Question for deists: Why is there a Creator?

[Zenith]

So if God is a conscious being, as you stated, then does it really make sense to think that He's an impersonal God (while having consciousness)? That idea doesn't seem to fit together for me though.

Consciousness doesn't mean personal. I sometimes use my human-scientist-and-the-petri-dish analogy to illustrate. The human scientist cultivate the bacteria colony in the petri dish but has no relationship with the individual cells or any ability to relate to them. It's a matter of scale.

Mind if you explain that to me better? The reason why we can't communicate with cells is pretty obvious (they don't have the abilities we have, because they are simple cells, i.e. no ears to hear, no eyes to see us, etc.). So, if the Creator willed, why would it be impossible for Him to communicate with a person? Or you consider the Creator as a kind of Gaia (i.e. a handicapped God that created the universe, but cannot think/reason, does not have memory, whatever)? Though it's quite odd to imagine the Creator inferior and much less complex to His own creation.

You know, I was thinking of something like: do you have any arguments why there must/should be a Creator, instead of things simply existing (i.e. atheist version)? If you think there is a God, are there some things that made you reach that conclusion?

Mostly instinct, to be completely honest.

There is my "homosexuality proves God" argument.

I don't know that argument. Please explain.

By the way, I've looked upon the site which Cinjin Cain has given. I've found some of your beliefs there.
May I ask you, how that you (i.e.DeistPaladin) came to become a deist? it appears as if you were 'converted' or something, rather than what I imagined (i.e. I imagined that you came to the conclusions yourself and then found out that this is called "deism"). And also, if you wish to tell, and if it is not covered by the previous question, how did you get to believe that there is a Creator?

Some things that I found interesting on that site: it calls "deism" a religion, it has a founder, it seems to have a doctrine, like:

WHAT BEING A DEIST DEMANDS

Being a Deist demands that we truly believe, to the depths of our souls, that the spiritual philosophy of Deism will definitely make our own lives better and that it will make the world a better place.

It seems to me for now that this 'religion' has all the potential to become like other modern religions. The next step is deism "teachers" whom to teach the doctrine and wisdom of deism (as the "deism" seems not to be confined to "I believe in a God that ignores us", and there seem to be books on the topic). But, whatever...

Science is the study of the universe. Studying creation is a way to better know the creator. Science is what brings us closer to understanding God.

So how much you have learned about the Creator so far?

P.S. Another point about "Mostly instinct, to be completely honest." which you've said:
Have you thought that perhaps your instinct does not necessarily 'believe' the truth?
Also, have you thought about finding arguments for the existence of a Creator?

[Cinjin]

So we should conclude that your personal conjecture is precisely nil then Cinjin = you have thought about proof of the metaphysical = as I said - a waste of time.

What the fuck are you going on about YOU TWAT!

Ah - you're an atheist ...I understand

Name calling? Common Frodo, what would Jesus do? O WAIT, never-mind, I don't want you to KILL me!!!!

what can I say ......... christians.

If anyone here (besides crazy Frodo) reading my posts is unclear about what I said, or in any way feels that I was verbose, or that I did not define well enough what I meant by "conjecture of metaphysical/spiritual things" ..... PLEASE say so. So that I can correct the situation.

[fr0d0]

So that wasn't clear enough for you Cinjin? Figures.

So are you going to answer the questions or is this your final cop out?

[Napoléon]

What the fuck are you going on about YOU TWAT!

Ah - you're an CHRISTIAN ...I understand

Lmao frodo that's pretty much how I feel whenever I see you chatting your shite.

[Justtristo]

When I look at the universe, I see a grand machine, from the micro to the macro. When I reflect on the human mind and how far we've come, how much seemed to come together in our evolution and hope for how far we'll go, I'm convinced this was intended.

Summer Queen asked me about the philosophy of deism. I'd like to add that one difference deism does make is a sense of optimism about the human prospect. I have a sense that the human race is progressively evolving not just biologically but also morally. We're living in a time of technological adolescence, a point that will make or break our species and our civilization. I have faith that reason will triumph, though the last ten years has tested that conviction.

As for why there is only one, because we have a supernaturally tranquil universe, one governed by only one set of laws. If there is more than one mind behind it all, they are acting as one.

---

I was probably a deist or pantheist back in the day, also I believed in much the same stuff about human morality evolving in a 'better' direction as well.

[Arcturus]

I'm just curios about deists' arguments for the existence of a Creator.
And, hopefully it does not sound foolish: why should there be only one creator?

hopefully this is the right place to post this thread...

The deistic worldview is actually rather similar to the atheistic view (yes, I know that atheism is simply the lack of belief, but I'm referring to the common consensus here) with regards to science and nature within the universe. The only difference is that deism solves the problem of the universe coming into existence by the addition of an intelligent cause that is immune to regress, while that of atheism is one that is based on a non-intelligent cause (or some others, who do not even see the need for a cause).

In my opinion, postulating a creator that is far more complex than the universe itself, which we have set out to explain in the first place, simply compounds the problem. Yes, it may fit all logical observation, but the deistic god hypothesis is still inelegant when it fits into the big picture.

[Darth]

Ooh ooh oohh an atheism vs deism battle, I WANT IN! (Used to be a pandeist of sorts), I'm still agnostic towards deism and its variants, I still have a lot of time for them. Gnostic atheist to all theistic claims.

Someone asked about pantheism and how it relates to deism, didnt see a response to the question so:

-Pantheism is the belief that 'God' and 'the universe'/'nature' are synomynous, nature = god. You can leave it at that or take it further with things being interconnected into some sort of panpsychism, never got into it myself, seemed like a pointless semantic gymnastic exercise in its weakest form, and more religious shenanigans in its stronger forms. Non personal, non anthropomorphic... (I'm not the best person to ask for a definition of it as you can see, pantheists might object to how I've described their belief)
-Deism is the belief that there is a creator (or creators) who created the universe. That's it. Again, non personal, non anthropomorphic. Anything after that is speculation.

You didn't ask but I'll tell you anyway:
-Pandeism is a combination of the two. The creator deity created the universe, by becoming the universe. It's easier to speculate reasons for the creation with pandeism than it is with deism (and funner as well). Its more logical than deism for that reason(Imma drawnin my lines in the sand here, Imma take EVERBODY on!).

some prefixs/affixes explained...
-en- means that the god is the universe, BUT, there is more to the god than the universe. 100% of the universe is within or=god, but god is larger than just that. So panendeism would be the belief that the creator deity, created the universe, by mostly becoming the universe, but it left some part of itself outside, that didn't become the universe. Panentheism, the universe/nature = a part of god.
-poly- of course means multiple creators. Polypanendeism... =P

The deistic/pandeistic god needn't be infinite, only 'very' x (intelligent, powerful) enough to start the universe going as it is, and nothing more.

I do seriously doubt the claims of "like any other religion". The panthiests and deists would never start annihilating each other over doctrine. "God = universe" or A "deity/s created the universe" if that's it then what's to fight about, there are no ramifications. Neither has much scope for real life applications, might as well be atheists really (who believe in a god =P). Apatheism almost, its irelevent in day to day living, untill you crave a good debate or are probing the origins of the universe. Edit: Wow, just had a look at that site, I can see where you're coming from (though it's hard to argue that a world full of deists and pantheists wouldn't be a thousand times more peaceful than a world full of theists. For an antitheist, if given a choice of a theistic world, a deistic world and an atheistic world, deistic would be the seccond choice). I'm not that interested in defending the author of that article, he's a numpty, but I do feel you took him a little out of context given what he then goes on to say (His fault for making it so easy though, "demands" honestly...) Think hes doing a bit of a true scotsman there, deism says nothing of the sort. "Will make your life and the world better..." I'm sure some theists who became deists (as they are want to do, deism and pantheism are often transitional stages) were displeased at having their best buddy become an impersonal indifferent deity. If I make a site about atheism, atheismisawesome.whatever and then claim that "atheism demands that, to the depths of your being, you believe a) there is no god (or don't believe there is a god), and that this belief/lack of belief will make you a better person and would make the world a better place" you'd object, "hold on, get your antitheism off my atheism, stop conflating the two it doesn't help, and 'demands' is an idiotic word to use for a simple lack of belief/belief there is no god, anything else is your own and unrelated to atheism.". Having said that, Who's this founder you spoke of? I didnt see anything on there about a founder (legitimate question, I'm not having a go at you here, I don't doubt that this guy has written that somewhere, that is if he isn't claiming he is)
What's your points about books? There are books on atheism =P.. (Oh yes I did)

The original point of the thread. I'd say a better definition of Deism is "There is at least one deity who created the universe" rather than "a deity created the universe". But then that's me, I seriously doubt there are many deists who will claim one, and only one. "At least one", I feel, is a more accurate description of what most would believe.

[Zenith]

Ooh ooh oohh an atheism vs deism battle, I WANT IN!

Good! Perhaps you can resurrect this thread. It seems pretty dead. Perhaps we need an enthusiastic deist.

---

Someone asked about pantheism and how it relates to deism, didnt see a response to the question so:

-Pantheism is the belief that 'God' and 'the universe'/'nature' are synomynous, nature = god. You can leave it at that or take it further with things being interconnected into some sort of panpsychism, never got into it myself, seemed like a pointless semantic gymnastic exercise in its weakest form, and more religious shenanigans in its stronger forms. Non personal, non anthropomorphic... (I'm not the best person to ask for a definition of it as you can see, pantheists might object to how I've described their belief)
-Deism is the belief that there is a creator (or creators) who created the universe. That's it. Again, non personal, non anthropomorphic. Anything after that is speculation.

You didn't ask but I'll tell you anyway:
-Pandeism is a combination of the two. The creator deity created the universe, by becoming the universe. It's easier to speculate reasons for the creation with pandeism than it is with deism (and funner as well). Its more logical than deism for that reason(Imma drawnin my lines in the sand here, Imma take EVERBODY on!).

some prefixs/affixes explained...
-en- means that the god is the universe, BUT, there is more to the god than the universe. 100% of the universe is within or=god, but god is larger than just that. So panendeism would be the belief that the creator deity, created the universe, by mostly becoming the universe, but it left some part of itself outside, that didn't become the universe. Panentheism, the universe/nature = a part of god.
-poly- of course means multiple creators. Polypanendeism... =P

The deistic/pandeistic god needn't be infinite, only 'very' x (intelligent, powerful) enough to start the universe going as it is, and nothing more.

I do seriously doubt the claims of "like any other religion". The panthiests and deists would never start annihilating each other over doctrine. "God = universe" or A "deity/s created the universe" if that's it then what's to fight about, there are no ramifications. Neither has much scope for real life applications, might as well be atheists really (who believe in a god =P). Apatheism almost, its irelevent in day to day living, untill you crave a good debate or are probing the origins of the universe.

I'd say a better definition of Deism is "There is at least one deity who created the universe" rather than "a deity created the universe". But then that's me, I seriously doubt there are many deists who will claim one, and only one. "At least one", I feel, is more accurate.

---

Now, reading what you've wrote, I feel the need to ask: why do you guys think is the difference between wisdom and madness?
I've once read a question and bit of a discussion on answers.yahoo.com saying "I pray to God. Why does she not answer to me?" and he gave the detail "Mother Earth is a she, not a he!"

and look some questions I've just found on answers.yahoo.com:
"What do you think about Jesus telling the Essenes to pray to "Mother Nature"?" - where the hell did he read that??
"Can we pray to Mother Nature for immunity to HIV in Darwin's name, Amen?"
"Have you ever heard about mother nature's wrath?"
"Are human beings the bastard offsprings of an absent father and an abusive mother-nature?"
"Who/what is Mother Nature?"
"Is Mother Nature< Different ,From christianity and islam belief.?"
"What's Mother Nature telling us?"
and a very funny question:
"Anyone please tell me if the world will actually end in 2012!?"

So I must say that people are able to believe anything.
And yeah, again... what's the difference between wisdom and madness?

---

I was probably a deist or pantheist back in the day, also I believed in much the same stuff about human morality evolving in a 'better' direction as well.

And how did you change your mind about that? I suppose it was not boredom.

[Darth]

Wisdom is the realisation that you might actually be mad. Wisdom is the knowledge you're not wise, Madness is the knowledge you're not mad. A few deepities for you to chew on =P.

I'd say it all comes down to knowledge and conviction, The wise don't know everything or indeed anything much, and know it, the mad are convinced. The wise can be swayed with reason, the mad cannot.

made quite heavy edit to my first post while you were typing your response. The jist of the edit (in responce to your post a few days ago about that website): I had a look, that guy is an eejit.

off to bed now, I shall respond again on the morrow

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont bug deists about their beliefs. I get along great with deists as compared to fundy Christians.

I dont mind Deists, Budhists, and the really cool christians who are easy going. Sometimes the Pagans are pretty cool as well.

I dont bug them with questions, because I prefer their friendship instead.

Its those fundies I cant stand. Unitarians I can get along with. Southern Baptists (I grew up as one) grate my nerves and deserve to be mocked.