Wouldn't Deism be the smartest philosophical belief

[copemaxingll]

"Deism is a philosophical and religious perspective that posits the existence of a Supreme Being or God who created the universe but does not intervene in its ongoing affairs."

 

[lol]

I'd argue agnosticism is, actually.

 

[ProBono]

Deism is just roundabout atheism, it's slightly smarter in that it recognises the arguments for a God and then says everyone else is wrong (as I suppose is rational)

 

[copemaxingll]

I'd argue agnosticism is, actually.

we still have no answer to the start of the universe so the possibility of a deity is possible

 

[copemaxingll]

Deism is just roundabout atheism, it's slightly smarter in that it recognises the arguments for a God and then says everyone else is wrong (as I suppose is rational)

God is always a possibility.

 

[ProBono]

God is always a possibility.

what is this meant to mean, the idea that there is no God is also possible? Now that's just fence sitting

 

[copemaxingll]

what is this meant to mean, the idea that there is no God is also possible? Now that's just fence sitting

true idk what im saying im low iq rn

 

[Andremln]

why

 

[Hess]

I like to believe in eternal recurrence, the universe will die in a heat death then it will start up all over again and again until the same actions like our lives will happen all over again (like a monkey on a type writer typing on it forever until he eventually types up the entire bible)

 

[lol]

we still have no answer to the start of the universe so the possibility of a deity is possible

Right, but that's exactly the agnostic position, not the deist one. Saying 'we don't know what caused the universe, so a deity is possible' only commits you to the possibility. Deism goes further and asserts that a creator did exist but then stepped back.

 

[nestivv]

 

[copemaxingll]

why

Well, the main argument for atheism is because God never shows himself or doesn't get involved, and there's no credible source of him being present to humans.

 

[copemaxingll]

Right, but that's exactly the agnostic position, not the deist one. Saying 'we don't know what caused the universe, so a deity is possible' only commits you to the possibility. Deism goes further and asserts that a creator did exist but then stepped back.

which would explain the conditions of the current world

 

[Andremln]

Well, the main argument for atheism is because God never shows himself or doesn't get involved, and there's no credible source of him being present to humans.

So? I don't understand your argument, you mean that your proposition of how a God works is more possible than raw theism and atheism? because it has a little bit of both making it "harder" to be discarded?

My bad ill read later cause i am about to fall asleep

Also can you define God please?

 

[lol]

which would explain the conditions of the current world

That a creator would explain present conditions isn't evidence that one exists. Plenty of explanations would account for the world as we find it, including ones with no deity at all. An explanation being available, and even coherent, doesn't make it true or more probable than the alternatives. To move from 'this would explain things' to 'this is therefore the case' you'd need some reason to prefer that explanation over the others, and the gap in our knowledge about the universe's origin doesn't supply one.

 

[copemaxingll]

So? I don't understand your argument, you mean that your proposition of how a God works is more possible than raw theism and atheism? because it has a little bit of both making it "harder" to be discarded?

My bad ill read later cause i am about to fall asleep

Also can you define God please?

im gonna respond to you tmrw cause im to tired rn

 

[copemaxingll]

That a creator would explain present conditions isn't evidence that one exists. Plenty of explanations would account for the world as we find it, including ones with no deity at all. An explanation being available, and even coherent, doesn't make it true or more probable than the alternatives. To move from 'this would explain things' to 'this is therefore the case' you'd need some reason to prefer that explanation over the others, and the gap in our knowledge about the universe's origin doesn't supply one.

let me get back to you tmrw

 

[Andremln]

im gonna respond to you tmrw cause im to tired rn

same bru im actually dying i hardly understood what you were tryna say

 

[copemaxingll]

So? I don't understand your argument, you mean that your proposition of how a God works is more possible than raw theism and atheism? because it has a little bit of both making it "harder" to be discarded?

No, I’m not saying Deism is "more possible" just because it's between atheism and theism or because it mixes points from both.
My point is more about what each position is actually committing to.
Atheism claims that there is no God (or at least no justified belief in one).
Theism claims a God that actively intervenes in the world, which includes miracles, revelation, and ongoing supernatural action.
Deism only commits to a minimal claim: if there is a creator, it does not appear to intervene in any detectable way.
So Deism isn’t trying to be "harder to discard", it's just a lower commitment position compared to strong theism. It removes claims that require additional evidence we don’t currently have (like miracles or divine intervention) while still allowing for a possible first cause.

Also can you define God please?

God: ultimate creator of the universe, an intelligence or cause that explains why anything exists at all

That a creator would explain present conditions isn't evidence that one exists. Plenty of explanations would account for the world as we find it, including ones with no deity at all. An explanation being available, and even coherent, doesn't make it true or more probable than the alternatives. To move from 'this would explain things' to 'this is therefore the case' you'd need some reason to prefer that explanation over the others, and the gap in our knowledge about the universe's origin doesn't supply one.

Yeah, I mixed things up earlier. I wasn’t arguing Deism is proven but that it’s a belief some go by when they think neither strong theism nor atheism is fully justified. Agnosticism is the more neutral philosophical stance, while deism adds a belief on top of uncertainty.


Personally, I lean toward the idea that there is a necessary cause for existence itself. I don’t think things like existence, order, and abstract laws like logic are fully explained by physical reality alone, which is why I find the existence of God as a philosophical explanation more plausible.