Good argument against Deism?

[spiltteeth]

Anyone know of a good argument against deism? It seems to answer the presuppositional problems of where laws of logic and natural laws come from ...I'd appreciate any help, thanks!

[Gman]

Best argument against deism is that Jesus came to earth in the flesh!!

[The11thDr.]

Oh no another ism, why do people need to live with these things. If we got rid of all ism's wouldn't beople just get along?

I could tell you one argument against it, but you probably wouldn't like it.

[Canuckster1127]

Why would you argue against Deism? Deism simply asserts that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

Christianity is a revealed religion that states that God exists and has revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ primarily and also through the scriptures (some appear confused about the priority of the two, but that's another discussion.) Theism is a subset to a large degree of Deism. Christianity is a subset of Theism.

The point then is not to argue against Deism, but to argue in favor of Jesus Christ and Christian faith as most reflective of reality.

If you refute Deism absolutely then you move outside of theism and into agnosticism and/or atheism. Better to build upon what Deism and Christianity agree upon and then address those issues where Christianity claims more than Deism does.

[Gman]

If you refute Deism absolutely then you move outside of theism and into agnosticism and/or atheism. Better to build upon what Deism and Christianity agree upon and then address those issues where Christianity claims more than Deism does.

Bart, I hear you, but doesn't the basic premise of deism reveal that God is somehow removed or doesn't interact with his creation? It seems to be in opposition to the God of the Bible..

[Canuckster1127]

If you refute Deism absolutely then you move outside of theism and into agnosticism and/or atheism. Better to build upon what Deism and Christianity agree upon and then address those issues where Christianity claims more than Deism does.

Bart, I hear you, but doesn't the basic premise of deism reveal that God is somehow removed or doesn't interact with his creation? It seems to be in opposition to the God of the Bible..

Yes it does. That's why I noted that the issue with Deism is to address those areas that Christianity and Deism are at odds. That's correction in part, not refutation in whole.

[B. W.]

Oh no another ism, why do people need to live with these things. If we got rid of all ism's wouldn't beople just get along?

I could tell you one argument against it, but you probably wouldn't like it.

Would this include atheism?
-
-
-

[The11thDr.]

Ok! Looks like you got me. Whats so great about deism anyway? If there were a god...why not intefere? It would be that god's right to mess around with all of creation and have it turn out/go how he wanted.

Makes you think, who is the master of human destiny? Do we drive ourself onwards on our own steam or is the steam provided for us by the universe(or gods, if you like)

Whats a good argument FOR deism? Then maybe you can think of some kind of counter.

[spiltteeth]

Hey thanks for the responses. Basically my friend used to be Christian but feels all revelation is just man made confusions.
Deism explains the source of objective morals, the laws of logic, where the universe came from etc

I did find audio of pre-suppositional apologist Greg Bahnsen pointing out that without God telling us about himself, its all just guesses, so why should I believe what one deist says over another?

I just thought there would have already been a worked out apologetics toward deism.

Here's the apologetic I came up with : the Deist god can't be the greatest possible being, since that being would be all-loving, but to be all loving you must love something, so who did the desit god share his love with before creation?
Only the Christian triune God can be all loving since love can be shared between the three persons of the trinity.

What do you think?

[openminded]

This is an incredibly late reply, sorry if it's no longer relevant.

I think this apologetic pre-supposes too much, unless he shares your beliefs on how:
1) a god must be the greatest possible being, and
2) that the greatest possible being must be all-loving.
Unless those two arguments are also a commonplace for him, then this apologetic may fail.
Of course, you can always attempt to persuade him that those two arguments should be foundational to his view on what a god should be like.

As for only our God being the only all-loving possibility due to its trinity, I think I'm missing something about Deism. Can't the Deists just decide what their god is like? Or are they bound by their logic in some way?

[Human]

Of course, you can always attempt to persuade him that those two arguments should be foundational to his view on what a god should be like.

Wouldn't that be basing views on emotion as opposed to truth?

[openminded]

Of course, you can always attempt to persuade him that those two arguments should be foundational to his view on what a god should be like.

Wouldn't that be basing views on emotion as opposed to truth?

Yes, which is the basis of his apologetic (emotion). Is it truth? Well, define truth for determining the characteristics of God. Deists will have their own unique(ish) answer, most Christians will say the bible, the Deist will disagree, and we find ourselves swimming in a pool of speculation and conjecture.

The best route is to stick to rhetoric, find or inspire a commonplace, and proceed to show how God (or to the Deist, the god of Christianity) is the best fit.

We don't have hard evidence of what God is like beyond the Bible (which was rejected by the Deist in the first place) and whatever we attribute to God (which can be thrown out if the Deist thinks the attribution is too subjective or doesn't fit with his past experiences. Really, as I said in the first few sentences, however the Deist defines truth for determining the characteristics of God is however he will interpret the argument).

[Different_Name]

To answer the original question...
Well, the first replier hits the mark pretty well. The way to argue against deism is to give evidence that God interfered with the world. The records of Jesus' claims and miracles are evidence of this. Also, note how the three Abrahamic religions (including Christianity and Islam which are two of the most popular religions) stemmed not from man trying to explain some phenomenon in the natural world but from an interference of God in Abram's life.

Also (I'm not sure about deist belief on this issue, but) if they say that God just started the universe and left it alone, you could argue that the complexity of life necessitates that God would've interfered.

[happycynic]

Anyone know of a good argument against deism? It seems to answer the presuppositional problems of where laws of logic and natural laws come from ...I'd appreciate any help, thanks!

Best argument against deism is that Jesus came to earth in the flesh!!

Well, if he did, and he were divine, that'd certainly blow Deism out of the water. Problem is, for the deist, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. You've got to show that Jesus did in fact come down, and he was in fact divine. Or, as a later poster said, that God interferes with the universe in any active way. If the deist had seen any convincing evidence for that, they wouldn't be a deist in the first place.

As for deism vs. theism vs. christianity, theism isn't a subset of deism. It's the other way around. Theism says "god exists". Deism says "God exists and he's hands-off". Christianity says "God exists, and X, and Y, and Z, and..."

Generally, a christian becomes a deist because the "X, Y, and Z" of christianity--which could be any part of the doctrine, from hell to biblical origins to the problem of evil--seem to be false. If X, Y, and Z are false, then either god is "Hands-off" or he doesn't exist; often times Hands-off seems like the more acceptable alternative. I actually went through a phase of that myself before giving it up and admitting that atheism just makes more sense (to me).

so basically, if you're looking to argue with a Deist, use the same arguments you would against an atheist, minus all the creationism stuff because a Deist can still look back and say "well, yeah, sure. God did it. So what?" If I knew of any of those good arguments, I'd tell you--but then again, if I knew of any good arguments like that, I probably wouldn't be an atheist

[Kurieuo]

Anyone know of a good argument against deism? It seems to answer the presuppositional problems of where laws of logic and natural laws come from ...I'd appreciate any help, thanks!

Best argument against deism is that Jesus came to earth in the flesh!!

Well, if he did, and he were divine, that'd certainly blow Deism out of the water. Problem is, for the deist, that's putting the cart in front of the horse. You've got to show that Jesus did in fact come down, and he was in fact divine. Or, as a later poster said, that God interferes with the universe in any active way. If the deist had seen any convincing evidence for that, they wouldn't be a deist in the first place.

Like at creation?

so basically, if you're looking to argue with a Deist, use the same arguments you would against an atheist, minus all the creationism stuff because a Deist can still look back and say "well, yeah, sure. God did it. So what?" If I knew of any of those good arguments, I'd tell you--but then again, if I knew of any good arguments like that, I probably wouldn't be an atheist

Interesting that Antony Flew went from Atheism to some form of Deism.

A Deist can still look back and say "well, yeah, sure. God did it. So what?" Say what? God entering into time puts Deism in quite a dilemma. For a Deist then carries the burden of proof to explain why God would set up everything as He did, in the manner He did, and went to so much effort to do so in a universe that seems very anthropic, to then no longer care... seems very strange to me.