Deists

I don't know how to elaborate on deism when it's literally just "I believe in a god who left the world to its own devices" and there's no structure to it.

>>1764975
Obviously, but why? You can't believe something for no reason.

>>1764981
I can and I will

>>1765131
Okay

>>1764981

>Why?

I don't see how the Universe could be created without God, and don't see any religion that isn't obviously bullshit.

Therefore, for now, I have to believe there is some force beyond Time and Space which has not made itself obvious.

>>1765141
>how the Universe could be created without God
Why not? Why does it need to be a god?

>>1765154

Some force needs to exist beyond time and space since they were made in the Big Bang. The event that initiated the Universe has to exist beyond those constraints. You can say that we were the aftermath of some other Universe but that just pushes the dilemma backwards and doesn't solve anything.

If it exists beyond time and space, this force must be eternal and of immense power.

Nothing about God loving people or whether masturbation is a sin, just typical Theistic argument.

>>1765170
>Some force needs to exist beyond time and space since they were made in the Big Bang.
Those aren't all the attributes of a god though.

>>1764981
Why not ? If god doesn't care, why would there be any values to adhere to?

>>1765176

I consider any power that exists beyond time and space and has the power to bring events to fruition to be some form of God.

Not the God as Christians imagine it, but some form of God nonetheless. Maybe God's evil or mad, but a God it remains.

>>1765184
>to bring events to fruition to be some form of God.
When you say this, do you mean intentionally cause events to happen, or mindlessly so, like for example how the sun causes plants to grow?

>>1765188

The latter is sufficient enough. If this force has tangible and humongous effects without physical restraint, it is effectively God.

>>1764960
I think the issue with the deist/theist divide is that essentially Christianity at its core is Deistic and neo-Platonist. Let me explain that further, Christians believe in a God, a Demiurge, so far this belief they share with a lot of different religions and philosophical schools. The Christian God interacts directly with Man, is tripartite (not all of Christianity), and enters history through the person of Jesus Christ, the Logos taking on flesh.

Most intelligent, educated Christians will be clear to admit that one does not know the latter. Plenty of arguments can be made for the likelihood of a creator, Ontological Arguments, etc. But it is through faith that one accepts the Christian God, interacting in history, caring, and having a preference for how people live their lives

>>1765197
What you're describing is what people would typically call (in my experience at least) an impersonal force rather than a god, and my personal definition of what a god would be slightly differs. All the deists I've met said that God had a mind. But I can't argue with your definition, and I think I need to hear more deists' opinions on this.
>>1765216
Do you agree with >>1765197's definition of god?

>>1764960

Deist here, I don't care what you do.

Be prepared for people to just call you a practical atheist or atheist in denial.

>>1765438
Do you agree with >>1765197's definition of God?

>>1765448

Seems reasonable enough

>>1765229
The complication of that definition is that the description is that it does not refer to a singular entity, but potentially many with different goals. Perhaps "God" is truly a collection of entities functioning from our perspective as a singular. But I would also include the necessity of singularity of "goal", even though the word seems absurd in the context