Proof for Deism- What do you think?

Question

This is in the style of a Geometric proof, not scientific proof.

Assumed: God created humans

God gave us a brain. Therefore he must want us to use it.
Revelation is beyond Reasoning (As stated by most religions).

Conclusion: Revelations (At least those that supposedly go "beyond Reasoning") are not from God.

Deism is "the beleif in God based on Reason rather than revelation." Therefore, here is the proof of Deism.

This was directed towards theists and Deists who believe God exists, so I didn't take to try to prove God's existence, since my intended audience has this as a given. Maybe later I will try to add a proof for the existence of God.

When one's common sense disagrees with the religion they have chosen, the religious leaders say, "Its a mystery", or "Who can understand the mind of God." The Trinity, for example. Thus, the Truths God has supposedly given us (revelation) is thought to be higher than Reason.

I am not saying revelation is greater than Reason. I am saying reason is greater than revelation, and since revelation requires us to believe things that are unreasonable, revelation is not from God.

And for the millionth time, Deism does not require one to believe in a God that is inactive. Most do, but not all. Deism is simply a beleif in God based on Reason rather than revelation.

Answer 1

Interesting question. If I understand a deist's starting proposition,

God created the universe but takes no active role in it. God is not involved in our lives. The universe is rational and ordered. And God is a rational being with rational desires, rational goals, and rational methods that can be understood through human reason.

Obviously, the premises behind your argument form a solid working model for the deist theory. But do they lead inexorably to your conclusion?

I accept your first premise. But I need to do study regarding your second premise.

Thank you for your interesting and provacative question.

God bless,

Laura

Answer 2

You are concluding your starting assumption? How is that a useful proof?

EDIT:
ok I see you want to conclude something about God, not just that he exists. Well I still don't like this proof. If we didn't have a brain we wouldn't be able to function. And you can't use the statement that "most religious feel revelation is beyond reasoning" as a strong argument...

Answer 3

You make multiple assumptions, but declare only one.

A0.0 God Exists (You assume this a priori)
A1. God created humans.
A1.1 God did so by design.
A1.2 God's design included all levels from fine scale to gross level, including the fractal pattern for it that is included in the genes.
A2. What God gives is meant to be used.
A3. Revelation is greater than reasoning.
A4.1 Reason is strictly of the brain.
A4.2 Revelation is not of the brain, but given to the brain.

When one points out that literally everything but your conclusion is axiomic, one realizes your arguement falls completely apart.

In fact, come to think of it, when you really look at the given axioms, Deism is in fact NOT the conclusion.

God gives the brain. (A0.0 -> A1 -> A1.1 -> A1.2)
God is infinite in nature (by definition)
God created the brain for its best use. (A2.)
Revelation is greater than Reason (A3.)

Therefore, God created the brain for Revelation over Reason.
All uses of modus ponens.

Answer 4

If you take out your assumption, your conclusion fails. Since your assumption is required for proof of the Deism, you are starting with your conclusion.

Your argument might as well be:

Assumption: God created humans.
Conclusion: Deism

You don't need any of the middle stuff. Your conclusion is already present in the assumption.

Answer 5

You run into a problem on your second assumption. From the way I understand the story of A&E, god doesn't want you to use your brain. That's the whole beginning of the end! Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. So there you go.

Answer 6

Makes no sense

Answer 7

Huh?

Answer 8

There is no proof there at all.