Atheists don't like the idea of a laissez-faire God....

[ThePainefulTruth]

It isn't hard at all. Watch:

There's nothing that makes sense to put into the blank in this argument:

1. Nothing we observe in the universe is incompatible with the universe being godless.

Nothing we observe in the universe is incompatible with it having been created by a laissez-faire God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing we observe in the universe is incompatible with it having been created by a laissez-faire God.

If you think you've made some sort of smiley-worthy point, then you fundamentally misunderstand what atheism is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nothing we observe in the universe is incompatible with it having been created by a laissez-faire God.

Even if that's the case, I still don't understand your need to believe in such a redundancy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hearsay is generally unreliable, but not necessarily false.

It is inadmissible as evidence, in a court of law, or in any reasoned investigation.


Seems like you're operating from a bizarre and unique definition of deism.[/QUOTE]

Is it an unreasonable position?

You're flailing.

 

[Revoltingest]

For all:
There have been in recent history, a number of atheistic and skeptical scientists and noted philosophers who have come out and admitted that a deistic (laissez faire) God cannot be ruled out. To wit:
:
And even Stephen Hawking (reluctantly, petulantly, kicking and screaming)

I'd like to see a video of this last one.
(You know how we heathens are.....we like evidence.)

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

,....because it side steps their argument for atheism which is simply a straw man argument attacking all the "revealed" gods. It's so much easier to shoot fish in a barrel than to argue against a deist God which is indistinguishable to us, from atheism. Don't get me wrong, soft atheism is reasonable, but deism is equally reasonable--or equally unreasonable, if you will. But it appears that some atheists are as emotionally invested in an irrational eradication of doubt, as theists are.

So your vision of the universe looks exactly as it would without a god, just with a god that doesn't actually do anything.

Seems extraneous to me.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Even if that's the case, I still don't understand your need to believe in such a redundancy.

What redundancy? And I merely gravitate towards it for the hope it offers to the vacant alternative.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'd like to see a video of this last one.
(You know how we heathens are.....we like evidence.)

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" A Brief History of Time (1988), pp. 8-9.

A couple of years ago he purported to have evidence that there was evidence from before the Big Bang that clearly indicated that there was no God. But then was forced to walk it back. And yes, I have toyed with the chronology, but you get the point.

So your vision of the universe looks exactly as it would without a god, just with a god that doesn't actually do anything.

Seems extraneous to me.

In this life, it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

We do not need to even bother to "rule out" what is ultimately a purely aestheical conception of God.

We just need to not believe in its existence. That is what atheism is.

 

[Windwalker]

I think the question I keep hearing being asked is what is the value of a wholly transcendent, non-interventionist deity? What's the point or purpose for that belief? If this God is inaccessible to the system of this universe, that is it simply as a scientific-type explanation for causal relationships? It would seem it has no relevance to how one lives their life with the world. To me any belief in God should have some relevance to the person. So what is exactly its relevance here?

 

[Revoltingest]

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" A Brief History of Time (1988), pp. 8-9.

A couple of years ago he purported to have evidence that there was evidence from before the Big Bang that clearly indicated that there was no God. But then was forced to walk it back. And yes, I have toyed with the chronology, but you get the point.

Yeah...I'd already read the book.
No surprise there.
I wanted a video of Hawking kicking & screaming!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If you think you've made some sort of smiley-worthy point, then you fundamentally misunderstand what atheism is.

But the point still stands, rock solid and uncontested, by your response anyway.

We do not need to even bother to "rule out" what is ultimately a purely aestheical conception of God.

We just need to not believe in its existence. That is what atheism is.

Why would you want to rule out the possibility of an aesthetic purpose to this often painful existence?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Irrelevant, redundant AND not apparent. Seriously, why bother with it? What's the point?

You really really don't get it???

I think the question I keep hearing being asked is what is the value of a wholly transcendent, non-interventionist deity? What's the point or purpose for that belief? If this God is inaccessible to the system of this universe, that is it simply as a scientific-type explanation for causal relationships? It would seem it has no relevance to how one lives their life with the world. To me any belief in God should have some relevance to the person. So what is exactly its relevance here?

Hope is the difference. I've said it repeatedly. We all fear death, at least the ones that aren't dead already.

Yeah...I'd already read the book.
No surprise there.
I wanted a video of Hawking kicking & screaming!

Sorry, it's just an allegorical, mental picture, that fit his situation. And pretty accurate too if I may say so.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, it's just a allegorical, mental picture, that fit his situation. And pretty accurate too if I may say so.

Nah......
Hawking just said what most atheists already believe,
ie, that we cannot disprove the existence of gods.
"Kicking & screaming" is the opposite of his tone in the book.
Did you read it?

Btw, I think "metaphorical" would work better than "allegorical".

 

[Kuzcotopia]

For a religious board, with a whole forum dedicated to deism, there's a whole lot of suspicious ignorance of the term. Deism is the possibility that universe was created by God (a supernatural spirit being), which does not intervene in that rational natural universe in order to protect our free will. The point in red is my supposition as to God's motivation. An omnipotent God could do anything else (besides create beings with free will) instantly. Therefore, free will is the sole purpose for creating the universe--if God exists.

It seems as though you have many more suppositions. If we set aside the possibility that a god exists, how do you know:

1. There is exactly one god. Maybe there is a pantheon of deistic gods. Who's to say there isn't an entire deistic god for every single conscious primate on the planet?

2. This god or gods are omnipotent. How do you know these gods your supposing have unlimited power to affect anything that isn't human free will? Maybe they are also unable to affect lead? Or beryllium? Or gravity? Maybe their powers are only effective when the Milky Way is in a specific relative position to Andromeda? How would you know exactly what these god(s) powers are?

3. These gods motivations. What you highlighted in red, of course. . this is a problem. Ascribing specific motivations to a deity is assuming a lot. Even if 1 and 2 above aren't problems, who's to say that the goal of a deistic god(s) is to protect free will in terrestrial primates? Maybe ther trying to stop us, or trick us, because we're a threat?

Look, the real problem here is that you are making a host of God claims, with very specific characteristics for that God. Any options I've presented above are just as likely as yours.

Nonfalsafiable claims suggest a possibility, but since there are nearly an infinite number of deistic variations on characteristics and motivations, your claims are no more useful.

I would also refrain from making persoanl jabs about Atheists having so-and-so "emotional motivations", or "suspicious ignorance" I get it. . . you're frustrated because no one's buying into your claims.

But those comments are even less useful than your claims

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But it appears that some atheists are as emotionally invested in an irrational eradication of doubt, as theists are.

It appears that this bares repeating.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Nah......
Hawking just said what most atheists already believe,
ie, that we cannot disprove the existence of gods.
"Kicking & screaming" is the opposite of his tone in the book.
Did you read it?

Btw, I think "metaphorical" would work better than "allegorical".

I know, thus my "toyed with the chronology" comment. He later undermined that quote with what he wrote in The Grand Design, and then was forced to recant that.

 

[Laika]

Given this thread is going to be a complete waste of time, I'm just going to shamelessly endorse blasphemous iconoclastic scientistic atheistic-materialism. We make such excellent comicbook villans going beyond christian conceptions of good and evil!

Go ubermensch!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is inadmissible as evidence, in a court of law, or in any reasoned investigation.

As is "you can't prove it's NOT true!"

Is it an unreasonable position?

You're operating from an incorrect definition of deism. Deists actually believe in a deistic god. Not just "a deistic god might exist," but "a deistic god exists."

I think the place where you went off the rails is when you decided that people arguing against deism are arguing against whatever you somehow decided to call deism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would you want to rule out the possibility of an aesthetic purpose to this often painful existence?

The point is that I don't even need a reason. But if you need one, what about my aesthetical preference for not imagining entities that are likely not to exist at all?