Deism Is Absurd

“The definition of deism you emphasize is constrictive. I have said some deists believe God intervenes in the universe. For example, Benjamin Franklin was deist who believed in miracles.” Yes, there who people who identify as Deist who believe in things contradictory to Deism. There are also people who identify as Christians yet don't follow Jesus, and people who identify as homosexual who are married to the opposite sex. The actions of people who bear a title do not change the definition of the title itself, anymore than myself identifying as Asian makes me an Asian (I'm not, by the way.) “But let's assume the deist's God doesn't interfere with Nature.” Awesome. “[D]eism is of practical value in knowing the truth about reality, which matters to everyone and how they live.” Knowledge of the truth is not necessarily practical; a truth may be the fact that it took me 3.22342 seconds to get out of bed this morning. I don't think that piece of knowledge is of practical use to anybody. “As for deism solving life's problems, you may want to reconsider that. Thomas Paine was an example of how deism in a man solved problems [by stemming the tide of atheism]” So the only practical value Deism has is fighting atheism? This makes Deism sound like a belief whose only practical value is encouraging others to believe it; it's like a plague, whose only purpose is to spread and reproduce itself. “they didn't want religion to be used to oppress people. They may not have done this if they were deists.” That sounds like an argument from ignorance to me: because we can't know what they would have done if they weren't deist, it must be deism that caused their actions. “God can care about a universe he doesn't intervene in.” Yes, and there can be unicorns on a foreign, unobserved planet. However, there is no evidence for unicorns, and no evidence for God caring about people (according to Deism), so to assume unicorns exist, or the Deist God cares, is irrational. If this is representative of Deism, it makes Deism absurd. “Pointing out a hypocrisy undermines a rule being broken” No, not necessarily. Particularly if the rulemaker is not bound by the rule. Was my childhood curfew of 8:00pm undermined just because my parents stayed up later than that? No. “I reply that the Christian God doesn't care too, now why shouldn't the Christian God be absurd; you still believe in Him and defend Him. Finally, you simply assert God loves all people; you don't bring evidence.” John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son( … ) According to Deism, it's impossible for you to bring any evidence that God cares. “Not to mention how I pointed out God doesn't mention deists or atheists at all.” Deists and atheists are included in “the world” that God loves. Should the Christian God named every single religion that were to ever exist in the Bible by name? “And the doctrine of hell contradicts a loving God.” Hell is defined as the absence of God; you only go to Hell of your own accord, by rejecting God. It's a pretty dumb thing to do, but hey, it's not God's fault people choose to go to Hell. This doesn't show God isn't loving. “Deism is practical.” You say that, but the only point of Deism you've argued for so far is the replacement of Atheism with Deism. “It believes in a God without being too speculative.” Didn't you say God cares? That's pure speculation, since by definition of Deism, you can't have any evidence for that claim. “I think that's a more reasoned approach to faith as opposed to taking what a man says or writes as divine fiat.” Comparing Deism to Christianity (which is what I assume you're referencing) doesn't make Deism any less absurd. Deism is absurd. Good luck with your final turn!