Arguments against Deism and for religion.

[Minimalist]

evolutionists DO try to find arguments against evolution.

Creationists would never think of looking for arguments against creationism, though.

[Cyberman]

Ah, but to do that would require an open mind. Creationists have minds locked and bolted against original thought; they just spew out the same tired old crap into an ever-increasing pile. Of crap.

[Erinome]

evolutionists DO try to find arguments against evolution.

I didn't say they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

evolutionists DO try to find arguments against evolution.

Creationists would never think of looking for arguments against creationism, though.

You got it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItVGYa863k

[Mystic]

Hopefully some Deists (are there much on this board?) would give their responses to these arguments. I will share my arguments against these arguments later.

[Erinome]

Yeah, there are a couple of deists here. I suspect they'll be in any moment.

[fr0d0]

I see no arguments for religion. Just some nonsensical statements. Non sensical statements = the justification for deism.

Deism seems to be scared atheism: you think religion is BS but you have a 'weirdy feeling' which you weakly then claim to be a god. There is no more spineless a position on the subject.

(just trying to help with the self questioning )

[Rayaan]

Hopefully some Deists (are there much on this board?) would give their responses to these arguments.

We do have two of them who are currently active (Cinjin and Deistpaladin). They are both moderators as well.

You can read some of their arguments in the following threads:
Question for deists: Why is there a Creator?
Deism vs. Theism: Which is the more likely understanding of God?

[Mystic]

If a person found all religions to be false, would the next step be denial of God? I would say no. When it comes to the problem of evil and suffering, theodicy tends to explain what otherwise seems counter intuitive to us. Some of it perhaps can convince people, while not convince others. For example, to explain why mental illness exists, most theists would be stomped. Why did God create it. The same can be asked about other things. At the end, most Theists tend to believe there can be a hidden wisdom behind allowing such things in this world, and that we don't realize it's purpose. The same argument can applied as to why God would not send guidance. However I would argue that there seems to be very plausible reasons as to why he would not.

First it's that without guidance, a human must strive to find his way within himself. He must strive to think about things, and he must himself ponder over what is to be valued and see virtues as opposed to simply accepting what he is told. For example, whether or not all humans should be loved regardless of their faults and evil. Whether God universally loves all and has compassion upon all. Is that what a Greatest being is. If we are simply told this is virtue by a religion, and we accept it, there is less merit to it. When you reflect with your own "inner Messenger of God", it has more value. There also a nobleness when you have to strive to figure out things on your own while society you live is teaching you false things. This is why people honor socrates so much. It's because he didn't simply accept what is told, but strove to question what he knows. There is nobility in the human trying to make sense of the world, and try to realize what is virtous and honorable, without being told. In the case of Guidance, you simply accept all that the guidance tells you. All virtues accepted through religion are not due to your soul realzing these virtues for themselves, but it's simply accepted due to the guidance telling you so. Although you may question the guidance, that questioning will have no logical basis if there is proof that the guidance is from God. Which brings the next reason.

The next reason why it's possible God would not send guidance, is that after the guidance is sent, there is no way for future generations to know that it's from God. This is possible because no matter how great a writing is, we don't know if it's beyond human. Even if no one writes anything like it, it doesn't imply it's from God. Unique literature doesn't imply it's divine. So without there being a way to know it's from God, God would not want us to think well maybe it's from him or not, maybe this is God's will, maybe it's not. So he would not send a guidance while we wouldn't be able to know if is his guidance. Miracles to one generation maybe be proof, but for future generations, it would not be. God would have to send continous miracles, and he may have good reasons of not doing so.

The next possible reason is that a writing displays something about the writer, and manifests intelligence and personality of the writer, but in a limited way. It can possible that there is no way for literature to convey God's intelligence in the proper way. Every literature possible will give in an impression of him below his intelligence. The Character it displays through the writing would give us a false impression. This maybe another possible reason as to why God would not send a revelation.

Another possible reason is because there perhaps is no one that special in God's eyes to be selected for conveying a message. It maybe no human achieves this super special high status that they would be a representative of God. When people believe in a representative of God, a Messenger, a Prophet, this person is believed to be very special and very much higher then rest of humans. It perhaps isn't the case that any such humans exist. If not even one of a billion people is this special to have such a position, which is something universally accepted, then why do we conclude that such special people must have existed? If there is no one this special, it is another good reason. Perhaps there isn't a perfect model human to imitate. When people talk about Messengers, they talk as if they no for sure such special humans existed. However how do they know such humans existed?

Another reason is that perhaps God wants us to come to a better understanding through communicating to each other, to discussing morals and virtues, and truths and arguments. That everyone has opportunity to add to the conscious of society. However with guidance and religion, it would be all about dictating that guidance. People's opinions would become less valuable and what we can contribute to society is a lot less. This gives oppotrunity to humans and it gives more nobility for believing these the values they strive for.

Now if you look at theodicies, you will see that they don't give satisfying explanations to everyone. However, these are very plausible reasons to me as to why God would not send Messengers. There can be also reasons we can't explain, just as people can't explain why God allowed mental illness. Another thing is that all agree that some humans didn't have guidance from God. For example, Muslims agree that during time of Mohammad, much of the world, like North America, didn't have the perfect guidance from God to follow. So if these humans are expected to use their intellect and listen to their conscious when it's come to morality, then why can't such expectation be upon all of humanity. Surely their lives weren't meaningless, and God loved them just as much, and wished well for them just as much, so if there is good reasons why they weren't provided guidance, there can be good reasons as to why everyone is not provided guidance.

Aside from that, people born in a family that has "guidance" have an advantage of confirmation bias. It seems rather unfair for rest of humanity, that they have confirmation bias to their false ideas, while some people will have confirmation bias towards the true ideas. Perhaps God wants to be fair to everyone, and as such that everyone has to think things through for themselves. All this doesn't imply God doesn't care about humans or is not being ultimately moral towards them, and we all been given the tool for guidance which is our minds.

So I don't see how believing in God without a religion is not logical, and the next logical step to disbelieving in all religions is not necessarily denial of God. Believing in God without a religion is not illogical.



So if we look at the arguments:

If God cares, he would send guidance.

I argued arguments that show even if God cares, there can be good reasons as to why he would not send guidance.


God exists and wishes the best organization for society.

This premise can be true in another way. He wishes the best organization of society without him telling us how to organize for the same reasons as shown why he would not send guidance.


God would wants us to have way to be right on most moral issues.


This again can be true with the framework without guidance for the reasons I showed, and it maybe he has given our minds mental faculties to be more right, it's just that's harder then simply being told by God what is right.


The best way to insure we have a way to be right on most moral issues is to provide guidance.


This may not be true, because it maybe that we don't have a way of knowing a guidance is from God if he didn't continuously send us miracles to prove it, and deist and theist agree God has his own reasons as to why he would not continuously send miracles.

God would provide guidance to insure we have a way to be right on most moral issues.


Again there could be good reasons as to why God would not send guidance, as shown before.


The only possible purpose for that desire is so that they find communication from the Creator.

This maybe true, but it maybe something AFTER death and the communication would not be in this world for reasons mentioned before. It would not be in form of book.

It maybe also be false, perhaps a possible reason for that desire is simply derived from love of the Creator and love of the Creator has a purpose other then desiring to hear him communicate to you. It's also possible he put that desire so we question why he doesn't communicate to us, and reflect and see perhaps there is a wisdom, and it's for our minds to search out the answers and develop without being given all the answers on silver platter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you implying that the almighty creator couldn't write a convincing autobiography? I'd argue exactly the opposite.

Were god to write a book:
-it would be clear
-it would be concise
-it would be factually accurate in every statement(this would require that means of verification were established within)
-it would be able to be read by anyone who opens it regardless of what language they speak or whether they were even literate
-it would contain within it knowledge which was beyond the knowledge of human beings of the time(at the very least, if not beyond the knowledge of human beings to this very day)
-it would be so compelling, and so utterly obvious that it was written by a god, that no human being could not even begin to doubt it's veracity

Now, why would I argue this? Because If I were a god I would write such a book, and god is presumably much greater than myself, much more capable, and much more knowledgeable. Hell, I don't even have to be a god, give me a time machine and I can write a book that matches all but one of my requirements (the god bit, in this case it would be a time traveling human being from the future). If it took a dump truck to carry my wordless stick figure tome into the past I could still get the message to the illiterate, how about that for a miracle!

[5thHorseman]

I stopped reading after the first line of your novel above. The reason is, they, like fundies, do not believe there is a mistake in their holy book. Even when it's obvious, they find a way around it, by bullshit or twisting or crying metaphor.