I don't wish to attack deism, as I see deists as more on my side than theists, in general.

But I just don't get what the point of it is.

It always seems to start with the same sort of appeals used by theists about "how else could this happen" or it "looks designed". Or that there just must be a higher power. I'm not aware of any good logical argument that leads to any sort of creator.

And this is where I really have the problem; if there is some sort of intelligent creator who made our universe (I don't have a problem accepting it's possible) why call it a God? All you know about it is it can make at least one universe, as we perceive it. So it's another being, somewhere else, presumably. It sounds more like the simulation hypothesis.

I've heard it said that God is the placeholder for whatever made the universe, even so far as to say God could be nothing, if nothing made it. That's just defining God to be the answer to a question, and seems entirely pointless to me.

So does anyone have any insight on why a deist chooses to believe in a God, for better reasons than those I've stated, and why you label a creator a God? Is it just meant to be a synonym? It seems weird given the word God is so well known to mean something all powerful, rather than something more powerful than us.

I've posted several arguments which highlight problems with deism before and not been given an answer. Assuming intelligent design is necessary for all existence produces an infinite regress. If intelligent design isn't always necessary, then how can you know our universe needs it?

I guess I'm wondering why you would choose to identify as a deist rather than an atheist. I would think it must be fairly important to you to add such a bold belief. Is it a desire to hold on to something a bit mystical and magical without committing to anything particular?

Thanks for any replies! I'm not having a go, I just find it confusing.

It's an attempt to shut up the people who like to argue that Yahweh/Allah must exist because the universe needs a divine creator. You you say fine. I'm a deist now. So how do you go from divine creator to Abrahamic god? When christians can't make that connection, the person remains a deist and the theist can't use the divine creator argument anymore.

I see. Yeah, that kind of makes sense.

I make the same point a lot, someone is performing some ridiculous flawed logic and I just say that even if your conclusion is right it still doesn't lead to what you want it to. I'm trying to name the technique... "Betting on the wrong horse" or "shortcoming fallacy" or "pointless fallacy". Or something. "Dismissal by irrelevant conclusion", that is, your argument can be dismissed because it doesn't even prove your point.

After leaving christianity for good, I meddled with paganism and wicca for a while. I didn't believe in any god or gods, what I believed in and many others did too, was nature itself being that superior force. Some even called it a being. So there was never any denying of the Big Bang or evolution involved. Even the ones believing in the wiccan Mother Goddess and her companion, the Horned God, rather thought them to be symbols than actual entities.

Yeah, I've heard that kind of thing too, nature is God and such. I have no problem with the idea of admiring or worshipping nature, makes far more sense than any religion. Even worshipping the sun, after all it exists and keeps us alive. Just the use of the word God which I find odd, since it's such a different meaning in that case.

I am married to a deist---sounds like the title to a true confessions novel. In his case it's a gut feeling that there is something divine behind it all plus a sure knowledge that that something does not spend it's time meddling in the day to day affairs of people, and that it isn't any of the absurd gods people have created to represent it. His idea of god is so abstract and disinterested that it's existence is not a hypothesis that can be tested or indeed makes any real difference to the world. And yes he's aware that it's a gut feeling, not "knowledge." It's not the sort of belief that is troubled by atheism in his nearest and dearest. And his deism doesn't bother me.

Not everyone who rejects a religion (or religion in general) rejects the idea of god. They simply reject the version(s) of god that they have learned about, having found them wanting in some way or another. For a short time after my deconversion, I wondered about whether there was a creator. I decided I was atheist when I realized that if the universe was spun off the fingers of some cosmic power who then went about his business and forgot about it, then it wasn't any different from there not being one at all.

Thanks very much for your feedback. I guess that's the other thing, it has no practical difference from atheism. I don't try and claim there wasn't a creator, I have no reason to.

(December 4, 2014 at 11:41 am)robvalue Wrote: Thanks very much for your feedback. I guess that's the other thing, it has no practical difference from atheism. I don't try and claim there wasn't a creator, I have no reason to.

It closes the gap if you're still hungry for some spiritualism. In my case it had it's attraction because it wasn't judgmental, it didn't threaten you with anything, you didn't have to leave your brain and your eduction at the entrance and doing a bit of witchcraft was much more fun than prayer.

One of my best friends still considers herself a witch. Whenever I move she insists on cleansing my new home.

(December 4, 2014 at 10:52 am)robvalue Wrote: "Dismissal by irrelevant conclusion", that is, your argument can be dismissed because it doesn't even prove your point.

The technical name for this is ignoratio elenchi.

Wikipedia Wrote:Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.