Jaded Sage wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Jaded Sage wrote:That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. I don't mean that God does sometimes and sometimes does not. I mean that God does both simultaneously, by doing it automatically, and by nature. I suppose it is a pantheistic position. Or a panentheistic one.
What should we call a position that is both theistic and deistic?
I think this would be: "confused".
A pantheistic god, in the model of, say, Spinoza would be neither a Theistic god, nor a Deistic god; but nature itself. Not desirous, not intervening, but embodied in the necessity of causality, absolute, boundless.
But that isn't what we are talking about. Is this concept really too difficult?
Who is 'we'? Is that the Royal 'we'? I'm not the only one to say you are confused (I notice when looking at other posts). Maybe the concepts are indeed too difficult for you.
God can't intervene and not intervene.
A deist holds that the deity created and left the universe alone.
A Theist that god continually tinkers.
You have to make up your mind about that.