Deism. A not-new but very intelligent approach to GOD.

many religions and philosophies have certain truths but also possibility of false ideas in them. Deism could be the same. I'l find more about it but i want to ask if the belief in deism is a conclusion reached after observation or observations picked to confirm an assumption.
For example, if God is not active, just observing or even left then are the inherent qualities in the creation their own, like why plants grow? Why animals show intelligent behaviour? etc.
Also while using reason and observation, do we realise our own limits of observation & reasoning and consider them while making conclusion?

reply to post by logical7


Consciousness. Critical thinking works wonders. It doesn't all have to be an all-powerful being.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by logical7

 

Consciousness. Critical thinking works wonders. It doesn't all have to be an all-powerful being.

i agree that there is Consciousness. But can critical thinking reach to an understanding of something thats beyond the limit of thinking and do we know our limit?
Not a need of an all-powerful being? Isnt it an assumption because you dont like that idea much.
In short i can say, if every person is asked to define God, then we'l have various definitions but they will more be a reflection of the persons.
Wildtimes' idea of God is different than yours and mine's more different. Doesnt that tell about how we are? And how to remove this observer's bias to reach a definition of God?

reply to post by wildtimes


i am reading the book "age of reason" and i found a lot that i agree and some that i disagree but i completely agree with this position

I recollect not enough of the passages
in Job to insert them correctly; but
there is one occurs to me that is
applicable to the subject I am
speaking upon. "Canst thou by
searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?" I know not how the printers have
pointed this passage, for I keep no
Bible; but it contains two distinct
questions that admit of distinct
answers. First, — Canst thou by searching find
out God? Yes because, in the first
place, I know I did not make myself,
and yet I have existence; and by
searching into the nature of other
things, I find that no other thing could make itself; and yet millions of other
things exist; therefore it is, that I
know, by positive conclusion resulting
from this search, that there is a power
superior to all those things, and that
power is God. Secondly, — Canst thou find out the
Almighty to perfection? No; not only
because the power and wisdom He
has manifested in the structure of the
Creation that I behold is to me
incomprehensible, but because even this manifestation, great as it is, is
probably but a small display of that
immensity of power and wisdom by
which millions of other worlds, to me
invisible by their distance, were
created and continue to exist. It is evident that both these questions
were put to the reason of the person
to whom they are supposed to have
been addressed; and it is only by
admitting the first question to be
answered affirmatively, that the second could follow. It would have
been unnecessary and even absurd,
to have put a second question, more
difficult than the first, if the first
question had been answered
negatively. The two questions have different objects; the first refers to the
existence of God, the second to his
attributes; reason can discover the
one, but it falls infinitely short in
discovering the whole of the other.

i'l keep reading to find if Paine has a complete answer to the second question.

reply to post by logical7


I'm so glad that you're reading it!

Looking forward to discussing it further when you're done.

I actually bought his "complete works" after I found that online source.
BRILLIANT guy.
But, I guess some people have dismissed "Deism" as "antiquated." Go figure.

reply to post by logical7

i want to ask if the belief in deism is a conclusion reached after observation or observations picked to confirm an assumption.
For example, if God is not active, just observing or even left then are the inherent qualities in the creation their own, like why plants grow? Why animals show intelligent behaviour? etc.
Also while using reason and observation, do we realise our own limits of observation & reasoning and consider them while making conclusion?

I think it's based on reasoning and the lack of evidence for anything BUT the Creation we see and with which we interact.
Paine discussed the idea of how an "acorn" grows into an "oak" - we (humans) don't "make it grow." All we can do is facilitate its growth by placing it in soil, adding water and sun ..... but those things happen every day without us doing it, too.

Every season I have to pull out the baby oak trees so they don't compromise my house, or other plants.

As for me, YES, I realize my limits of observation, and definitely consider them when coming to "reasonable stances" -- but, I don't have any firm "conclusions" yet, except that humans DO NOT make this world turn, or things grow, or endow animals with intelligence, sentiments (YES, animals have EMOTIONS)....

It just is. Us being here has no bearing on whether a tree grows or a dog mourns when its best friend dies, etc.....

reply to post by wildtimes

I think it's based on reasoning and the lack of evidence for anything BUT the Creation we see and with which we interact. Paine discussed the idea of how an "acorn" grows into an "oak" - we (humans) don't "make it grow." All we can do is facilitate its growth by placing it in soil, adding water and sun ..... but those things happen every day without us doing it, too. Every season I have to pull out the baby oak trees so they don't compromise my house, or other plants. As for me, YES, I realize my limits of observation, and definitely consider them when coming to "reasonable stances" -- but, I don't have any firm "conclusions" yet, except that humans DO NOT make this world turn, or things grow, or endow animals with intelligence, sentiments (YES, animals have EMOTIONS).... It just is. Us being here has no bearing on whether a tree grows or a dog mourns when its best friend dies, etc.....

i am still reading, trying to skip fast throught the criticism of Bible, hope that parts dont have any idea on deism.
.
And as Paine said that we cant know God fully(attributes) by observing creations alone then i question the idea of God "leaving" how that idea got into deism?
And if we dont make acorn grow and rain fall etc then God is doing it even according to Paine. And he says that we were not let into the secret of seeds for our own ease. Otherwise we'l have to do it. All these ideas by him point that God is active.