The Deist concept of God and Creation

Livefire wrote (in the "stU story" thread):

Jason is so right...the religion part of this forum is to bring us to a deeper understanding of the foundation of law and liberty, thereby allowing us to live life more abundant and free.

Alright, good. Some have claimed (including G W Bush) that the USA is "a Christian nation" and that Christianity is the foundation of our laws and political system. But my research regarding our Founding Fathers has shown me otherwise... in fact, when I found out that many of our Founding Fathers were Deists, and I then read their treatises about their beliefs and the rationale behind their beliefs, I found myself agreeing with their intellectual and spiritual positions. I was already attending a Science of Mind fellowship before I learned of the Deist beliefs held by many of our most significant Founding Fathers. It was stU who posted Thomas Jefferson's opinion here about religion ... and therefore it was he who first informed me of these Founding Fathers' opinions, which led to my further research into their beliefs. I am grateful to have learned about this, which is why I am sad to see stU banned. He often posted some very interesting information.

A well-written treatise concerning Deism follows (bold emphasis mine):

From: http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

DEISM VS. REVEALED RELIGION

Revelation, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as: "God's disclosure to man of Himself." This should read, "God's alleged disclosure to man of himself." For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. This is what we are doing when we believe in any revealed religion, and that's all Christianity is. It's a revealed religion like many others such as Islam and Judaism. Revealed religion gets dangerous however, when it crosses over the line into politics. This is the admitted goal of the Christian Coalition. God allegedly revealed to Pat Robertson and his Coalition, that He wants them to take over America and eventually the world with "His Word," so the laws of the nations will mirror the laws in the Bible, which, if you know what's in the Bible, is terrifying. This, too, is what the Ayatollah's goal was, only his "revealed word of God" was the Koran, another revelation. Are we to believe Pat when he says the Bible is revelation of God's Word?

As THINK! has already offered several examples in the above article, YANKING THE TEETH FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT, taken directly from the Bible itself to prove itself false and NOT the Word of God, reason alone will now be used to demonstrate Christianity is NOT revelation from God.

Thomas Paine, the man who elucidated Deism for the masses and who is the primary personal impetus for THINK! and the World Union of Deists, wrote:

"The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [reveled] religion and their Christian faith.

"Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not a friend to truth. " The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bears evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation.

"It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority.

"When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place.

"This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe."

"Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up."

Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently.

The following quote from Thomas Jefferson points us in a direction free of the confusion of priest-craft and revealed religion:

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order."

Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion.

I am grateful to stU for first pointing out Thomas Jefferson's opinions here and thus leading me to the writings of the other Founding Fathers regarding Deism - a spiritual belief which I had, apparently, already embraced, and for which I've now found wonderful and eloquent agreement from many of the most significant Founding Fathers of this nation.

*

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

Livefire wrote (in the "stU story" thread):




I am grateful to stU for first pointing out Thomas Jefferson's opinions here and thus leading me to the writings of the other Founding Fathers regarding Deism - a spiritual belief which I had, apparently, already embraced, and for which I've now found wonderful and eloquent agreement from many of the most significant Founding Fathers of this nation.

*

DON'T FORGET ABOUT FREEMASONRY. MOST OF THEM WERE FREEMASONS.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED A SECULAR TYPE OF GOVERNMENT. THE CHRISTIAN ESTABLISHMENT HATES TO DISCUSS THIS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS: http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

Originally Posted by PJT04

DON'T FORGET ABOUT FREEMASONRY. MOST OF THEM WERE FREEMASONS.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED A SECULAR TYPE OF GOVERNMENT. THE CHRISTIAN ESTABLISHMENT HATES TO DISCUSS THIS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS: http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

wow! no comments on this. must not be relevant to the christian establishment.

PJT04 wrote (concerning his post immediately above):

wow! no comments on this. must not be relevant to the christian establishment.

Actually, I believe it's SO relevant that they don't want to address it! What can they say???

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED A SECULAR TYPE OF GOVERNMENT. THE CHRISTIAN ESTABLISHMENT HATES TO DISCUSS THIS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS: http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

and take a look at this, too...

http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

[gldskr]

Heidi

While the deist approach to the creation controversy is surely more reasoned and rational than that of the theists, the conclusions of both stem from the same premise - belief. The theist explains the unknowable as God through their priests and requires faith as a prerequisite. The deist explains the unknowable as God through their priests (scientists) and also requires faith as a prerequisite. In each case, the resulting belief of an eternal cause (the deist) or the intelligent design of a creator (the theist) is paramount.

Since I don't wish to discuss easter bunnies or tooth fairies I'll leave the theists POV for others to haggle with. The point is, that regardless of the reasonableness of the deist methodology, the conclusion is the same. Because we (the scientists) cannot explain our existence, therefore something must have caused it. It is this belief in something rather than the something itself that disturbs me. Why is it necessary to believe, rather than the evidence to show itself or be discovered? Why can we not admit to ourselves that we do not know and simply endeavor to find out? Are we so weak intellectually that we must have closure to be whole, or maybe it is our arrogance of our "knowledge", that results in the pitting of faction against faction, each having ulterior motives. I would suggest that it is a combination of these.

Thomas Paine wrote in re. atheism;

"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it.

"It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy.

"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is.

"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and, without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself.

"It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.

"The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion.

"Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion.

"But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies.

"But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system.

"Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it.

"When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.

"As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

Paraphrasing Paine;

"If there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter,...without which...the universe could not exist...the existence of a superior cause...becomes discoverable."

"I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is."

"The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and, without this motion, the solar system could not exist. "

Here, Paine is in error. Motion, in fact, is a property of matter. Because it is not detectable to the naked eye or is affected by gravitation does not negate its existense.

Matter consists of molecules, which consist of atoms, which consist of electrons, protons, etc., which consist of quarks?, which consist of any amount of enumerable particles that may yet be discovered. These minute particles are in constant motion, whereas the whole of the mass appears to be at rest. Motion is the rule not the exception. Absent the force of gravitation, motion is perpetual. Granted, there may be other forces at work, but the law of conservation of energy will still apply.

The deist (scientist) also makes the specious assertion that the universe is X years old starting with the BIG BANG. This is arrogance to the Nth degree. This is based upon the fact that upon our limited observation of the universe, the universe is expanding. This may be true relative to our particular vantage point. But if we assume that the universe is infinite in scope, is it not possible that there is another BIG BANG occuring at infintity + 1 and is expanding as well, or an infinite amount of BIG BANGS occuring?

The only constant or absolute in the universe is change. We, the human race, are mere insignificant specks in the totality of things. Would it be nice to "know", surely, if just to satisfy our curiosity. Would knowing make a difference, not in the least. But to ascribe to that which is unknowable something that is also unknown is sure folly and a monumental waste of time.
And since time is the currency we all trade in, the productive use of such should be our primary concern.

Atheism does not propose to account for the nature of the universe. It accepts what is known and unknown and doesn't try to fill in the blanks with spurious speculation. If the god of the deist exists, it will be proven in due time. If the god of the theist exists, he will also show himself, why hide behind the curtain? But in the meantime. I won't be holding my breath.

gldskr

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Heidi

Because we (the scientists) cannot explain our existence, therefore something must have caused it. breath.

gldskr

1> What factual evidence can you offer to support this statement?

2> Is it possible that existence is eternal or perhaps cyclic?

3> What was there before time?

If you BELIEVE that EVERYTHING must have a cause without ANY EXCEPTION, how can there be a FIRST CAUSE as part of EVERYTHING? In other words, what caused the FIRST CAUSE since it also needs a cause?


BoyntonStu

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by PJT04

wow! no comments on this. must not be relevant to the christian establishment.

Maybe some of us already know this and don't rely on the "christian nation" position at all.
Maybe that concept is pre-school for conspirologists who have decided to go for remedies to government imposed communism?

[gldskr]

stu

You misunderstood my post. The quote you referred to was in the third person and I was, in fact attempting to refute the assertion.


It is entirely possible that existence is eternal and/or cyclic.

I don't know what was there before time, that is the point.

As to belief, I don't, that was also my point. I think if you will reread my post you will find that we are in agreement.

gldskr

[David Merrill]

I just found this interesting link:

http://kjmaclean.com/

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by gldskr

stu

You misunderstood my post. The quote you referred to was in the third person and I was, in fact attempting to refute the assertion.


It is entirely possible that existence is eternal and/or cyclic.

I don't know what was there before time, that is the point.

As to belief, I don't, that was also my point. I think if you will reread my post you will find that we are in agreement.

gldskr

gldskr,


Yes indeed, I stand corrected. I thank you.

The title of my favorite book, "The Tryanny of Words", Stuart Chase, 1936 says it all. We all are handcuffed by accepting definitions of words without challenge or proof. Once we adopt these words in our minds, they become our reality and they are very difficult to unlearn.

Example: Sheapshead Bay, NY. Ask 1,000 people where the name came from (I have), and they will all squirm in their minds in an attempt to make reality fit the name. "Well, the Bay looks like the head of a sheep". The outline of the bay has NO relationship to the HEAD of a sheep. The name of the bay was given for the SHED where sheep were kept. Sheep's Shed Bay was the original name. A slip of the tongue and a new reality is born.

In religion, the words are much more artificial because there never was the item (Shed for example) that was visible to begin the word progression. Can you say Trinity? Have you seen any Unicorns lately?

Religion comes from translated/interpreted words whose origins came from unknown sources. The 'believers' accept the words as Gospel without challenge or proof. They 'feel' it to be true. Well, so do the sheep's HEAD believers.

Wouldn't it be nice if the believers named their book, "The Theory of Jesus"?

Scientists are strong enough to call it "The Theory of Evolution".

Who are the true humble?


BoyntonStu