Skepticologist

So I assume you're claiming that deists, using their powers of reason and logic and their observations of nature, developed empirical evidence for the god they believe in. Otherwise, they made it up.

I'll be very interested in your reply explaining that empirical evidence.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Gettin' In Tune

No one knows how the origin of the universe came into being. Why would a deist make things up to explain the origins of the universe?

A deist sees order in the universe, and suspects an intelligence was responsible. The key word is "suspects" and not an absolute belief or a fabrication. If the universe is the result of random events, why are the Laws of physics and mathematics predictable and replicating? Some deists suspect that god as a matter of fact: a matter of economic necessity that underlies the cosmos.

I have dabbled in deism, but I am currently pursuing atheism. I am not the best one to debate this.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Skepticologist

I'm glad you said so, because when we come to the point of equating suspicions with empirical proofs, we're in a world of trouble.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

El_Mariachi64

I really don't think its fair to say that your way of thinking is better, even though I agree with the above statement...I would think its better to just accept and instead of trying to claim your way of thinking is better. Like skepticologist said...

Vinterland, as far as our life here on Earth, Deism and Agnosticism is practically the same thing. We live our lives in the same way, with the same reasons and motivations. One of the bests things about being an agnostic or a desit is that no one can tell you to become one. You have to figure it out on your own. And once you do that then you already won the battle. If God exists, Deism is the most practical way to put it. And as an agnostic who doesn't know the answer, like me, you must understand that edging towards thinking/hoping there's a God is perfectly acceptable, particularly because you and I don't know either way.

I think we've done the same amount of reasoning as Deists, we just edged towards one side...but its such a minuscule difference that its negligible, and all the thinking and reasoning that Deists go through to get to be one is what counts. For all intents and purposes we're the same thing.

Vinterland

I understand my statements were generalisations only applicable to "strong" deist's and not agnostic deist's. Thanks for clarifying.

You must have misread my statements because I've never said my "way of thinking is better" or even implied it.

Of course it is acceptable.

I don't see it that way - the middle ground is always agnosticism, and agnosticism naturally leads to atheism ( and rarely theism).

I agree that deist's and atheists think very similarly and there is a minute difference, but I will not accept deism on equal terms with agnosticism and agnostic-atheism simply because there is no point into believing in what they believe. Cancel the deadbeat Dad and you get (agnostic) atheism. If I believed in such a mundane philosophy that can only be applied to specific topics such as the beginning of the universe it wouldn't even matter that I believed it.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

Gettin' In Tune

What do they believe? I found deism the most challenging of philosophies with a wide variation of beliefs. Getting two deists to agree on the definition of deism is a challenge in itself, nevermind trying to get them to define and agree on the "G-word".

I am not sure what you are getting at.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Jayhawker Soule

Plagiarism is dishonest.

Jayhawker Soule

While this may be true in the case of some 'atheists', it serves as little more than evidence of sloppy thinking. Fundamental to all theism, including deism, is appeal to supernatural agency. Deism is simply the theism of the God-of-the-Gaps.

Gettin' In Tune

Looks like we are going to bump heads again. Not all deists subscribe to a supernatural agency. Some view the "G-word" as a sum of all the energy in the universe. Science has shown us that energy can be turned into matter and matter into consciousness. If you equate the "G-word" to the sum of energy, then it is logically possible that god at point of time was sentient, is it not?

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Jayhawker Soule

People abuse words all the time. You, for example, choose to blur the distinctions between deism, pantheism, and panentheism. OK ...
Your question is cognitively meaningless, i.e., drivel. You may wish to give more thought to what the term "logically possible" entails.