Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:57 pm
That's pretty much the textbook definition of "deism". You may refer to yourself as a "deist" for clarification from now on.jb48237 wrote:OK, to be brief, I believe that there is a Creator, but not necessarily a historical God who interacts with people, either now or
historically.
The claim is that naturalism (the predominant form of atheism in the world today, defined as the view that nature is all that exists) cannot explain logic and reason. Deism contradicts naturalism already, and many deists would agree with the claim that naturalism can't explain reason.jb48237 wrote:I remain confused as to how Christianity can claim logic and reasoning for itself. Though if you will tell me that the Creator created my brain and my ability to reason, I would go along with that.
As a deist, you have already come to grips with the necessity of an intelligent Creator in order to explain the existence of reason. You have accepted this particular evidence to the extent of its logical conclusion. Of course, the argument does imply that something in the nature of the Creator must be such that He/She/It would create reason. However, this can be accepted by a deist without full acceptance of Christianity.
See my earlier posts for some arguments which favor Christianity over deism.
AKMS, the reason argument is a powerful argument against naturalism. However, it doesn't do much in and of itself against deism. Historical arguments and the like are much better against deism.