Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonous  Given that theology is the study of the nature of god, its attributes and related truths, I think it is safe to say deists are theists. I think an agnostic has a philosophy but a deist has a theology. |
Deism may have a theology, but it is not a revealed theology, but a natural theology. Natural theology has roots in the philisophy of religion and methaphysics. The First Cause argument is metaphysical and a natural theological inquiry. It is difficult to demarcate the line between philisophy of religion and theology.
A theist takes God to be axiomatic and self-evident and subscribes to revealed religion.
A deist (at least I do) uses reason, nature, and the 'preponderane of the evidence' to postulate a diety's existence. The 'preponderane of the evidence' leaves room for doubt and skepticism, which also brings me to agnostic conclusions.
An agnostic beleives that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown and cannot be known until more evidence is provided.
If the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; then I have a reasonable doubts that 'god' exists along with a reasonable doubt that 'god' doesn't exist; these reasonable doubts make me agnostic.
If the standard being used is by the "preponderance of the evidence", then I am deist, because I believe it more likely 'god' exists than doesn't. I do not think a theology is needed to arrive at this conclusion.