Current Events > Deism: WHY is it the existence of god always has to be associated with religion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I seriously don't get this widespread belief by almost everyone. This is esp. so when it comes to the key questions no one can ever explain:

1. what is the first cause behind the universe?
2. how is the universe so fine-tuned?
3. why does it seem we are alone in the universe? (fermi's paradox)

When you raise 'God' as a possibility, atheistic scientists always have to associate this belief immediately with religion, leading to this extreme bias of something like 'ew! Christianity!'

But no one else can explain it, not even science.
Of course, religion can, but then, it's easy to refute religion with today's logic like mocking the Bible for certain inconsistencies some may find.

Well, how about just believing that a creator is behind the universe? NOT associated with the Bible, Quran or any other religion out there, but just the existence of a god. . The funny thing, when you put it that way, it's completely feasible. You can't disprove nor prove the existence of a god alone.

This is called deism.
- The belief that a 'creator' made this so extremely fine-tuned universe and left it without intervening ever since (altho the belief varies abit depending on who you ask). It's also such a rare belief because:

A. For religious people, they would find the idea of a non-intervening god unappealing. Why should you care to worship such a god then when there's no reward awaiting you?

B. For the atheistic people, they find the idea too problematic to deal with since they can no longer refute any specific parts of the belief when the belief is as simple as it gets. Even the famed Richard Dawkins had to subtly concede to saying he could be deist when faced w the argument.

And so it's a ideology yet completely overlooked. So overlooked, in fact. The reason being, it's scary how you can't refute it anymore. The possibility of a god behind the universe is as much a possibility as a multiverse. Yet most of us would rather believe the latter than the former.

Why?

Now, I'm not saying you all should start believing some kind of creator or god or any form of divine higher intelligence really, created the universe but it IS a possibility as much as believing a completely unfounded multiverse theory (becos that's really the only athiestic excuse scientists have to explain a fine-tuned universe).
But when we stop associating a creator existence to religion, and start seeing just the possibility of the existence of a creator alone, we could really change our perspective of the universe.

PS. Also, it's funny how we keep asking 'why?' and asking 'why?' is what advances science...yet when it comes to the very beg. of the universe or things science can't explain, we're just willing to let go and stop asking 'why?'

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"
---

Tl;Dr

God is a person and a term.
---

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

ChrisTaka posted...

Tl;Dr

God is a person and a term.

tldr; god =/= religion.

simple words but completely changes your perspective on how you view everything

Gotta capitalize on the weak minded
---

I know what deism is

---

I absolutely hate that when you discuss the possible existence of a higher power, atheist derps always begin a command script that launches into attacking Christianity.

Literally bringing religious fundamentalism levels of stupidity to the atheism game.
---

Garioshi posted...

I know what deism is

a lot of people are deists without realising it. It's just a matter how proding them and getting them to say 'oh, yeah it's a possibility too'. And suddenly you don't feel like attacking religion that much anymore.

How many people are truly hard athiests though?

The fear of ceasing to exist is incredibly real and people cling to religion for that. I'm not religious and believe in Deism and even I'm horrified of death simply due to my consciousness no longer existing.

---

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "absence of evidence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.
---

Wutobliteration posted...

ChrisTaka posted...

Tl;Dr

God is a person and a term.

tldr; god =/= religion.

simple words but completely changes your perspective on how you view everything

That's pretty much what I said. There is (supposedly) a dude called God and you can BE a god but you wouldn't be the God/ you wouldn't be associated with christianity
---

SquantoZ posted...

The fear of ceasing to exist is incredibly real and people cling to religion for that. I'm not religious and believe in Deism and even I'm horrified of death simply due to my consciousness no longer existing.

it's a very real fear. Without meaning to our lives, we lose sight. You can be happy 24/7 but without an end goal, you'll eventually get depressed at some pt in time. Religious people cling to their religion to find meaning. It's also why athiests struggle more with finding some path to satisfaction.

Deism isn't popular for a few reasons.

1. It's inherently an unfalsifiable position. The deist and the atheist have effectively the same position. The atheist posits that there is no god or there is no reason to believe in one, and the deist posits there is a non-intervening god. A god such as that might as well not exist.

2. The deist position still has the trouble of distinguishing god from a physical force. So from a deist perspective, it still ascribes motivation and agency to the creator of the universe. Once again, no reason whatsoever for this. How do they distinguish it from just a phenomenon?

3. Any philosophy utilizing a deist outlook on life effectively ignores god anyway. So even if you are a diest, there is no real reason to ever talk about it, because god is a non-factor in literally anything observable. Thus you won't have people picking up from other thinkers because serious deist thinkers don't talk about their deism.

Basically deism is theism without the warm fuzzy feeling of being special. It's more LIKELY than theism, purely because of the fewer amount of assumptions you have to make, but there is no reason to believe that it is a better or closer philosophy than weak or even strong atheism. And with none of the mental benefits that theism can possibly provide, it's really is a belief system not particularly worth mulling over.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "evidence of absence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.

but that's it, you assuming science is in itself, boundless and can keep advancing. See, all of us are hypocrites. And what's worse, the question of 'why?' will keep remaining. Even if scientists somehow...manage to miraculously create life out of non-living matter, it still begs the question, 'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?' and neither will it disprove the existence of a god being behind the creation of creation. Even if we somehow find an intelligent alien life 1000 years later, it still begs the question, 'who created us?' or even the alien says 'I created you, bro', the alien has to ask, 'but who created me?"

and a creator would be, by right, boundless, because like the argument that goes... 'who created god?' can be matched with 'god is infinite'. In the same way, you could ask 'what created the universe?' and the athiest can only reply back 'the universe is infinite.'

Is it an impossible-to-refute stance? yes it is. But is it an impossible stance? No, it's not.

When I became atheist/agnostic, I def was not happier for it. I know the usual story is that ex theists are now much happier, but that is not the case with me.

I feel an emptiness now, where before I was happy and content with my god and beliefs.

---

Dyinglegacy posted...

When I became atheist/agnostic, I def was not happier for it. I know the usual story is that ex theists are now much happier, but that is not the case with me.

I feel an emptiness now, where before I was happy and content with my god and beliefs.

because maybe it's better to live in a possible delusion than not live in one. Of course if everyone were to do that, wouldn't we be in the Dark Ages again

ive considered myself an agnostic deist my whole life tbh
---

Wutobliteration posted...

'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?'

The deist position does not answer "why". you have to still ascribe motivation for why this unintervening god did it.
---

AdviceMan posted...

Deism isn't popular for a few reasons.

1. It's inherently an unfalsifiable position. The deist and the atheist have effectively the same position. The atheist posits that there is no god or there is no reason to believe in one, and the deist posits there is a non-intervening god. A god such as that might as well not exist.

2. The deist position still has the trouble of distinguishing god from a physical force. So from a deist perspective, it still ascribes motivation and agency to the creator of the universe. Once again, no reason whatsoever for this. How do they distinguish it from just a phenomenon?

3. Any philosophy utilizing a deist outlook on life effectively ignores god anyway. So even if you are a diest, there is no real reason to ever talk about it, because god is a non-factor in literally anything observable. Thus you won't have people picking up from other thinkers because serious deist thinkers don't talk about their deism.

Basically deism is theism without the warm fuzzy feeling of being special. It's more LIKELY than theism, purely because of the fewer amount of assumptions you have to make, but there is no reason to believe that it is a better or closer philosophy than weak or even strong atheism. And with none of the mental benefits that theism can possibly provide, it's really is a belief system not particularly worth mulling over.

you make a case, but deism is pretty flexible. One might believe in a god that can never be known or communicated with. But another might believe in a god not associated with any of mankind's religions but may also be discovered one day (what god that is is currently up to your fantasy). But for the latter, it's no longer god being an empty representative of things like dark energy but a separate entity entirely existential on its own.

It's like saying 'a unicorn could exist!' versus 'a unicorn could exist out there and we could discover it!'

the latter, is just a matter of us actually trying to do that. Unfortunately none of us know how that would work.

No argument for atheism is weakened when not talking about religion.
---

AdviceMan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?'

The deist position does not answer "why". you have to still ascribe motivation for why this unintervening god did it.

but once you know why the god did it, you literally have the answer to life and the universe.

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "evidence of absence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.

but that's it, you assuming science is in itself, boundless and can keep advancing. See, all of us are hypocrites. And what's worse, the question of 'why?' will keep remaining. Even if scientists somehow...manage to miraculously create life out of non-living matter, it still begs the question, 'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?' and neither will it disprove the existence of a god being behind the creation of creation. Even if we somehow find an intelligent alien life 1000 years later, it still begs the question, 'who created us?' or even the alien says 'I created you, bro', the alien has to ask, 'but who created me?"

and a creator would be, by right, boundless, because like the argument that goes... 'who created god?' can be matched with 'god is infinite'. In the same way, you could ask 'what created the universe?' and the athiest can only reply back 'the universe is infinite.'

Is it an impossible-to-refute stance? yes it is. But is it an impossible stance? No, it's not.

Not quite. I am not assuming that science is boundless, but rather that the pursuit of science has an as of now unknown bound. It's a subtle but important difference.

Also, it's an unreasonable assumption to believe that there is a "why" for everything. If your worldview requires a God to bypass the possibility that some things just "are", then that is a human limitation and not a scientific one.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

When I became atheist/agnostic, I def was not happier for it. I know the usual story is that ex theists are now much happier, but that is not the case with me.

I feel an emptiness now, where before I was happy and content with my god and beliefs.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "evidence of absence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.

but that's it, you assuming science is in itself, boundless and can keep advancing. See, all of us are hypocrites. And what's worse, the question of 'why?' will keep remaining. Even if scientists somehow...manage to miraculously create life out of non-living matter, it still begs the question, 'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?' and neither will it disprove the existence of a god being behind the creation of creation. Even if we somehow find an intelligent alien life 1000 years later, it still begs the question, 'who created us?' or even the alien says 'I created you, bro', the alien has to ask, 'but who created me?"

and a creator would be, by right, boundless, because like the argument that goes... 'who created god?' can be matched with 'god is infinite'. In the same way, you could ask 'what created the universe?' and the athiest can only reply back 'the universe is infinite.'

Is it an impossible-to-refute stance? yes it is. But is it an impossible stance? No, it's not.

Not quite. I am not assuming that science is boundless, but rather that the pursuit of science has an as of now unknown bound. It's a subtle but important difference.

Also, it's an unreasonable assumption to believe that there is a "why" for everything. If your worldview requires a God to bypass the possibility that some things just "are", then that is a human limitation and not a scientific one.

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

I'd like to say, humans are all hypocrites. No matter how smart you are. It's just a matter how us realising and admitting it.

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

Is there a God?
Science: maybe, we won't know until we find evidence
Deism: yes, no proof needed.

There's a difference.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

Is there a God?
Science: maybe, we won't know until we find evidence
Deism: yes, no proof needed.

There's a difference.

that's not science you wrote on.
God is not falsifiable, testable and thus, outside of the scientific realm. The correct way to write is:

Science: the supernatural is unexplain-able thus, no hypothesis and efforts shall be made to explain it.

Deism: yes, a supernatural creator exists but we cannot explain it and never will be able to.

or...

A completely open-minded rational person who isn't subjected to the bias-ness of human nature but will prob be very lost in life:
everything and anything is possible. A god may be real or false. The Big Bang may be real or false. Nothing can be fully said as true 'cos maybe we could all be living in a matrix for all we know.

sorry, but both perspectives above (ignoring the third) is a biased perspective. The funny thing is, we see science becoming more and more toward breaking its own laws on falsifiability. We cannot prove abiogenesis, nor a multiverse nor even the big bang 100%...unless we could travel back in time and observe it really happening. I think multiverse is the biggest stretch though. It's literally scientists making up their own new religion.

Wutobliteration posted...

Science: the supernatural is unexplain-able thus, no hypothesis and efforts shall be made to explain it.

This is a strawman. Science has for its entire history sought to explain the supernatural and has spent a significant effort to do so, which has led to the discovery and demystifying of things for thousands of years. Nearly every piece of scientific fact was at one point some Supernatural phenomenon. Often attributed to the Gods.
---

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

Is there a God?
Science: maybe, we won't know until we find evidence
Deism: yes, no proof needed.

There's a difference.

that's not science you wrote on.
God is not falsifiable, testable and thus, outside of the scientific realm. The correct way to write is:

Science: the supernatural is unexplain-able thus, no hypothesis and efforts shall be made to explain it.

Deism: yes, a supernatural creator exists but we cannot explain it and never will be able to.

or...

A completely open-minded rational person who isn't subjected to the bias-ness of human nature but will prob be very lost in life:
everything and anything is possible. A god may be real or false. The Big Bang may be real or false. Nothing can be fully said as true 'cos maybe we could all be living in a matrix for all we know.

sorry, but both perspectives above (ignoring the third) is a biased perspective. The funny thing is, we see science becoming more and more toward breaking its own laws on falsifiability. We cannot prove abiogenesis, nor a multiverse nor even the big bang 100%...unless we could travel back in time and observe it really happening. I think multiverse is the biggest stretch though. It's literally scientists making up their own new religion.

This pretty much sums up how my views have taken shape over the years. We know absolutely nothing, anything we think we know could be true or false, but most we'll never know for sure. Virtually anything could be possible, even if improbable. That sort of thing.
---