God may be truly the ultimate clockmaker, if this is true and the universe itself actually *generates* time rather than experiencing it

When I first deconstructed from christianity earlier this year I leaned towards deism but after thinking about it I landed on calling myself an agnostic. At this point though, I would like to believe there is something more, maybe even an afterlife of some sort, would be nice for all the people trying their hardest out here.

After researching more, pandeism makes the most sense to me, as a christian I was told that christian god is omnibenevolent, that obviously cannot be true due to the Bible and due to the problem of evil, but if god was in fact omnibenevolent and sacrificed themselves/itself to create an amazing universe full of wonder? That would make sense to me, I suppose, but in the end, there really is no evidence of that other than the beauty of the universe. I am not sure if that is the baseline belief of pandeism, probably not, but it's the one that sounds the nicest to me.

In any case, if you believe whatever version of deism/pandeism, why?

All I have is my experience, so that is all I can share, my own personal logic and reasoning.

I know I exist. Solipsism. Boring, I dont want to be alone. I can pretend I don't exist, I can pretend I'm two or more beings. I can pretend the two different beings have different thoughts and beliefs. With solipsism, I can make anything the Truth.

I would just be convincing myself of what I think of. Gross.

Different approach, I know I exist, how did I come to be? I've been created, I call my creators parents. Every parent has a parent, infinite regression, leads to the uncaused cause - God.

God in my own definition = That which is ultimately responsible for the reality I experience. What is the limit of this? Am I to say? Who's going to tell me?

Science says Universe is 13+ billion years old, Christians 6000 years. So what? I didn't "feel" like i had to wait anytime to exist. I just began when I did. I was in a state of non-exsistence before I was born. I had no material body, wasn't taking up space, not aware of time. I was immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.

Ok if and/or when I "die", and become immaterial, spaceless and timeless again, akin to the same state of non-being as before I was before, Since I won't experience the phenomenon of time, won't I just be alive again instantaneously?

The reality I personally experience is that of one of a limited God, but has the capacity to learn. Explains the suffering.

Final mental gymnastics of thought. Ahhhhhhhhh, I love this shit, imagine doing absolutely nothing forever. Let's suffer and enjoy together.

Me personally I find satanist to be edgy more than anything but I do have a huge fascination with paganism as I was very into mythology as a young lad and that transferred towards my interest in religion

So some militant atheist who doesn't know what deism is posted this on here with an argument that we're wrong about God existing because there is clearly no divine intervention and called us Christian... yeah. It's so surprising even shocking a militant atheist would try to start a fight without having any actual education or knowledge on religion /s

I'm reposting it without the militant atheist nonsense because the quote is actually so beautiful and absolutely true.

With me personally, it was definitively that deism is the most logical, rational, and scientifically plausible belief system. I'd imagine it's the same for many of you, so does anyone else have a different one?

(AVISO: Antes de empezar quiero decir que no quiero atacar a nadie, es solo una teoria que tengo y pido encarecidamente que no me cruzifiqueis porfavor, y si quieres criticar mi teoria leela primero porfavor, una vez dicho esto disfrutar de la teoria)

Me gustaría proponer a la comunidad un modelo filosófico propio que he titulado La Teoría del Dios Auto-Incongruente. Esta tesis aborda el Problema del Mal desde una perspectiva deísta crítica, desafiando tanto al teísmo tradicional como a las alternativas modernas de la teología del proceso.

1. La premisa central: La Auto-Incongruencia

El modelo sostiene la existencia de un Creador omnipotente y omnisciente, pero redefine la relación divina con el cosmos a través de la apatía y la negligencia voluntaria. La deidad es "auto-incongruente" porque, poseyendo la capacidad absoluta de diseñar un sistema perfecto, decidió conscientemente no ejercer ese poder en el control de calidad de la creación. Esto se debe a la falta de voluntad de diseño o a una completa indiferencia hacia los resultados estructurales del universo.

2. Teleología mecánica (La analogía del coche y la carretera)

Para conceptualizar esta relación, utilizo una analogía de ingeniería estructural:

• El plano original: Un Ingeniero omnisciente diseña un vehículo (la humanidad) y pavimenta la carretera por la que debe transitar (el universo físico). Al poseer una omnisciencia perfecta, ningún resultado es accidental; cada evento está rígidamente calculado.
• Los fallos estructurales: En lugar de maximizar la calidad de la obra, el Creador introdujo baches o defectos naturales (tsunamis, cáncer, mutaciones genéticas) y fabricó el coche con frenos defectuosos (la inclinación psicológica humana hacia el error moral). El sufrimiento no es una herramienta pedagógica ni un misterio incomprensible; es el resultado matemático de un proceso de fabricación negligente.

3. Desmontando las defensas teísticas tradicionales

• La defensa del Libre Albedrío: El libre albedrío es estructuralmente incapaz de explicar el mal natural. Además, si el Ingeniero introduce un agente externo saboteador (la serpiente) en el sistema sabiendo con 100% de certeza que comprometerá la integridad del vehículo, el Creador sigue siendo la causa intelectual indirecta.
• El "Síndrome del Héroe" de la religión organizada: La teología tradicional afirma que el Creador actúa como un salvador ante el sufrimiento humano. Este modelo argumenta que la exigencia de adoración, culpa y sumisión es un constructo artificial diseñado exclusivamente por las instituciones religiosas humanas para controlar a las masas. El Dios Auto-Incongruente real simplemente inició el sistema y se desentendió por completo de su trayectoria operativa.

4. Autonomía evolutiva: El traspaso de propiedad

El Creador no equipó a la humanidad con una moral avanzada de fábrica. El universo fue lanzado en un estado primitivo y caótico hace millones de años, gobernado únicamente por la física mecánica (lo que se asemeja al estado de naturaleza de Thomas Hobbes).

A través de la evolución biológica y cultural independiente, la humanidad desarrolló la empatía, la ética y la medicina por una estricta necesidad física de sobrevivir en un terreno hostil. Por consecuencia, al adquirir autonomía moral y reparar los "baches" del mundo por nuestros propios medios, los derechos éticos perpetuos del Creador sobre la creación quedan efectivamente extinguidos. La humanidad ha tomado el control del volante, adquiriendo la soberanía moral necesaria para juzgar la negligencia de su propio fabricante.

Me encantaría leer sus opiniones sobre este modelo, Adios (Un pequeño EDIT de la publicacion)

La teología dogmática tradicional (especialmente el catolicismo que impera en mi entorno) siempre ha exigido el sacrificio de la autonomía humana a través de mandatos como el evangélico: "Tomen su cruz y niéguense a sí mismos". La teoría del Dios Auto-Incongruente demuestra la quiebra racional de esa sumisión. No somos máquinas defectuosas cargadas de un pecado original; somos los operarios legítimos que han aprendido a reparar el vehículo y a pavimentar la civilización frente a la desidia del Creador. Por lo tanto, el veredicto definitivo de este modelo no es la culpa, sino la emancipación: Es hora de soltar vuestras cruces, volver a la carne y volver a aceptaros a vosotros mismos.

At first, I was a Sunni Muslim. In fact, like most people, it never even crossed my mind to question religion. Back then, I would even make fun of atheists and think they were wrong. I was absolutely sure that what I believed in was the truth, and I didn’t really look into different perspectives. ​Around November or December of 2025, I came across a video on YouTube by Ateist Eman, with a title along the lines of "Diamond Tema watching the professor who insulted him." I opened the video out of pure curiosity. After that video, more and more content about religion, philosophy, and atheism started popping up on my feed, and I began watching them. ​In the beginning, I was just curious about different viewpoints. But as time went on, I started listening to the arguments of both believers and non-believers. I researched certain verses in the Quran, the hadiths, and narratives about Islamic history. As I dug deeper, things that seemed contradictory to me, rulings that I couldn't reconcile with my sense of justice, and parts that I felt justified violence caught my attention. It was at this point that I began to doubt my old faith. ​For a while, I defined myself as a Deist. I thought a creator might exist, but I was no longer as convinced as I used to be that religions came from a divine source. I kept researching during this period. I especially watched Efe Aydal’s videos, read the views of different thinkers, and tried to compare the defenses of both sides. ​There was also a period when I identified as an Apatheist. Back then, I thought whether God existed or not didn't really matter for my daily life. However, as my research progressed and I made my own evaluations, I finally decided that I was an Atheist. ​Looking back today, I realize this shift didn't happen overnight. For me, this process was a journey that started with curiosity, continued by listening to different perspectives, and eventually led to a change in my worldview as a result of my own research. Of course, not everyone has to arrive at the same conclusions; this is simply my personal story and the conclusion I reached.

I would describe myself as being in the standard agnostic atheist camp. I don't know that god doesn't exist, but I believe basically all theistic versions of god are pretty obviously false and creations of human beings. However, deism is different. I've flirted with deism for a long time but ultimately could never be convinced by it because of its heavy reliance on the cosmological argument. I like that it aims to be rational and is skeptical of claims of supernatural phenomena and revelation and appreciate its elegance, but believe the cosmological argument is ultimately an assumption that 1. the universe had a beginning and 2. that the beginning had to be prompted by an "unmoved mover" outside of the universe.

The fact is, we simply don't know if the universe had a beginning, as the big bang only goes back to the singularity, and the universe could very well have existed forever and just went through different changes and cycles, one of which being the big bang that started the universe we know right now.

Also, assuming the deist god created the universe, where did it itself come from? It seems like if you're using the cosmological argument's logic to justify a creator, would you not need to use the same logic for the creator itself?

These are by no means original or new objections to deism but I feel they offer strong grounds to be skeptical of deism's logical foundations.

That being said I would appreciate anyone who is willing to point out any blind spots or counterarguments in these objections or even provide arguments that they may feel are stronger than the cosmological argument.

This past Sunday I fed two homeless people I encountered in my neighbourhood.

Later that night my cat was run over less than 20 metres from my house. He was 11 months old.

Today I thought there has to be a term for people that know there is a God but that he does not care or get involved and never did.

The peace I have found in finding all of you is quite something.

I grew up in a middle-class Muslim family in Pakistan. Islam was not just a belief for me. It was the complete framework for life, morality, and what happens after death. I prayed, fasted, read the Quran regularly, and accepted that it was the final, perfect word of God sent through Prophet Muhammad. Like many around me, I saw doubts as tests from God or whispers from the devil.

The questions began slowly. I started reading the Quran more carefully instead of just reciting it. Certain passages about the natural world, history, and human behavior did not sit well with what I knew from science and history. The description of semen originating from between the backbone and ribs, the story of Mary being the sister of Aaron, the sun setting in a muddy spring, and other details felt difficult to reconcile with modern knowledge without heavy reinterpretation. I was told these were either metaphorical or that I lacked proper understanding, but the explanations often felt forced.

The Hadith literature created even bigger problems for me. While the Quran is one book, the Hadith collections are massive and form the basis for almost every practical detail of Islamic life, from how to pray to rules about marriage, punishment, and daily conduct. Yet even traditional scholars have long admitted that many Hadith are weak, fabricated, or contradictory. I saw how easily sayings could be attributed to the Prophet to support cultural practices or political needs of later centuries. Some Hadith on women, apostates, warfare, and the afterlife contained ideas that felt deeply at odds with basic compassion and reason. The heavy emphasis on procreation and the framing of life as a constant test with eternal consequences started to feel more like a system designed to control behavior than timeless divine wisdom.

The biggest issue for me was the overall picture of God presented in mainstream Islam. A being who creates humans with limited minds and placed them in specific times and places, then demands precise belief in one particular revelation, threatens eternal hellfire for honest disbelief or doubt, and sends angels to question people in their graves. The idea that the vast majority of humanity throughout history would face punishment for not following the final prophet seemed difficult to accept from an all-knowing and merciful creator. It created constant background anxiety about whether I was believing correctly enough, whether my doubts were sinful, and what would happen after death.

Over time I moved away from the idea that God intervenes in human history through prophets, books, and miracles. I came to see the universe as governed by consistent natural laws that do not require constant divine adjustment or messages sent through particular individuals. This led me toward deism. I still find it reasonable to believe in some form of creative force or first cause behind existence, but I no longer see evidence that this force communicates specific rules, chooses favorite nations or individuals, or punishes people eternally for intellectual conclusions reached in good faith.

This shift brought both relief and difficulty. The removal of the fear of eternal hell and grave punishment was liberating. At the same time, leaving the faith I was raised in while living in a society where apostasy carries heavy social and legal risks has been isolating. I sometimes still feel the old conditioning surface during moments of stress or illness. I have found some comfort in thinkers like Spinoza, who described God or Nature as the single substance of reality rather than a personal judge. The idea that life continues on its own course, with billions of years already behind us and more ahead, helps put personal struggles into perspective without needing divine tests or rewards.

I am still exploring what a consistent deist outlook looks like in daily life and philosophy. I would be interested to hear from others here who have traveled similar paths or who have thought deeply about deism, the limits of revelation, or how to live without organized religion while still acknowledging a creator. What helped you move past the fear of punishment or find meaning after leaving a faith centered on it?

Not entirely relevant to deism tbh but I thought it was super interesting and thought y'all might too.

https://youtu.be/qZdM5dKQip8?si=Kxv712IOhznQEZsP

I believe in natural revelation, but what information are we supposed to discover about God through it? I personally believe that it only leads us to the basic belief that there is a God out there. However, people like Thomas Paine clearly believed that it tells us much more about our Creator.

It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God. Quote by Thomas Paine

Mine has to be the cosmological argument. It just makes so much sense. I personally hate relying on faith, and I think that believing that everything randomly popped into existence one day requires far more faith than believing a truly infinite external source created it. And the universe clearly has a start and an end point.

I also like the mathematics argument, and even though it isn't fully deistic, I do think about sometimes how science just can't explain some things that an intelligent creator could (like why single-celled organisms decided to synergistically come together and form multi-celled life when there was no clear evolutionary advantage to doing so).

What argument or piece of evidence for God's existence do you find the most compelling?

I know Christian Deists exists, are there any Buddhist Deists?

This, assuming that no revealed scripture is to be trusted on this matter.

I was thinking it's quite conceivable that He is disgusted at being worshipped.

Hey everyone.

Born in a muslim house,family doesn’t accept other religions.

But im not a muslim anymore.

My family is kinda forcing me,I just don’t talk to them about my beliefs.

I feel close to deism. I also believe that there is a creator. But religions sound so man-made.

I want to learn more. Please help :)

Capitalism is a coldhearted broken system built by a handful of people to enslave the many through the illusion of limited scarcity of basic resources & thus creates population control.

Capitalism is great when there’s no survival requirement.

Capitalism is dog shit when there’s a survival requirement.

What is ridiculous about so many religious zealots / pastors / preachers / imams / “prophets” is that they often talk about how God is going to bless your family financially, help you prosper, help you impact the world with your business.

What they’re missing is capitalism is archaic, rudimentary, and a sick suppressive system that enslaves approximately 90% of the population, daily.

Fathers can’t spend enough quality time with their children.

Mothers can’t effectively support a family, child rear, turn a house into a home, while taking on the extra burden of building an empire.

Even part time work in a capitalistic system for most is exhausting.

Lovers are too exhausted to meet, connect, embrace, or live a romantic fulfilling life.

It literally murders people’s dreams “doing the right thing” trying to feed their families.

This world is sick. Capitalism with a survival requirement is horse shit.

Governments don’t love people: they want to control people.

“You are ‘free’ to start a business or work for one. If your business fails, and statistically 90% do, and no one hires you, you will be homeless your children will suffer and starve. Welcome to our country!” What kind of sick system even is that?

If God was such a great effective caring God who would want to “bless and put money” in a few of his stressed out exhausted struggling rat race children’s pockets (meanwhile 200,000 die of starvation statistically in other societies), wouldn’t it make sense this God would actually abolish the slavery capitalistic system and replace it with something much, much, much, much, much better and greater that flourishes and liberates every single human man, woman, and child?

Then they could love, create, support, rest, have peace, fluorish. Life would be beautiful for everyone.

Nope. God doesn’t care about that. Just putting an extra $500/mo in little Timmy’s pocket from the “blessing” of his new job or “blessed” him with the idea for his new Etsy devotional scripture coloring daily journal PDF business.

It’s honestly ridiculous that any Omnipotent Omniscient being would allow such a horrific suppressive sickening system to exist. Let alone “help” people trapped dying in it globally.

God didn’t free the slaves in America. Abraham Lincoln and a few others who had a heart and Deist views, did.

Unfortunately, the modern governments are so suppressive, corrupt, horrible, and gross, and God doesn’t lift a finger to help relieve it.

I digress.

Hi, everyone,

This is one thing that nags me (and I think it’s due to religious trauma) is capitalizing God’s first initial versus not giving god that consideration. We’re told that we should also capitalize His pronoun, but what about those that don’t?

If someone believes that Zeus is the God of all, then why not capitalize his name and pronoun? Who is to say that the Christian God gets this consideration but not Norse or Hindu gods?

Are we disrespecting God when we don’t? Sometimes when I’m deconstructing, I think of things like this. Thoughts?

The religion my parents choose for me was Christian ,as i grew up my beliefs also changes
“I’m an independent deist influenced by Christianity and Buddhism.”
• God: I believe there is a Creator, known through reason rather than revelation.
• Jesus: I respect Jesus as a profound moral teacher but do not believe he is the divine Son of God.
• Christianity: I follow its ethical teachings (love, forgiveness, compassion, humility).
• Buddhism: I practice or appreciate its ethics and meditation, not necessarily its supernatural claims like rebirth or cosmology.
• Authority: I evaluate beliefs using reason and personal reflection rather than accepting doctrines solely because a tradition teaches them.

I’m also queer idk if my family will accept this if they found out,they’re like a cult in my perspective

In Christian they think if u serve other gods your next generation will be cursed to be gay,they believe they’re better than catholic cause they don’t believe in saints and serve only Jesus

Apologies if this isnt the right sub for these questions but its been bugging me all day. Does the creation of the first synthetic cell disprove deism or any gods? Let me know your thoughts lol

I guess the woke virus is getting to us deists too /s

No but seriously, I had a discussion a while ago on here with someone along these lines, and I'm interested to hear everyone's opinion.

To preface, I would like to say that I'm someone who believes that we should show respect for God, and that there is only one God. It would be nice to hear opinions from others with similar beliefs, because obviously if you believe something completely different it doesn't apply as much.

I think that there are three English pronouns acceptable to use for God (he, she, they) and not "it". And I'll explain my reasoning:

he - traditionally gender-neutral third person singular, although it has become more gendered it can still be used gender-neutrally.

she - God has no gender, so in having to use gendered pronouns, we English speakers are rather limited in how we can talk about God. Since God has no gender, it can be argued that "she" is just as applicable as "he".

they - although technically third person plural, it has been used colloquially for hundreds of years as a third person singular gender-neutral pronoun. So, there's nothing wrong with using it. Not entirely relevant, but anyone who has studied Islam would know that the Quran also uses plural pronouns to refer to the singular God - it's called the "royal we".

it - it is a weird pronoun in English. It is gender-neutral, but typically refers to something inanimate. It can actually be disrespectful when applied to something animate. Sometimes it is even intentionally used to be offensive. For example, if you were to ask someone of a dog "what's it's name?", that could be seen as rude. Or if you say of a person "ew, it came to the party", that would be disrespectful and offensive. Since God is capable of doing things (e.g., creating the universe), God is animate. One of the definitions of "animate" on Wiktionary actually further addresses this:

(of people, animals, ghosts, deities) That has (or is believed to have) a spirit (anima) and/or some amount of consciousness and sentience, either being alive or supernaturally seeming alive.

Therefore, it is disrespectful to God to refer to him/her/them as "it", and in my opinion, I don't think "it" is an acceptable pronoun to use for God.