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.

In a slew of ceaseless queries and snide comments, persons on this forum have consistently sought either clarification or mockery from the discourses on the Deistic world-view. I think it is apt that we take a short look at the Essentials of Deism and see perhaps exactly what the Deist is on about. In this I will of course proceed along my own peculiar Deistic views – although as we go along I hope to discuss the generality of Deist views and thoughts.


Now let us hang back a second and contextualize this:


We find ourselves in this world, living, thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. We see the world and universe about us. We are aware that we were not always here: that we were born - and we are aware that we will not always be here: that we die.


In truth perhaps it may be said that this is about all we can be absolutely certain of.


However we are typically born in one or more already existing religious worldviews – wherein we are taught a vast array of already existing and accepted “religious truths.” The vast majority of us end up accepting the Religion and Worldview of their birth and family as the one for ourselves. Some stray however.


Opening proposition: Having found ourselves in the natural world, it makes sense to look at the natural world about us in our search for truth. This natural world, is what I will call “The book of Life.”


Proposition Number One: [/b]Having found ourselves in the world: and having seen clearly that mankind is not perfect, we should not presume any of the “religious truths” that we have met within the world to be necessarily true or correct or perfect – but should rather seek to genuinely find that which is the truth about our existence in this world. Here I am not saying that one should reject the religion of one’s birth: but only that each human being owes it to himself to question himself, make inquiries, and search deeply for truth. It may well be that such a search will lead back to the religion of one’s birth but nonetheless –


A sincere self-examination and personal search for truth should always be undertaken by everybody. This is the first proposition.


[b]Proposition Number Two: In the individual’s search for truth, the individual must ask himself which things he can honestly say that he knows within his mind to be true and which things he has merely accepted by an assumption. The individual having observed the nature of mankind must be keenly aware that history is replete with deceit: and that not everything that is reported to have happened can necessarily be believed to have happened, and vice versa. Most importantly, I think, the individual has to ask himself – in the context of his existence - which supposed truths are relevant and which are irrelevant?


Basically the individual is urged to accept as truth that which his mind knows for sure to be true – not necessarily because he has merely been told that such is true. He is urged also to sift the wheat from the Chaff by determining that which, even if true: is irrelevant to his existence as opposed to that which is both true and relevant to his existence. This is the second proposition.


Proposition Number Three: Now the Search for Truth proceeds. What can the individual say that he knows for sure? The very first question: the eternal question in the search for truth has been – where did all this (the world) come from? What is the source of all things?


Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence. The Individual can apprehend that given the vastness of the world about him, and the incredible nature of its natural wonders, its creatures, its plants, and its natural beauty: that the source is a meaningful source: and that the source is of great capability and potential.


Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things. This is the third proposition.


Proposition Number Four After the thought – “God created all things” – the next logical thought is “for what purpose?” – basically the quest of the individual to determine the purpose of his existence – and contextualize this with the purpose of all existence. Implicit in this already, for the discerning is a recognition that the individual bears a need to understand his existence in the context of all existence – and this implies that he has a need – he is compelled towards – blending with – or harmonizing with his environment and all existence.


The Individual can thus both logically and intuitively grasp that the purpose of existence - and his existence – is harmony. This is the fourth proposition.


Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.

Be right back. . .

So who created God or better still how did he come into existence And don't tell me he has always existed or he is infinite

Well frankly that question is not the concern of this thread. This thread, as i have written above: is concerned with what we may rationally know: and not that which we may not know. For me, it is rational to suppose that there is a source: I call that source God.

I needn't know whether the source has another source: whether it is self existent or eternal: i needn't know anything save that: there is a source.

For the purpose of this thread and for now i will be leaving it that simple.

And who is that God?

Deep Sight:

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.

I understand that you suppose that there is a source which every sensible person should be able to comprehend but if I may ask, where did you get the assumption that "God created the universe" as explained in your definition of Deism?

OLAADEGBU:



I understand that you suppose that there is a source which every sensible person should be able to comprehend but if I may ask, where did you get the assumption that "God created the universe" as explained in your definition of Deism?

Hi Olaadegbu -

I belive your statement answers itself.

You said -

I understand that you suppose that there is a source which every sensible person should be able to comprehend

Once apprehending that there is a source - that source is what I call "God"

I could just as easily not use the word "God" and continue to call it "The Source" - It would amount to the same thing.

Hahaha! This thread is deep shit!

Pardon my opening remarks, DeepSight, but I'd expected far much more from you than the piffling in your OP. Your effort in opening the thread is well appreciated, if I take it to be in response to my cudgelling you to have a grip on your deism. But it's remarkable that even before viaro came here, others are asking questions already.

Nothing new in what I already understood about deism in general; but what you outlined in your propositions quite simply and essentially leave far too many holes to be taken seriously.

I shall not go down the ultra-shanky route of responding to each line of your propositions, for that would be rather drab and unfruitful. Instead, we shall be more concerned with the philosophy behind your deism, since it requires reducible probables for its physicalist appraisals. What you have presented is nothing more than deism as a natural religion divorced from indices of any "celestial spiritual" phenomena (since you take these latter to be "largely assumed beliefs".

Consequently, the point at which your most serious problem stands is at proposition #3: 'What can the individual say that he knows for sure?'. Your certainty of "knowables" under the illusion that, as regards what you believe, you may "rationally and intuitively know for certain", quite simply consigns your discourse to the field of epistemic logic. And that again presents you with far more problems than you can handle. I recommend for now that you carefully read up Fitch's paradox of knowability before you proceed any further. You disregard my advice at your peril - and if that be the case, I'd proceed to quickly wrap up your deep shit once and for all.

Dress warm.

Deep Sight:

Hi Olaadegbu -

I belive your statement answers itself.

You said -


Once apprehending that there is a source - that source is what I call "God"

I could just as easily not use the word "God" and continue to call it "The Source" - It would amount to the same thing.

Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

Carrying on now.

I have indicated above that that which the individual can know, is primarily that there is a Source.

In response to the questions above by Olaadegbu  and muhsin regarding "God" i have already said that -

 1. We can apprehend that there is a source for the things we see that exist.

 2. I call that source "God"  - - -  - > BUT -

3. There is no need to use the word God at all! It is sufficient if we maintain the word – “the Source”.

Now I think that No. 3 above is important because the word “God” means too many different things to too many different people. Note that I say this not as a negation of God, but simply in order to avoid the heckler who may wish to make the word “God” an issue. Thus wherever I use the word “God” in this thread bear in mind that I refer simply to “the Source.”

Now before proceeding let us look again at some further features of Deistic thought –

Deism can be a belief in a deity absent of any doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of such a deity. Deism bears a relationship to naturalism. As such Deism gives credit for the formation of life and the universe to a higher power that by design allows only natural processes to govern creation.

Note that it is absolutely central to the Deist worldview that there is an absence of doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of the Deity.

Many persons have for this reason accused the Deist of being vague; and of worshipping a “nameless God” – but hang on – does it not make sense? I think it does.

The reason for this is simple and should be self evident – let us return to that which I stated earlier – namely that we focus on that which we know or can know, and not that which we do not know or assume.

Now can it really be said by anybody that man has any accurate knowledge of what the Source is? The Source forever remains a mystery to us.

This is why the most honest thing one can do is simply to admit that whilst it is evident that there must a Source – we do not know and may not be able to understand the nature of the source

This is why the Deist develops no “doctrines” concerning God (“the Source) but simply is content in the certainty of its existence.

And this in my humble opinion is the most honest path to take – for God is absolutely ineffable and incomprehensible.

Nature as the Reference Point
Any understanding to be derived of life, must naturally be derived from the natural world we see about us – for the natural world is indeed the only thing which we can firmly see and are aware of evidently – and which can give us hints about the nature of “the Source.”

This is perhaps as simple as saying that we can have hints of a father’s genetic make-up when looking at his child: thus that looking at nature, we may have hints about “the Source” of nature.

It’s really as simple as that.

Be right back. . .

OLAADEGBU:

Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

It could be, or it could not be what was stated in the Bible. Zoroastrianism, for example, holds just about the same tenet Ahura Mazda.

viaro:

Hahaha! This thread is deep shit!

Pardon my opening remarks, DeepSight, but I'd expected far much more from you than the piffling in your OP. Your effort in opening the thread is well appreciated, if I take it to be in response to my cudgelling you to have a grip on your deism. But it's remarkable that even before viaro came here, others are asking questions already.

Nothing new in what I already understood about deism in general; but what you outlined in your propositions quite simply and essentially leave far too many holes to be taken seriously.

I shall not go down the ultra-shanky route of responding to each line of your propositions, for that would be rather drab and unfruitful. Instead, we shall be more concerned with the philosophy behind your deism, since it requires reducible probables for its physicalist appraisals. What you have presented is nothing more than deism as a natural religion divorced from indices of any "celestial spiritual" phenomena (since you take these latter to be "largely assumed beliefs".

Consequently, the point at which your most serious problem stands is at proposition #3: 'What can the individual say that he knows for sure?'. Your certainty of "knowables" under the illusion that, as regards what you believe, you may "rationally and intuitively know for certain", quite simply consigns your discourse to the field of epistemic logic. And that again presents you with far more problems than you can handle. I recommend for now that you carefully read up Fitch's paradox of knowability before you proceed any further. You disregard my advice at your peril - and if that be the case, I'd proceed to quickly wrap up your deep shit once and for all.

Dress warm.

I am sorry Viaro, but it is not the purpose of this thread to prove or justify anything. I merely wish to share my personal views with those interested.
So regrettably i may not be able to attend your queries.

Thanks.

OLAADEGBU:

Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

No it is not correct to assume that such a belief in a Deity that creates comes from the Bible.

You are well aware that an almost standard feature of the belief systems of almost every tribe or race historically has included beliefs about a creator. Even your own Yoruba race has its own legends of a creator and so do other races - such were clearly not derived from the Bible.

Rather i am inclined to say that the recognition  that there is a Source for all that exists is a natural and logical inference that any person can easily make and can also be intuitively derived.

Deep Sight:

I am sorry Viaro, but it is not the purpose of this thread to prove or justify anything. I merely wish to share my personal views with those interested.
So regrettably i may not be able to attend your queries.

No worries. You quickly wave this apology because you're quite unable to maintain course with your previous heckling against what others believe? Or do I take it that you're just not man enough to have your deism scrutinized in the same way as you've been damning the beliefs of others (particularly Christians) as bullshit (B.S)?

I don't have a problem with your worldview, trust me - there are people around me that are into that (and for their sakes I'd been slow to deal with yours). I just wanted to see what would be left of your worldview after I'd skinned it through and through. But relax - nothing you say further in this thread matters; but when you heckle Christians in future, look over your shoulders . . . I might be around to smart you up.

viaro:

It could be, or it could not be what was stated in the Bible. Zoroastrianism, for example, holds just about the same tenet Ahura Mazda.

Are you saying that your knowledge that the Creator comes from intuition and the scriptures of Zoroaster?  If yes, do you care to share those scriptures with us, especially where it states that God created the universe and how, so that we can analyse it to details?

viaro:

No worries. You quickly wave this apology because you're quite unable to maintain course with your previous heckling against what others believe? Or do I take it that you're just not man enough to have your deism scrutinized in the same way as you've been damning the beliefs of others (particularly Christians) as bullshit (B.S)?

I don't have a problem with your worldview, trust me - there are people around me that are into that (and for their sakes I'd been slow to deal with yours). I just wanted to see what would be left of your worldview after I'd skinned it through and through. But relax - nothing you say further in this thread matters; but when you heckle Christians in future, look over your shoulders . . . I might be around to smart you up.

Viaro- I do not mean that i do not welcome questions - i always do.

But i sense the purpose of your queries is perhaps something akin to t.it for tat - which you have admitted.

I seek to show that a belief in God without further extended religious doctrines is a cogent and sensible path to tow.

I welcome you to contradict that if you will.

_{Quote from the same wiki page on Deism i have been referring to above -}

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:

The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".
The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Given that quoted above, it is strange to me to see a Theist who has issues with Deism - given that it really is a form of Theism skimmed down to its most bare essential - namely that there is God - and nothing more; except perhaps a further inference that the nature of things in the natural world could be pointers to their Source (God).

Recent scientific evidence confirms that there are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe and probably trillions of planets, none of the mainstream religions begin to conceptualize this fact, a school of thought believes that the God that created the universe is a totally seperate entity to the God that created life on earth.

Deepsight i would like to have your opinion on this view that there could be multiple supreme Gods or an hierachy of Gods way beyond human comprehension.

Deep Sight:

Viaro- I do not mean that i do not welcome questions - i always do.

But i sense the purpose of your queries is perhaps something akin to t.it for tat - which you have admitted.

I didn't "admit" to anything about tit-for-tat; rather, this thread is an absolute deep shit for all its worth. It is not now that you woke up to set up a thread about the "essentials of deism", but you did so in response to previous calls for you to show an outline for your nameless, faceless, illiterate oneness of infinity - which you have indeed tacitly acknowledged as one of the underpinnings of the raison d'etre of this thread:[list]

Deep Sight: In a slew of ceaseless queries and snide comments, persons on this forum have consistently sought either clarification or mockery from the discourses on the Deistic world-view.

[/list]
. . . there! One wonders why "persons" (plural) would be 'mocking' any discourse about Deism if you had not been funny in your previous discussions in displaying your rabid fundamentalism against what others believe.

Look, I'm not here to spoil your farce. Do whatever you like; but stop fooling yourself. It seems that you're never able to stand up for anything and only borrowing speed and leg to run from one thread to another when your views are under spotlight. Carry on, not many people would be pensive about your drama here.

I seek to show that a belief in God without further extended religious doctrines is a cogent and sensible path to tow.

I welcome you to contradict that if you will.

First, you're not sure if you want to maintain a talk about "God" or "The Source"; so setting up a strawman for me to attack is a grand comedy - a farce in the recesses of unexcavated cesspool.

Second, please don't make me laugh with that quip about "extended" religious doctrines - we know that deism does nothing but steal doctrines for its cosmetic worldviews. You want to contradict that also?

Given that quoted above, it is strange to me to see a Theist who has issues with Deism - given that it really is a form of Theism skimmed down to its most bare essential - namely that there is God - and nothing more; except perhaps a further inference that the nature of things in the natural world could be pointers to their Source (God).

Don't be such a toad. Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it. Theism - ah, you find plenty of forms; but deism? - that's a thief of all religions!_{sorry grandma!}

I don't have issues with Deism; it is the deist who is confused with himself in his fundamentalism that viaro has issues with. Anyone can use 'God' to refer to anything - including Spinoza's 'god'; but it has nothing concrete to theistic core beliefs. You have demonstrated once and again that you're not sure whether to call your "it" a God or a Source - for there are gods many and sources aplenty. Get a life and school up - you're just damn too scared of your shadow to venture into the waters of philosophy, that's why you need to change your meds.

OLAADEGBU:

Are you saying that your knowledge that the Creator comes from intuition and the scriptures of Zoroaster? If yes, do you care to share those scriptures with us, especially where it states that God created the universe and how, so that we can analyse it to details?

No, my knowledge of the Creator does not come from the Zoroastrian writs. My point previously was that many people who speak about a 'Creator' may not necessarily have got that affirmation from the Bible.

As a Christian, one of the things that I understand about the revelation of God is that He has made Himself known to other generations who did not have a canon called 'the Bible' - and I believe the Bible also affirms the same thing nonetheless. This does not take anything away from the fact that my faith as a Christian is founded on the Bible; but it helps me appreciate the fact that God has been revealing Himself to people long before the Bible was written.

In any case, that should not detract from this thread - let's leave Deep Sight to enjoy his world here. I would be glad to discuss this matter further in another thread if you may. God bless you.

Hi Kunle -

Your question was put to me sometime ago in a slightly different form.

Here is what i had to say -

The first ground will be my understanding of what is set forth within the message, and the second ground will be my honest, most limited, most imperfect, human perspective.

The first ground - I read within the message that God in HIS Divine perfection emitts unimaginably great heat and energy, and that after the first creation, the gradual cooling-off of the radiations from God precipitate the forming of further creations further and further away from God. I understand from this that God therefore only directly spawned the primordial spiritual worlds, and that the continued precipitations/ radiations from these worlds, bearing God's white-hot creative-heat, as they cooled off, formed further worlds, and ultimately, the world of gross matter.

As always, i did not just swallow this hook, line and sinker without thought, and i find that there are reasons why this makes sense to me within my world View. These reasons are -

1. I can clearly sense and even see the existence of non-physical things even in this world: love, thought, dreams, telepathy, pyscho-kinesis, the list is endless. Accordingly i am firmly aware that i am a being that exists and is real even without my physical body, arms, legs, nose, mouth, etc. I have often noted that each human being "hears" the thoughts of his own mind clearly. Now since these are not audible sounds, he clearly does not hear them with his physical ears. This makes it clear that the inner man has ears of its own. The inner mind. The Inner Sipiritual.

2. Thus i see that the world of matter is not all that exists.

3. Given that the physical body dies, i am also aware that the spiritual part becomes disembodied from the material part at death. I do not assert this as proof of anything to anyone, but to my mind it seems clear that the spiritual being will necessarily exist within a realm of its own nature, just as the material body existed in a material world.

4. Thus spiritual realms do exist. And by the very transitory nature of matter it seems clear to me that such realms pre-date and post-exist matter, if i may use such terms. It really is like saying that the world of forms and ideas is eternal, while matter is transitory.

5. If this is true, then it falls into place as espoused by the mesage that the direct creation of God, is primordial spiritual, and not material.

Now there is a little piece of scientifice thinking that crystalizd this very clearly for me a short while ago.

Here i dovetail into my human understanding -

I was staring at a block of ice, which i had pulled out of my glass of beer. As i stared at it it began to melt, turning into water in the tray. I know from physics that given time that very water will dry up into the air. It does not dissappear, it changes form, just as surely as if we put the Ice in a heated pan, it will become water, and eventually steam, and the steam will float of airily into the air.

It struck me that Ice represents gross matter - it is hard and tangible, like your physical body. When heated however, it becomes steam, which is like your spirit - intangible and mobile, flexible, and dynamic, able to float, soar, move easily. More importantly, it struck me that since in physics, greater heat causes greater motion, then the intangible (steam in this instance) must necessaily be more heated than the tangible.

(This is why great passion feels to us like heat in our chest, and emotionlessness is described as "cold"

Thus the spiritual is more heated that the physical - and accordingly, is closer to the ultimate heat - which is God.

I thought - if the spiritual is heated and intangible, just how heated and intangible will the Ultimate heat be? That hints at the pure divinity of God.

When the process is looked at in the reverse, it immediatley bears out that which is espoused in the Grail Message: That the cooling off of great heat, will eventually result in the appearance of hard matter! - Just as surely as if steam is cooled off, it will become water, and eventually, further cooling will result in the hard immovable ice! This thinking led me to see the simple and yet flawless beauty and scientific accuracy in the assertion that the cooling-off of God's radiations precipitates the development of further forms of creation, and ultimately hard matter.

It also helps me see and understand death and the rising of the spiritual towards God, and toward the primordial spiritual, as a journey of increasing intangibility, and thus increasing purity.

I hope the foregoing is sufficient, as i do not wish to get distracted from the Essentials of this thread.

viaro:

No, my knowledge of the Creator does not come from the Zoroastrian writs. My point previously was that many people who speak about a 'Creator' may not necessarily have got that affirmation from the Bible.

Am sorry to have mistaken you for Deep Sight.  I thought he was trying to prove that his knowledge that God created the universe came from the Bible.  I also concur with you that God has revealed himself in many ways apart from His written Word - which is the Bible. 

viaro:

As a Christian, one of the things that I understand about the revelation of God is that He has made Himself known to other generations who did not have a canon called 'the Bible' - and I believe the Bible also affirms the same thing nonetheless. This does not take anything away from the fact that my faith as a Christian is founded on the Bible; but it helps me appreciate the fact that God has been revealing Himself to people long before the Bible was written.

I also believe that He, the uncreated Creator, revealed Himself through His creation and also through our consciences as explained in Romans 1:19-20 which says that creation reveals the genius of God's creative hand and why people will be without excuse when it comes to believing in God's existence.

viaro:

In any case, that should not detract from this thread - let's leave Deep Sight to enjoy his world here. I would be glad to discuss this matter further in another thread if you may. God bless you.

I wish Deep Sight could describe to us in clear terms who and where his source is from because if he reads the decalogue he will discover that it resonates with what God has written in his conscience.

Are deists tempted to anthropomorphize the source like it is done by other theistic dogmas?How do you view the source in your minds?Abrahamists need mental images, what do you guys use?

KunleOshob:

Recent scientific evidence confirms that there are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe and probably trillions of planets, none of the mainstream religions begin to conceptualize this fact, a school of thought believes that the God that created the universe is a totally seperate entity to the God that created life on earth.

Deepsight i would like to have your opinion on this view that there could be multiple supreme Gods or an hierachy of Gods way beyond human comprehension.

What is your own school of thought, are you also a deist?

Deep Sight:

Hi Kunle -

Your question was put to me sometime ago in a slightly different form.

Here is what i had to say -

I hope the foregoing is sufficient, as i do not wish to get distracted from the Essentials of this thread.

It is not sufficient but i would stand back and take up the issues later as not to distract you from the "essentials" of your thread.

OLAADEGBU:

What is your own school of thought, are you also a deist?

I am sure you know full well that i am a born again christian even though i don't subscribe to a lot of church dogma and wrong practises going on in the church today in the name of religion.

KunleOshob:

I am sure you know full well that i am a born again christian even though i don't subscribe to a lot of church dogma and wrong practises going on in the church today in the name of religion.

That is great! Glory be to God!! But can I scratch the surface at little bit? Do you now believe that the Bible is infallible and that Jesus Christ is God?

@olaadegbu
The onus is on you to show me from scriptures that the 66 ancient texts cannonized by the roman catholic church in the year 396AD is infallible bearing in mind that christians in the first three centuries never used or had the bible as we know it. On the issue of Jesus being God, I stand by the biblical records which stated clearly that he is the SON of God and NOT God Almighty. You claim to believe the bible is infallible yet you adhere desperately to the unbiblical and unchristian trinity doctrine.

KunleOshob:

@olaadegbu
The onus is on you to show me from scriptures that the 66 ancient texts cannonized by the roman catholic church in the year 396AD is infallible bearing in mind that christians in the first three centuries never used or had the bible as we know it. On the issue of Jesus being God, I stand by the biblical records which stated clearly that he is the SON of God and NOT God Almighty. You claim to believe the bible is infallible yet you adhere desperately to the unbiblical and unchristian trinity doctrine.

Can you identify which step you are currently treading in the picture below?

viaro:


Don't be such a toad. Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it.

Wonders shall never cease.


It appears that some people are so far gone in religious sentiment that they exist only to contradict any thing uttered by the non-religious mind – even if such results in very strange statements indeed.


Let’s have a look at the statement above from our Christian Knight Viaro –

Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it.

Lawd have mercy! Viaro, are you kidding me?


I would never believed you were capable of such unspeakable incongruity.


Not even a form or shadow of it, did you say? ? ? Ha ha, I would love to see you defend this one.


Although I hardly need to, let me just post the definitions of both words here –


There are from wikipedia’s pages on Deism and Theism respectively –

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.


Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2]

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

And under the Title Types of Theism there is a list and description of different types of Theism, which includes this –

Deism
Main article: Deism
While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.
• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.[9] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[10]
o Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
o Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
o Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Thus it is very very strange indeed that you would say that Deism is “not even a form or shadow” of theism.

To the extent that Theism is about belief in a Deity, and that Deism connotes acceptance of a Deity, then it is simply preposterous for you to state that Diesm is “not even a form or shadow” of Theism. That is not only eminently false; it is also ridiculous.

This is all the more underscored by the following –

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:
• The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".

• The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Indeed the very word “Deist” is indicative of “Diety” – which is the basis of Theism.

Ready to retract that awful gaffe, Viaro?

And yet you call ME illiterate!

Let me just note that whereas the positions I have set out in this thread so far indicate - 
1. Belief in God
2. Belief that the purpose of God is Harmony –
And despite the fact that we all well know you agree with 1 & 2 above, you have barged into this thread declaring that the propositions it sets out are “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

I can only conclude that you consider belief in God to be “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Well! I guess it’s now pretty clear what your motivation is! You have allowed yourself to become so bitter with me that you end up determined to oppose everything I state: even when I simply state that God exists! You now wind up declaring that Deism has nothing to do with Theism – and thereby embarrass yourself very seriously ! ! ! This bitterness also leads you to describe a belief in God (which is what this thread espouses) as “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Bitterness is not good for you, son: you need to let it go. See what it’s doing to your credentials?

I do wonder Viaro, I honestly wonder!

Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

I guess our ancestors didn't believe in a supreme being until the white men came with their bible and machine guns in hand of course.

anyway continue with the thread folks

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:

It appears that some people are so far gone in religious sentiment that they exist only to contradict any thing uttered by the non-religious mind – even if such results in very strange statements indeed.

Oh please shat up! Who are you trying to impress by insinuating you're "non-religious"? Even your definition of deism says that it is a "religious and philosophical belief", and you're here trying to impress who with your dense drama? Thing is, not only are you deeply shitty, but you're also a fundamentalist religious goon who's too scared of facing up to the philosophy of his deistic religion! You think waving "non-religion" in our faces would do all the abracadabra for your deep shit here? Please.

Let’s have a look at the statement above from our Christian Knight Viaro –

Relax, I'm no knight nor kibosh nor your average klutz, that's all.

I would never believed you were capable of such unspeakable incongruity.

Please slow down on your hyperventilations - are you cured of your whooping cough yet?

Not even a form or shadow of it, did you say? ? ? Ha ha, I would love to see you defend this one.

I shall bro. . . I shall.

Although I hardly need to, let me just post the definitions of both words here –
There are from wikipedia’s pages on Deism and Theism respectively –

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.


Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2]

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

Yeah, I saw that already, and there are others as well from this Wikipedia page. It still misses out on one point - that any resource(s) you cited in your defence has to be considered in light of what context the author is treating his subject, and the target audience of his article. To this end, even the link above noted that "the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism" - and you repeated that highlight in your next excerpt, no?? Let's see:

And under the Title Types of Theism there is a list and description of different types of Theism, which includes this –

Deism
Main article: Deism
While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.
• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.[9] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[10]
o Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
o Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
o Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Did you suppose that I was oblivious of that article before my initial comments or remarks? Nope, I saw it, and wondered if you miss the very fact that the article stated clearly that the specific definition of theism excludes deism? Inspite of that incontrovertible fact, the author wanted to help you guys fool yourselves all the more by including it under deism - he had his reasons for doing so, but that does not stand as a rule of thumb for all other citations. An example from the Religious Tolerance website:
[list]

Most religions define deity according to one of the following four theological belief systems. In alphabetic order, they are:

Deism - Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it.
Panentheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe, but it exists beyond the universe as well.
Pantheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe.
Theism - Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world's activities and in human history.

[/list]

Did you notice that this example did not put deism as a form of theism? One of the reasons why most people include deism under theism is because they are largely unware of the differences between them; nor do they care to about the outcomes in very practical terms of how theism in its particular reference does not feature deism as one of its forms. It is in very practical terms that one knows the difference - such as when you speak particularly to a deist (Anthony Flew, Albert Eisntein, being a few ready examples: would such figures acclaim themselves to be theists or deists? And what would be the reason for such to rather be identified as deists instead of just theists?).

Deep Sight: Thus it is very very strange indeed that you would say that Deism is “not even a form or shadow” of theism.

It is not strange - DeepSight, when was the last time you told anyone on this forum that you are a THEIST? let's just be practical, because all this fluff you're waving is not effective here. Why do deists often stand as deists rather than as THEISTS in general discussions anyday and anytime?

To the extent that Theism is about belief in a Deity, and that Deism connotes acceptance of a Deity, then it is simply preposterous for you to state that Diesm is “not even a form or shadow” of Theism. That is not only eminently false; it is also ridiculous.

Dude, have you ever tried to answer straight questions when your faceless, nameless and ::::::: "Source" or "it" is examined? Do you care to show the specifics of your deism so people get to know whether you can stand to bear being called a theist? I know what I'm talking about here, bro. . . and when you're ready, let's go visit your deism and UnCloth it with epistemic logic - afterall, your deism is defined to be also a philosophical worldview, no?

This is all the more underscored by the following –

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:
• The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".

• The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Indeed the very word “Deist” is indicative of “Diety” – which is the basis of Theism.

Uhm, dude, you're not a clever chap at all. What did you mean by that bold - that deism is supposed to the basis for theism? Are you daft or what? Please learn to distinguish between your tenses, so no one is easily gulled by your drama here. Deism (from which you have "deist" is a belief system developed in the 17th century; and that does not mean that the Greeks did not have a word in their language for deity much earlier.

On the other hand, theism is distinguished from deism; but the [url=http://Finally, it is distinguished from Deism, which denies God's active]concept of theism[/url] is said to be as old as philosophy. Don't try confusing yourself here, please.

Ready to retract that awful gaffe, Viaro?

What gaffe - yours? Impress yourself.

And yet you call ME illiterate!

Plus, you're a fundamentalist one too! Not only do you confuse your onions, your duplicity should have been named the 7th wonder in the world.

Let me just note that whereas the positions I have set out in this thread so far indicate - 
1. Belief in God
2. Belief that the purpose of God is Harmony –
And despite the fact that we all well know you agree with 1 & 2 above, you have barged into this thread declaring that the propositions it sets out are “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Dude, please. .  please. .  and please: don't try to register viaro on anything before confirming directly! I do not agree with you on any proposition - those are rogue deep shit;, and if there was any substance to them, you would not have evaded dealing with what exactly you're presenting here - epistemic logic (which was why I adviced you go and read "Fitch's paradox of knowability" before spewing more gutter). I reckon the moment you saw that, your left kidney collapsed - and now you come back like a schmuck to say I agreed with your propositions? What a joke you must be!

I can only conclude that you consider belief in God to be “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

If you can only consider that, you're only confirming you're a fundy illiterate. Belief in God is not my problem - it is rather your penchant to run from "substance" to "Source" to "oneness of infinity" to your "singularity" that has collapsed into a blackhole! All the thousand and one proses you have tried to hoodwink the public with on this your nameless, faceless, :::::: malady, have not helped, and you are sinking your boat on hopes that I have problem with belief in GOD? Are you for real??

I guess it’s now pretty clear what your motivation is! You have allowed yourself to become so bitter with me that you end up determined to oppose everything I state: even when I simply state that God exists!

Dude, I'm not bitter - I just don't take any crap you spew these days with a tag of "God" for any price! The Devil also claims to be "God", and he also states it "simply". If you don't know what 'god' was behind your fundamentalism to go about the forum bedevilling Christians for what they believe, what is my worry that you're now playing the pity party because viaro is showing you up?

You now wind up declaring that Deism has nothing to do with Theism – and thereby embarrass yourself very seriously ! ! !

Who - me. .  embarrassed? You wish!
YOUR deism has nothing to do with theism - and I stand on that ANYDAY! On what plank of theism does your OOI stand?

This bitterness also leads you to describe a belief in God (which is what this thread espouses) as “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

I did not describe a belief in God as any of those things - unless you're a dense idiot who can no longer read simple statements and have been reduced to the level of soliciting poor public condolences. Your thread is deep poo - that is why you fear to touch it with its real tool (epistemic logic) and have also inidcated you're not so sure whether to refer to God or "the Source" - what games you're up to is what I stand to point out for its shitty business. You can cement the tag of "God" and cry me a river for all I care, this boohoo you're making is empty talk.

Bitterness is not good for you, son: you need to let it go. See what it’s doing to your credentials?

Please call your medics - viaro is not bitter, he's just not letting you flap your tattered wings in your fusty pyhamas anymore. Did I not warn you that the time will come when I shall peep into your deism? No, that time has not come. . . this is just saluting you before the main course.

I had wanted to leave you to enjoy fooling yourself in this makeshift drama of a thread (yea, it's still deep shit all the same, but I'd rather you don't go about stinking on the forum when you proceed, hehe). I thought you said you would not like to attend my queries? Epistemic Logic proved too much for your taste buds - and you're still falling all over yourself with your gull here?  Bro, just let me know when you can be man enough to talk real issues, not these cosmetic theatricals you're waving in people's faces, you dig?

None of the foregoing is worth my time -

Theism has to do with a belief in God or gods.

Deism has to do with a belief in the existence of at least one God who created all things.

I suppose it missed you that i have pointed out TWICE the fact that both words are actually sourced from the same word - "god"

One is sourced from the latin for "god" and the other from the greek for "god."

What is theism if not a belief in God or gods?

And what is deism if not a belief in God who created and nothing more?

Deism is therefore a subset of Theism - and no amount of grammar in the world can change that fact.

unless of course you are willing to claim that Deists do not believe in the existence of God.

I hope that such a leap would be beyond even you.

And note that you claimed that Deism does not have even a shadow of THEISM!

Don't write that in your thesis o: you go fail big-time.

viaro and Deep Sight:

I think the fundamental difference between Deism and Theism is that Theism believes God plays a very active role in the scheme of things, while Deism believes God's direct role is very passive. Since Deism denies an active role, all supernatural matters are summarily dismissed, while Theism itself hangs upon the supernatural with every breath. can we then say Deism is a form of Theism? I don't think so.

I believe some people group them together because they are both in opposition of atheism (belief that God does not exist) and various forms of pantheism (belief that God is not a discrete singular being).