there is no boundary.The ocean is in the wave crests and the wave crests are in the ocean.

3)The mind/body consciousness :- or the lower consciousness is the one that we erroneously regard as who we truly are.It is the consciousness that was born together with our physical birth and will die when we die physically.It is the false self, the egoic self, the consciousness that grows through inputs from the world we experience, like inputs from your formal education, interractions with family, friends, foes, strangers, books, initmate relationships, nature, cultural values, etc. etc.
And because of it's dependency and need for inputs from the experiential reality(physical world) to continually build itself, this mind consciousness is also very very susceptible to manipulations and programming.Let me give an example of a common situation that describes this lower consciousness; when a person is "programming" another through emotional manipulations or so, like when a boy is toasting a babe he wants to sleep with, that consciousness that is being manipulated or programmed is this lower consciousness, because of it's susceptibility to manipulation due to it's needs for constant stream of inputs.This physical world and everything in it, that we experience all through our lives supply this lower consciousness with all the inputs it needs from cradle to the grave.It is this consciousness that the advertising industries of this world target their products at.It is what the world religions target.

I hope you can see the difference.There is a whole lot to be said here, but i just get a crash tour here.I am sure you can take it from there and do your own research on it.

wirinet:

Can you please explain further. What is atman ?

jagunlabi, the above quite sounds "new-agic" and quite eastern. cool sha.
@wirinet, bros, e don tey wey i see u o or na me no dey the right threads? what's up man?

ilosiwaju:

jagunlabi, the above quite sounds "new-agic" and quite eastern. cool sha.
@wirinet, bros, e don tey wey i see u o or na me no dey the right threads? what's up man?

How u dey Jagunlabi, life for Niger is not easy. One has to work 5 times harder to achieve what you get before. So i just browse Nairaland most of the time without making contribution.

Na wa for all these eastern theology. I tried reading up on some of them when i was younger but found it more confusing than the western religions i was running away from.

Any way, take care.

^^^^ FYI, the eastern theology is far superior to the western theology, and that is why the western civilization is moving ever more towards the eastern theology/spirituality.Comparing eastern theology to the western one is like comparing nuclear science to nursery school picture drawing.

Besides, what does the term "new age" mean and what significance does it have when one is trying to understand his own true nature?

Holy Jesus, i made a mistake in my last post, I was refering to ilosiwaju but i wrote Jagunlabi, anyway apologies to both.
I disagree with you that eastern theology is superior to western. In fact western theology was greatly influenced by eastern theology, so it is a bit difficult to separate the two.

You will agree with me that both theologies are in decline, while western theology as represented by Christianity is in decline at its cradle- Europe, eastern theology is also declining in its roots India and China.

I know this thread has been long abandoned but i just discovered it.My contention with a deistic kind of God is that actually he really does not qualify for deityship!allow me to explain deepsight.

using Anselms ontological argument and various philosophical definitions of a God,we end up with," a neccesarily existing being who's properties are maximised.". I know this is a strange definition,different from the traditional," being who is sovereign and the cause of the all that exists."

While both are true,the first one,is more philosophically relevant.A god is a being of whom no greater being can be conceived.

1. A being who can create the milky way is great,but we can easily think of a being who can create the whole universe,and this being will be greater than the former,since (as far as we know),the universe is the greatest physical thing in terms of size.
2.but a universe making being or agent,hardly qualifies for deitiship.he's powerful yes,but why should he be a god,rather than a spontaneous creature who popped into existence a universe with absolutely no reason.
3.A Morally perfect universe making being is much greater than an amoral creator.

using Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore any being who lacks any of the three properties is not worthy to be called a God.Deitiship includes maximal properties,a being who lacks maximal properties is hardly a God at all.

we would not start calling a person who is able to create the biggest spaceship on earth a god,infact we would still not call him a god if he was soo strong that he could tear the moon apart with a single punch.In short,a universe making "thing" does not merit being called a God simply because it can create universes.

^^^ Hi Easylogic -

Its been a while. Nice to hear your easy logic again!.

I do not think that your summation is apt for the very simple reason that the conception of GOD is left to the individual deist. The initial description and definition you gave may be good for some but not for others. There is however ONE ground of unity -

The simple ground of unity simply is the existence of a Supreme Being who is GOD - mark the words "supreme being" - namely we refer to the Ultimate Deity.

All of the premises you set out relating to "an omnipotent" God that you set out equally apply to the very same GOD that we all speak about.

Thus we have a Christan Theist who believes in God, but regards HIM as a Trinity. This is absolutely different from a Muslim Theist who denies the Trinity. Nonetheless they both remain Theists!

Thus the point being that the "peculiar conception of GOD" that each person has may be personal and unique - but this does not change the fact that we refer to the Ultimate Deity of all Existence. THE CREATOR OF ALL EXISTENCE.

This is only natural when you consider that we are all different: and must thus have differnet perspectives. For example, both myself and say Krayola for example may know of Easylogic: but we may not describe or understand Esaylogic in teh same way. Being different people, we may perceive different things about Easylogic - this does not change that we both refer to Esaylogic!

For this reason all that you have said, is in my view, neither here nor there.

Carrying on now:

To recap –

We have so far asserted three of the Essentials to wit –

1. God Exists

2. An excellent means to discerning the Purpose of the creator is the observance of the creation – nature.

2. God’s purpose for creation is Harmony.

In the further discourse I wish to take the subject forward by discussing three subjects in relation to the Deist Worldview.

The subjects are;

1. Reason

2. Humanism

3. Nature

Let us start with the first: REASON.

Have a look at this Extract from the Wiki page on Deism -
_______________________________________________________

Once a proposition is asserted to be a self-evident truth, there is not much more to say about it. Consequently, deist authors attempted to use reason as a critical tool for exposing and rejecting what they saw as nonsense. Here are two typical examples. The first is from John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious.[11]

I hope to make it appear that the use of reason is not so dangerous in religion as it is commonly represented.

There is nothing that men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian religion." The divine gavely tell us "we must adore what we cannot comprehend." Some of them say the "mysteries of the Gospel" are to be understood only in the sense of the "ancient fathers." ,  [Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it.[12]

On the contrary, we hold that reason is the only foundation of all certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its manner or existence, is more exempted from its disquisitions than the ordinary phenomena of nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the title of this discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. ,
Now, as we are extremely subject to deception, we may without some infallible rule, often take a questionable proposition for an axiom, old wives' fables for moral certitude, and human impostures for divine revelation,

I take it to be very intelligible from the precedent section that what is evidently repugnant to clear and distinct ideas,[13] or to our common notions,[14] is contrary to reason. ,  No Christian that I know of expressly says reason and the Gospel are contrary to one another. But very many affirm that ,  according to our conceptions of them [i.e. reason and the Gospel] they seem directly to clash. And that though we cannot reconcile them by reason of our corrupt and limited understandings, yet that from the authority of divine revelation we are bound to believe and acquiesce in them; or, as the fathers taught them to speak, to "adore what we cannot comprehend." This famous and admirable doctrine is the undoubted source of all the absurdities that ever were seriously vented among Christians. Without the pretense of it, we should never hear of transubstantiation, and other ridiculous fables of the Church of Rome. Nor should we be ever bantered with the Lutheran impanation,

The first thing I shall insist upon is that if any doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to reason, we have no manner of idea of it. To say, for instance, that a ball is white and black at once is to say just nothing, for these colors are so incompatible in the same subject as to exclude all possibility of a real positive idea or conception. So to say as the papists that children dying before baptism are damned without pain signifies nothing at all.

—John Toland,  Christianity Not Mysterious:
or, a Treatise Shewing That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason,
Nor above It (1696)
___________________________________________________

And this. . .

Most deists saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general.

According to this world view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and "mysteries" – irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on the priests' authority.

deism by definition is free from all the contoversiesbrought by organised religions,

Deepsight,thank you for your response.Its the lack of intresting threads that keep me away.I am not Nigerian,so i keep wondering why some people here are obsessed with pastors,especially TB Joshua.

Anyway,back to this thread.my objection wasn't simply about definitions.it was about the properties of what would constitute the greatest being.

Think of it this way,lets say we are looking for the greatest laptop ever built.
Our parameters would be:

1.Processing speed.
2.RAM Size.
3.hardisk size.

These would be the basic factors.so assume a Toshiba 3.0 quad core,4gb Ram,1 terabyte laptop would b a truly great laptop,assumin that most laptops are way below the above specs.

The toshiba would be the laptop god.simply bcoz of all the amazing specs it
Has.

Therefore,when we are looking for the greatest bein,that is a god,we try to think of basic properties in their superlatives whch would entitle this being to be called the greatest being,i.e God.

1.how powerful is he?
- for him to be considerf truly the greatest,he has to be all powerful.
2.how smart or knowledgeable is he?
- for him to be considered great,he has to know alot,infact if there is stuff he doesnt know,then he's not that great afterall
3.how is his moral character.
- he also has to be morally perfect,otherwise if his behavior falls short,then he has failed and he can't be considered great.

The most common type of deist god that is advocated by most deists,only fulfils one of the criteria above,powerful.
Deists say that,god created the universe and let it be,he's not concerned wit human affairs or revealing himself through any religion.
Therefore we can draw the following conclusions about a deist god.
a)he created the universe,so he must be very powerful.we cannot say whether he's all powerful or not.
b)he's amoral.since he does not care or get involved with humans,its reasonable to conclude that his moral character is absent,i.e he doesnt care about evil or good.
3.we really can't say if he,'s all knowing,that is he knows everything,we can only conclude that he knows enough to create the universe.he might not possess foreknowledge or middle knowledge.e.g he might know how to create a planet,but might not know what you will have for breakfast tomorow.

The question now becomes,does a deist 'god' deserve the honours of the greatest being?i.e a God?in my opinion he fails miserably.ofcourse this doesn't tell us whether he exists or not.but woe unto us if it turns out he does!

Maybe in another post i will illustrate why a deist god is highly unlikely,even impossible,when we consider a rule that encompasses sufficient cause and effect.

DeepSight,over to you.

blackcypha:

deism by definition is free from all the contoversiesbrought by organised religions,

Thank you for this contribution. This really is my personal view. Namely a recognition that God exists and an honest attempt to understand God's purposes through observation of God's works - nature.

I cannot say that anything else is required. It is so simple, so essentially reduced to the minimum: that it appeals to what i might suggest is clarity of mind devoid of pre-imposed doctrinal perceptions. Whether such doctrines are true or false is for me another matter.

What is key is that beyond the recognition of God and the intention of harmony - and living in accordance with harmonious principles - i cannot see that such doctrines are necessary for anybody to know - even if they are true - which supposition; of course, the Jury is still out on.

@DeepSight:

I eagerly await your comments on easylogic's easy logic in the post above yours.

Hi Easylogic –

Thanks again for your comments.

easylogic:


Therefore,when we are looking for the greatest bein,that is a god,we try to think of basic properties in their superlatives whch would entitle this being to be called the greatest being,i.e God.

1.how powerful is he?
- for him to be considerf truly the greatest,he has to be all powerful.
2.how smart or knowledgeable is he?
- for him to be considered great,he has to know alot,infact if there is stuff he doesnt know,then he's not that great afterall
3.how is his moral character.
- he also has to be morally perfect,otherwise if his behavior falls short,then he has failed and he can't be considered great.

I am at odds with the foregoing. I do not believe that this properly captures the conception of God that I speak about.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me state it again –

My perception of God (and this I believe holds true for the generality of deistic thought) is this –

1. That it is obvious that all that exists must per force have a cause or source
2. That the uncaused cause or “un-sourced” source is the One Supreme Eternal God who created all that exists.

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.
3. Since God is uncaused; God is self existent and therefore absolutely eternal and timeless.

We thus have a picture of the Supreme being: self-existent, timeless and eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. – and it will be wrong to suggest that the Deist regards God as being any less than this: thus I am at odds with your assertion of “the Deist God”. . . because there is no such thing – there is only God – and the different perceptions that people have of God.

I hope this settles you problems in terms of your ideas of what a “Deist God” is or is not.
________________________________________________________
Now you talked about the general Deist inclination to the belief that God does not interfere in creation. Your summation of this was that this necessarily renders God amoral – uncaring about good or evil.

This is eminently wrong in my view for at least two reasons –

1. Not all Deists believe that God does not interfere
2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God!

I explain –

1. Not all Deists believe that God does not interfere

From 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.

Please note the bolded portion. Thus you may see that the notion of non-interference is not germane to Deism as a whole – it rather is the perspective of some Deists, but not all Deists – not even by a stretch.

What you need to understand is that Deism may be described as a worldview – it is not a specific creed or religion with defined doctrines or extended beliefs. Thus it is entirely inappropriate to select any extended feature of common Deistic thought as a means of asserting the improbability of the existence of God as conceived by the Deist – because the one simple conception is that a Supreme Being exists who is responsible for all other things that exist.

Now in this let me be careful to point out something. Let us say that you and I are both Christians. Without a shadow of doubt, we may not agree on all the features of God – we may have different perceptions of his attributes and workings. I may believe for example that God’s justice functions through karma – you may believe that this is not correct and that justice is simply a question of God’s grace and mercy. I may also believe that God justifies men through works: you may believe that justification is by faith – indeed two of Christ’s apostles disagreed on exactly this subject: James and Paul, I believe.

Now does any of the foregoing suggest that the “God” that either party believes in does not exist? No – it rather plainly suggests that either party may have different perspectives on the nature of God: this does nothing to suggest which party may be right or which party may be wrong. Nor does it invalidate the fact that both parties believe God to exist.

In summary I am trying to say that the belief by some Deists that God does not interfere does nothing to invalidate the central belief in the existence and supremacy of God.

Nevertheless you cannot and should not hand on to the non-interference principle for the simple reason as I have shown above that it is NOT a principle accepted by all Deists. Thus you cannot discredit Deism as a worldview based on that: for that would be akin to discrediting Christianity as a worldview based for example on the fact that many Christians believe that God created Hell, or the Devil, etc.

I do not know if you are a Christian, but if you are a Christian let me ask you this question – assuming you were wrong in one aspect of your perception of God. For example let’s say you believe that God is a Trinity, and ultimately you find out (at the pearly gates) that he is not a Trinity.

Would that mean that you never believed in God properly so called? I don’t think so. It would merely mean that you were wrong in one of your perceptions about God.

And frankly who can claim to have a perfect perception of God?

2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God

This is the second leg of my response to you.

What makes you assume that a belief in non-interference must necessarily invoke an amoral God?

Quite the contrary – The non-interference principle holds that God has set all the laws of creation into such perfect motion that there is nothing he can add or subtract from them. Thus God has no need to interfere because God’s laws by natural operation deliver to each being, each nation, each race, each world, each specie and each universe that which it naturally deserves and the inter-working of these laws serves to build and further creation from a macro-standpoint that cannot be perceptible to the individual human being, but only seen by God from his bird’s eye view of all existence and creation.

This is a view also propounded by many world-views other than Deists.

Non-interference simply means that the created worlds bear the active laws of God and accordingly require no further input from the Creator. 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.

Many worldviews understand these natural laws of which I speak as the laws of Karma. Jesus expressed the same in saying that whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. This law needs no further interference from God to operate: and no one can suggest that a God who would place perfect laws within his creation to guide its development is an amoral God.

In my view, the any person who genuinely understands the idea of Divine Perfection would also understand the concept of non-interference. God has set the laws already – and his laws operate to deliver justice within creation.

That is not amoral in the least: but rather evinces a high and implacable moral standard.


I hope you can see why your assumptions concerning the Deity that we all speak about, as conceived by the Deist, do not hold in proper terms.

Carrying on now. . .

I had stated that i would like to discuss Reason, Nature and Humanism.

We had started with Reason.

Many people tend to assert that "faith is beyond reason". . ."spiritual things cannot be understood by reason and logic". . ."this or that spiritual matter defies understanding . . ." etc.

Indeed such statements are often used as a sweeping defense of illogical religious dogma.

I positively assert that that there is nothing that exists that is contrary to reason or logic.

Indeed - it is not possible for an illogicality to exist. By its very definition, an illogicality is an impossibility.

Now let's be careful here - It is clear that there is much that is unknown to mankind. It is also clear that there is much that mankind does not understand.

It is in my view more apt to say that one does not know something, or that one does not understand something: than to state that that thing "transcends" logic or reason - or that that thing is "illogical."

If we are careful to stop and reflect: we can easily see that all things which exist exist by and of a cause or rationale.

This is immediately obvious once we consider that there is nothing that derives its meaning or existence without a construct of cause, rationale, purpose or deduction. In simpler terms i might say that apples do not pop out of thin air; they grow on a tree which contains natural processes suited to develop apples.

An apple would not exist in the absence of those processes.

I do not know if I have properly conveyed what i am trying to say: but the summary is that all things are rational, have a construct, are reasonable and that it is absolutely impossible for a pure illogoicality to exist. Rather the limits of our knowledge may constrain us from understanding the rationale for certain things.

Based on this thinking I believe that nothing transcends reason and logic: and accordingly, reason is a firm tool in the hands of mankind for the understanding and deduction of even the highest things - physical or meta-physical.

Accordingly, and especially in light of my earlier posts on "Reason" I believe all spiritual truth should be viewed with the test of reason and that this may help in sifting the wheat from the chaff: the intelligible from the unintelligible and the vain and empty myth from that which is pure eternal truth.

@Deepsight
I entirely agree with you that there should be nothing illogical about religious beliefs, however has it occured to you that a lot of things were and are still beyond human comprehension? Uptil today there are still many un answered questions pertaining to our physical univeerse how much less the spiritual. The plain truth is that a lot of things are beyond human comprehension hence the need for people to just accept things by faith as explaining the intricacies or logicality of the issues under reference.

Thanks KunleOshob.

You might note that i have stated the limits of our knowledge to be the issue - and not that things are illogical.

Centuries ago comets were illogical and magical.

With the expansion of the limits of knowledge we can now see how logical a comet is. Nothing magical there.

Thus it might not be healthy to accept things based on faith alone.

Proper faith should derive from a causative construct.

Deep Sight:

but the summary is that all[ things are rational, have a construct, are reasonable and that it is absolutely impossible for a pure illogoicality to exist. Rather the limits of our knowledge may constrain us from understanding the rationale for certain things.

   Oh dear. If only you would apply this concession when condemning and declaring certain elements of the christian faith irrational dogma. I mean I hear this disclaimer below:

I believe all spiritual truth should be viewed with the test of reason and that this may help in sifting the wheat from the chaff: the intelligible from the unintelligible

  but still, there is a huge MAY HELP in there. There are observable limits to the efficacy of your "test of reason", limits that are no doubt a handicap in understanding matters beyond ones current grasp.

Thanks JeSoul! That is the same question I was asking the guy here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=411111.msg5671763#msg5671763  on the Buddhism thread but he skilfully dodged answering it. 

Deep Sight:

^^^ My take is that it does not matter.

Like you once said - its the message, and not the messenger.

Can you correlate the statement above with all your vitriol on High-Christology i.e. the Deity of Christ, as divorced from His message?

Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is a field of study within Christian theology which is concerned with the nature of Jesus Christ. Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life than with how the human and divine co-exist in one person. Although this study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is the foundation of Christology, some essential sub-topics within the field of Christology include:

* the Incarnation,
* the Resurrection,
* and the salvific work of Jesus (known as soteriology).

JeSoul:

Oh dear. If only you would apply this concession when condemning and declaring certain elements of the christian faith irrational dogma. I mean I hear this disclaimer below: but still, there is a huge MAY HELP in there. There are observable limits to the efficacy of your "test of reason", limits that are no doubt a handicap in understanding matters beyond ones [size=24pt]current [/size] grasp.

The bolded word underlines my point.

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

My perception of God (and this I believe holds true for the generality of deistic thought) is this –

1. That it is obvious that all that exists must per force have a cause or source

We can derive this from maybe the cosmological argument or argument from contingency.So i agree with you.

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.

2.The act of creating everything does not qualify one to be a God.The traditional philosophical definition of a God is a being whoseall attributes are maximised.
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.

Just like christianity i agree that there are certain different types of Deism.I'm not sure to which you subscribe to,but just like in Christianity there are essential certain doctrines that are general in most mainstream Christianity.

1.God is triune
2.God is Omni-characteristic
3.The incarnation of god into man,death and resurrection.

Therefore,when i speak of deism,i speak of the most common form of Deism.The form of deism that sets it apart from other monotheistic religions.

Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

And

[b]* God is identified through nature and reason, not revelation. Deists who believe in God, or at least a divine principle, follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity, Judaism, or any religion believing in a personal God. Any deist god is an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will.
* Some deists believe in Jesus Christ, while others do not. Most deists give regard to the moral teachings of Jesus.
* The Bible is not accepted as the infallible Word of God. Deists refute evidence of Jesus’ incarnation of God on earth. They deny the credibility of any writings from the Apostles or any “Spirit-inspired” writings.
* Deism has no creed, articles of faith, or holy book. Neither Satan nor hell exists, only symbols of evil which can be overcome by man’s own reasoning.
* Man is qualified to decide what reasonable path to follow regarding morals. Deists refer to themselves as “freethinkers.”
* Deists reject revelations and visions. There is no place for the nonsense of miracles and prophecies in an enlightened deist’s life.
* Deism has no need for ministers, priests, or rabbis. All an individual requires is their own common sense and the ability to contemplate their human condition.[/b]

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm


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.

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.

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 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

- 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.

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.

While i agree that it is indeed plausible that a Deist God is very powerful,very knowledgeable about creating universes,but it does not follow that he's in control,and thus omnipotent.

again we cannot deduce Omniscience from the act of creating everything.Let me use an analogy:

1) We cannot know if this Deist god possesses foreknowledge,i.e he can tell what i will have for lunch tomorrow.He can know everything about me,everything about foods,everything about kfc and mcds,but he might not know whether i will have kfc or mcds tomorrow.He can have a pretty good guess based on my lifestyle,but he cannot know for certain.Any Deist who claims that the deist god indeed possesses foreknowledge,then he needs to illustrate to us how he knows this information.Or how it follows since he created everything,then he possesses foreknowledge.

2)We cannot know whether the deist god possesses middle-knowledge.Middle Knowledge is the view that holds that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what would happen if He acted differently than He does.Why is this type of knowledge very important?
- imagine god is about to create a Peter,god would wish Peter to marry jane. Jane is miami, peter is Boston.God has looked at his foreknowledge and "seen" that peter would meet jane in Florida when he's 12 years old,and hate her.God's hands are tied in this case.If he wants to preserve Peter's free will,he can't force peter to marry jane.


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

Now imagine a god trying to create the whole universe without foreknowledge or middle knowledge.No matter how bright he was,he would never really know what the outcome of his creation will be,and what would have happened if he did things differently.

A deist would claim that by virtue that our universe works,shows that god knew what he was doing.But this does nothing to address the main contention.Nobody is disputing the fact that a deist god is very smart,very very smart.But if he doesn't know the future,or the outcome of events if he had done stuff differently,then he's not all-knowing.

[QUOTE]2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God

This is the second leg of my response to you.

What makes you assume that a belief in non-interference must necessarily invoke an amoral God?[/quote]

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 prostitutes.
- 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 father is neither pleased nor annoyed with his sons actions.No person in his right mind would not question the moral integrity of this father.
imagine a court of law the father is called to the witness stand and asked;

Judge: Are you dismayed at your sons actions?
father: No am not.
Judge: What? are you saying that you are pleased with your sons actions?
father: Nope,none of that either.

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!

[QUOTE]Non-interference simply means that the created worlds bear the active laws of God and accordingly require no further input from the Creator, [/QUOTE]

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.

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.


[QUOTE] 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[/QUOTE]

MMh not really,but this is out of the discussion,though i'm willing to take it up in a different thread.

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.

I believe that Deism in its original form,i.e God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a non-interventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.
This basic version of deism is internally consistent,and thus fulfills criteria 1.But as i have outlined it does not fulfill criteria 2.
because

a) Human moral nature is totally in contradiction with a deist god who has created everything to follow natural order.As creations of a deist God,one is at pains to explain why a Deist god would create humans who have characteristics such as altruism when it is clearly in contradiction to evolutionary ethics.
b) Deism is itself ultimately self refuting!

p1. If Deism is true,then God created everything to follow natural order and set everything in place so that it would all unravel itself in time,
p2. Therefore if deism is true, then determinism is true.If everything has already been perfectly laid out,then our future and fate is already determined.
p3.it also follows that the idea that, deism is true,was also predetermined and cannot be thought of to be a rational position which came about from free non-determined rational beings.
conclusion: therefore Deism is not a rational idea.

c)I have illustrated that the act of creating a universe and everything does not in itself show that the being is omniscient or omnipotent.On the contrary, the state of the universe and its ultimate fate shows a god who seems to have lost control of the universe.

d) any further claims made of a deist god such as his intentions,plans etc are all speculations since deism says that we cannot know this god.

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.

Sorry for the long post deepsight.