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

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't know where you get your 50-50 from, it sounds arbitrary to me. There are all sorts of weird and wonderful theories which have been put forward, none of them relying on God. Looking at how weird and wonderful the universe is, I highly doubt that "God did it" is correct, it is crude, simplistic and simply not weird enough!

So how did you arrive at your 50-50 probability? How many other possible explanations have you explored?

There are only two possibilities I can think of, spontaneous creation (which category would include any of the unstated weird and wonderful theories you mentioned) or a laissez-faire conscious God creator. If you can show two separate possibilities that fit the evidence at hand for a spontaneous Big Bang, then I'll adjust my odds. But as it stands now, there's only two possibilities with equal weight because there's no evidence at all from before the Big Bang, much less favoring one or the other possibilities. Ergo 50-50.

Is your need to believe in God really more to do with wanting to believe in an afterlife? Many religious beliefs stem from a fear of death.

It's a desire and a hope, not a need. You appear to have a need to needle me.

Wow. Is that really how you view your life? Some horrible hopeless thing that is meaningless without some straw clutching fantasy of some unknown eternal paradise?

I don't often feel pity, but I honestly pity you.

Godamity! Look up the word "if" and then reread my post. So many hard atheists, like hard Christians, and Muslims etc. think they can ignore or alter words in a statement they disagree with, and thereby become so proud of themselves in their own mind for how well they crushed their opponent. So good for you, you get a cookie.

Well, then I can disprove God. For I can make a case for causality to not be applicable at fundamental level.

What does that even mean?

I can also make a case for an atemporal and eternal Universe that always is, and does not therefore requires neither causation, nor a beginning. Everything in the context of Big Bang cosmology, of course.

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) is on the ascendant in physics and appears to indicating exactly that, only I would call that which is "external" and "atemporal", the ether or Quantumland, and it is into that which this universe was created and/or extruded and/or is expanding. Quantum transactions are initiated and resolved in our universe, but are fulfilled or transacted in that timeless environment.

But that changes nothing for us here in this universe. We're insulated in this universe by the Big Bang, the Planck spacetime division limits, and the superluminal expansion of our universe, acting as information firewalls. Quantum level particles can get around or have a "back door" through those firewalls apparently. And the immediate block to our acquiring information from "before" the universe, is the Big Bang.

If you have some non-hearsay evidence on the subject, I'm all ears. I have listened and altered my beliefs before, and in a major way. But right now as I'm looking at the big picture, puzzle pieces are almost falling into place in this local part of the infinite puzzle with no edges, of their own accord. (Mmmm, that's a keeper. )

But atheists don't believe in any gods whether they be laissez-faire or any other type.

If they're hard, closed-minded atheists, then there's nothing I can say to them that would ever get through. Same with hard Christians. But agnostic atheists, will admit deism is a reasonable alternative possibility.

Not being ruled out is not the same thing as ruled in. Can you justify or provide evidence for a deistic god? If you cant then why should i believe in it?

For the same reason that I can't rule out atheism, and consider it an equally likely possibility. With no evidence for either universe beginning option, all we can do is not rule out either, they being the only two possibilities that are reasonable and don't rely on hearsay.

IF there is a god, and IF it's not involved in anything ever, then what's the point in even talking about the possibility of its existence?

Not involved ever in this natural, rational universe, having been created as a stage on which to exercise our free will--if God exists.

It literally makes no difference, at all, whether this entity exists or not. So why bother?

It does if there is indeed more to Eternity than this universe.

And for the record, atheism can't be a thing without a theistic claim preceding it... So...

Yes, but there were a million gods before it was likely that someone decided there were none. It's a moot point

Someone might think like that, but you have already given out exceptions to the rule that you propose. The Asimov quote is quite fitting for most agnostic atheists, a majority position among atheists.

Yes, it's an excellent summation of my 50-50, atheist-deist conundrum laying there at our feet. We can favor either one as much as we like, for whatever reason; but we're no closer to knowing which one is correct. I take it you prefer atheism. Why?

You seem to be confusing the commonamity of arguments against revealed religion for the reason atheists are atheist. I talk a lot about the Abrahamic religions, far more than any else both revealed and nonrevealed, because it is the most applicable to the environment and attitudes I live in. It should be no more surprising I talk more about Christianity than Deism than I talk more about Christianity than Vodun. But I'm not an atheist because of my arguments against Christianity, I'm not a Christian because of my arguments against Christianity.

But you, or at least many atheists, irrationally justify your/their atheism on the basis of disproving Christianity (or other revealed religions) alone, while ignoring the possibility of deism. That's a perfect example of the straw man logical fallacy--dodging deism by attacking theism. Yes, a lot of atheists don't know about deism, but when they find out, they just throw it into the god pile and consider it disposed of.

I'm an atheist because I think god (s) create multiple unnecessary assumptions, and see origination through material means as the better candidate. So even though I don't claim to know for sure, my belief is that so far nothing in our universe has suggested the need for a god absent or otherwise.

Yes, but if God does exist, that would be by design.

By the way, not all deists have the same definition of deism you do. Some are polytheistic (polydeism) or even pantheistic (pandeism) all fall under the deist umbrella term.

Yes, pandeism and panendeism are perfectly reasonable forms of deism, but since we don't even know that God exists, I see no reason to speculate along those lines. And of all the (some absurd) examples of hyphenated deism, especially Christian-deism, I've never heard of polydeism before--or have forgotten it. As I've said elsewhere, and I think most deists understand, there cannot be more than one omnipotent God, or omnipotence would not exist. A lot of less than genuine people glom onto deism because of its reputation, however pervasive or otherwise it might be, for adhering to reason. Thus the example of Christian-deism, where I think it's just insincere deists trying to jury-rig a "new" religion that would appeal to disaffected Christians--never mind the incongruity.

Some believe god (s) are dead or gone, or used themselves in creation until nothing of them was left, or exist but just don't give a damn about creation, making the afterlife the equivalent of atheism. And they have just as much or as little reason as you do for your bit about the protection of free will.

? I think that needs some editing.

What are these "strawman arguments" you keep referring to?

You keep claiming that deism is a "reasonable alternative to atheism" but you have not presented anything that supports that claim.

please present some specific "fish in a barrel arguments" you refer to.

I believe you've already asked that question, and I've covered it at least once or twice already in this post. Look two posts up.

What prospect is 50-50?
Please show your math.

Re: first response above.

 

[Iti oj]

First off thank you for the reply i see your hard at work replying to everyone.

Now what makes the two claims equal? I dont agree that they are.

Now you might find this intetersting . i often like to say im an atheist about your god and agnostic aboutba god. Though i mean that slightly tounge in cheek the idea is to express hard and soft atheism.

Now back to the topic, where and what suggest a deistic god and why should the concept be considered in the first place. Also i would say occams razzor can deal with a deistic god.

 

[idav]

,....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.

I do find the idea of the idea of deism and atheism equally reasonable, or unreasonable however you want to look at it. Deism would say god is outside of our ability to detect which is pretty similar the stance atheism where as "anything but god" seems to be the answer to the cause of everything in existence. Both stances could just name anything and say thats the cause where as one prefers god and the other does not. Not that I think atheism is trying to name a cause but I feel is a bit presumptive to assume "not god".

In my opinion there is a little more to the pandeism take where god ceases to exist by becoming the universe and ceases to be a separate entity where as pantheism would hold that the attributes of the beginning remain entwined in the universe. Both pandeism and pantheism I feel are debateable between the two but still matter of opinion.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, it's an excellent summation of my 50-50, atheist-deist conundrum laying there at our feet.

It's not 50-50 and Asimov isn't saying that either. Like I wrote earlier in this thread, there are plenty of god concepts that are unprovable and therefore disprovable. If we choose deism for whichever reason, why not go further and have theistic evolution and a minimally active unprovable gods? There could be a battlefield of minor gods some good and some bad affecting virulence of diseases in ways that seem completely random for instance.

We can favor either one as much as we like, for whatever reason; but we're no closer to knowing which one is correct. I take it you prefer atheism. Why?

If I were to choose between deism and atheism, I would prefer atheism, yes for the simple reason that I don't see any evidence of creation and having been an atheist for most of my life it would mostly be a theoretical switch. I doubt most people would notice the difference.

I've always had a positive view of deism, but never quite understood the why of it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But you, or at least many atheists, irrationally justify your/their atheism on the basis of disproving Christianity (or other revealed religions)

I think you're still getting hung up on the 'why I don't believe what you do' when the 'you' atheists are talking to, nine times out of ten, are Christians. Once again, that doesn't mean atheists don't have a reason they aren't deists, and will tell you so if asked. Like I did. So I think you're actually strawmaning the atheists argument.

dodging deism by attacking theism

Deism is still theism, you know. It's still a theistic belief.

Yes, a lot of atheists don't know about deism, but when they find out, they just throw it into the god pile and consider it disposed of

*Waves to the numerous posts indicating otherwise.* Again, it should be no more surprising that a minority viewpoint is talked about less than the majority viewpoints. But that doesn't mean they don't have a stance that doesn't involve other viewpoints.

Yes, but if God does exist, that would be by design

Speaking of needlessly duplicative assumptions. A secret God creates the world in such a way that it looks like it didn't create the world, designs especially in biology which are inefficient and would show poor design, and even leaves evidence it couldn't have created it (brane mechanics).

Or that there isn't a metaphysical conspiracy theory and the independent physical structures of the universe really are independent. Requires far less assumption.

but since we don't even know that God exists, I see no reason to speculate along those lines.

But you'll freely speculate that this God is omnipotent, omnipresent, cares about creation, has some sort of plan for the afterlife, and hides itself to protect free choice.

I think most deists understand, there cannot be more than one omnipotent God, or omnipotence would not exist

I think most deists fall under the 'big brother isn't watching' demographic. I know plenty who don't believe in omnipotent omnipresent and certainly not omnibevevolent deities either. And I think we even have some pandeists around here on the forums.

I think that needs some editing

No, I'm just explaining some other forms of deism I've run across. Where there used to be a god but now there isn't, or there is a god but it doesn't care about human life, etc.

 

[Altfish]

If they're hard, closed-minded atheists, then there's nothing I can say to them that would ever get through. Same with hard Christians. But agnostic atheists, will admit deism is a reasonable alternative possibility.

Not many atheists are 'closed-minded' most will change their minds if there is evidence. Just give us evidence and we will change opinions.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

First off thank you for the reply i see your hard at work replying to everyone.

Now what makes the two claims equal?

The facts that neither are based on hearsay, and neither one is supported by any evidence--keeping in mind that the question is not "Is there a God?, but "wherefore the universe?"

Now you might find this intetersting . i often like to say im an atheist about your god and agnostic aboutba god. Though i mean that slightly tounge in cheek the idea is to express hard and soft atheism.

Thank you.

There must be one God, then, that you're agnostic about, whether you've discovered it yet or not.

Now back to the topic, where and what suggest a deistic god and why should the concept be considered in the first place. Also i would say occams razzor can deal with a deistic god.

How is spontaneous creation any less complicated than divine creation, especially since we've got no idea how either possibility would work? And a deistic God is the only one that fits with the evident total lack of non-hearsay evidence for divine intervention.

... where as "anything but god" seems to be the answer to the cause of everything in existence.

How do you arrive at that?

Both stances could just name anything and say thats the cause where as one prefers god and the other does not. Not that I think atheism is trying to name a cause but I feel is a bit presumptive to assume "not god".

Claiming there is no God would necessitate coming up with another explanation for how the universe came to be, especially since we know it had a beginning.

In my opinion there is a little more to the pandeism take where god ceases to exist by becoming the universe and ceases to be a separate entity where as pantheism would hold that the attributes of the beginning remain entwined in the universe. Both pandeism and pantheism I feel are debateable between the two but still matter of opinion.

Why would a pandeistic God cease to to exist? I've always considered that pandeism meant that God was the embodiment of the universe. Some pandeists think that God ceased to exist rather than abandon the universe, which was a 19th century Christian idea that never made any sense. Why would God create the universe and then leave? It betrays the irrational idea that a watch but don't touch God is inconceivable.

It's not 50-50 and Asimov isn't saying that either. Like I wrote earlier in this thread, there are plenty of god concepts that are unprovable and therefore disprovable.

All revealed God religions are dismissable, but that's another issue. Asimov said, "...there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it.”

That's two equally likely, or equally unlikely, possibilities with no evidence for either. How could the odds for one be greater than those for the other, with no evidence for or against either? And how would you express that as other than 50-50?

If we choose deism for whichever reason, why not go further and have theistic evolution and a minimally active unprovable gods?

Any divine intervention undermines our free will, the ostensible purpose for the universe. After I became a deist, I retained a belief, as did Washington and Paine, in divine providence as well as prophesy. But I was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to the realization that free will requires a complete absence of divine interaction of any kind. If the Sun is gonna go nova and wipe out the solar system, there must be no divine reprieve.

There could be a battlefield of minor gods some good and some bad affecting virulence of diseases in ways that seem completely random for instance.

Such unfounded speculation is likely the source of ALL mythology.

If I were to choose between deism and atheism, I would prefer atheism, yes for the simple reason that I don't see any evidence of creation and having been an atheist for most of my life it would mostly be a theoretical switch. I doubt most people would notice the difference.

Yes, for us in this life, there is no difference. And if there is a God, that's by design.

I've always had a positive view of deism, but never quite understood the why of it.

Like I say, the only difference is hope.

I think you're still getting hung up on the 'why I don't believe what you do' when the 'you' atheists are talking to, nine times out of ten, are Christians.

Huh?

Once again, that doesn't mean atheists don't have a reason they aren't deists, and will tell you so if asked. Like I did. So I think you're actually strawmaning the atheists argument.

I'm not arguing against atheists being atheists. I've said over and over that it's a reasonable belief. I'm only arguing with those atheists who try to justify their belief by "strawmanning" (I like that word) deism by pointing out the flaws in the revealed religions.

Deism is still theism, you know. It's still a theistic belief.

But the only one that stands up to reason due to its lack of reliance on hearsay that define the rest. That's why by convention, that deism is not thought of as a form of theism.

Again, it should be no more surprising that a minority viewpoint is talked about less than the majority viewpoints. But that doesn't mean they don't have a stance that doesn't involve other viewpoints.

?

Speaking of needlessly duplicative assumptions. A secret God creates the world in such a way that it looks like it didn't create the world, designs especially in biology which are inefficient and would show poor design, and even leaves evidence it couldn't have created it (brane mechanics).

That would be a good observation if it were true, and it would make God (my embodiment of Truth) a liar. But we only know that the universe began, and have no evidence as to how the Big Bang happened. And there is no evidence for design in evolution which abides by the principle of survival of the fittest.

In fact, at one point, I considered the perfect lack of evidence for or against God to be evidence for God. You'd think a universe that wasn't designed would contain at least some evidence to that effect. But I finally realized that we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence.

But you'll freely speculate that this God is omnipotent, omnipresent, cares about creation, has some sort of plan for the afterlife, and hides itself to protect free choice.

All of those things are indeed possible, but contingent on one possibility, that God exists. I see no reason to denigrate hope, but if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

I think most deists fall under the 'big brother isn't watching' demographic. I know plenty who don't believe in omnipotent omnipresent and certainly not omnibevevolent deities either. And I think we even have some pandeists around here on the forums.

I certainly believe that if God does exist, It is watching. And why a being with the power to create the universe would then have Itself cease to exist, is a model for pandeism that makes no sense. It must be a remnant of Christian/revealed religion belief that just can't conceive of a God which has the power to interact, but doesn't.

No, I'm just explaining some other forms of deism I've run across. Where there used to be a god but now there isn't, or there is a god but it doesn't care about human life, etc.

Those, especially the latter, are attributable to Christian denigration of deism. Again, they just can't conceive of a God who cares but isn't an interactively personal God.

Not many atheists are 'closed-minded' most will change their minds if there is evidence. Just give us evidence and we will change opinions.

Easy to say "if there is evidence" when there's no evidence--either way.

It's been my experience that many atheists (?%) simply turn off at the first mention of God, and go into a rant about how the god of this or that religion is obviously wrong, and therefore the whole idea can be dismissed out-of-hand, along with the total lack of evidence either way as to how the universe came to be. That last is where you find most close-minded atheists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are only two possibilities I can think of, spontaneous creation (which category would include any of the unstated weird and wonderful theories you mentioned) or a laissez-faire conscious God creator. If you can show two separate possibilities that fit the evidence at hand for a spontaneous Big Bang, then I'll adjust my odds. But as it stands now, there's only two possibilities with equal weight because there's no evidence at all from before the Big Bang, much less favoring one or the other possibilities. Ergo 50-50.

Your deist version of "God" is just one of many versions of "God", and of course there are many other possibilities that don't rely on "God" at all. So assigning your deist version of "God" a 50% probability is arbitrary and exaggerated.

It's quite possible that the actual answer will turn out to be something we haven't even thought of yet. In my view that is the most probable outcome, given how weird the universe seems to be, and given the limitations of human senses and intelligence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not arguing against atheists being atheists. I've said over and over that it's a reasonable belief. I'm only arguing with those atheists who try to justify their belief by "strawmanning" (I like that word) deism by pointing out the flaws in the revealed religions.

And deism hasn't got flaws either? You still haven't explained why your God would supposedly create a universe and then have nothing further to do with it. You still haven't explained why you believe in an irrelevant and redundant God, apart from a vague reference to the possibility of an afterlife.

Perhaps it is you who are straw-manning, in an attempt to deflect criticism away from the weaknesses in your own belief system.

 

[Altfish]

Easy to say "if there is evidence" when there's no evidence--either way.

It's been my experience that many atheists (?%) simply turn off at the first mention of God, and go into a rant about how the god of this or that religion is obviously wrong, and therefore the whole idea can be dismissed out-of-hand, along with the total lack of evidence either way as to how the universe came to be. That last is where you find most close-minded atheists.

There is much more evidence for the creation of the universe by a Big Bang than there is of a creation by a god.
Any god creation inevitably leads to the next logical question, "Who created god?"
Also, scientists and atheists are very happy to admit, "We don't know"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Also, scientists and atheists are very happy to admit, "We don't know"

I don't think anyone really knows. Some people fill the unknown with religious beliefs, and others don't.

 

[idav]

How do you arrive at that?



Claiming there is no God would necessitate coming up with another explanation for how the universe came to be, especially since we know it had a beginning.



Why would a pandeistic God cease to to exist? I've always considered that pandeism meant that God was the embodiment of the universe. Some pandeists think that God ceased to exist rather than abandon the universe, which was a 19th century Christian idea that never made any sense. Why would God create the universe and then leave? It betrays the irrational idea that a watch but don't touch God is inconceivable.

Yes I would agree that an atheist stance that claims no god, would at the very least be alluding to some other explanation for existence. Which is what I mean by saying atheists really claiming "anything but god".

That is roughly my understanding of deism, God makes creation and then becomes incognito. In the case of pandeism same thing instead god does become "the embodiment of the universe" as you put it but then in a sense ceases to become god.

I'm not sure why god would do that, it isn't my belief but what I understand of deism. See below.

Pandeism is a theological doctrine which combines aspects of pantheism into deism.[1] It holds that the creator deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

.

 

[Altfish]

Yes I would agree that an atheist stance that claims no god, would at the very least be alluding to some other explanation for existence. Which is what I mean by saying atheists really claiming "anything but god".

That is roughly my understanding of deism, God makes creation and then becomes incognito. In the case of pandeism same thing instead god does become "the embodiment of the universe" as you put it but then in a sense ceases to become god.

I'm not sure why god would do that, it isn't my belief but what I understand of deism. See below.
.

But you still only take it to "Who created god?" - at some stage as a believer you have to answer that question without the weasel type replies of 'God's always been there'
Atheists stop one step short and are happy to admit we don't know what came before time and the big bang.

 

[McBell]

But agnostic atheists, will admit deism is a reasonable alternative possibility.

A "reasonable alternative possibility" to what exactly?

Seems to me that those who do not believe in god because of lack of evidence, your deist god is going to be even more lacking in evidence.
So how does being more lacking in evidence make deism reasonable?

 

[viole]

What does that even mean?

It means that it looks like causality is applicable only in macroscopic systems which are not in thermal equilibrium. Ergo, it is applicable only in a Universe with these characteristics already in place. Ergo, it is not applicable to the whole Universe itself, if was not born in such a context. Ergo, that disproves God, if the inapplicability of causality to the whole Universe entails disproving God, as you seem to have indicated.

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) is on the ascendant in physics and appears to indicating exactly that, only I would call that which is "external" and "atemporal", the ether or Quantumland, and it is into that which this universe was created and/or extruded and/or is expanding. Quantum transactions are initiated and resolved in our universe, but are fulfilled or transacted in that timeless environment.

All you need is relativity. Once you analize what it really entails, you will notice that the concept of a beginning, or an evolution, expansion, etc. of the Universe become meaningless. Even with Big Bangs, inflation, dark energy, our observations, and all. It is actually fairly easy to see that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And deism hasn't got flaws either? You still haven't explained why your God would supposedly create a universe and then have nothing further to do with it.

I can't believe you just said that...again. I've addressed it repeatedly. Are you playin' me??? ONE MORE TIME: God (IF IT EXISTS) created the rational, natural universe for the sole purpose of spawning self-aware beings capable of exercising free will. God didn't abandon it (that was a Christian contrarian idea that God would create it then leave), but must not interfere in order to maintain our moral free will.

You still haven't explained why you believe in an irrelevant and redundant God, apart from a vague reference to the possibility of an afterlife.

Perhaps it is you who are straw-manning, in an attempt to deflect criticism away from the weaknesses in your own belief system.

What, I'm using atheism as a straw man in my argument against atheism? More disingenuous repetition. Look it up. I can only assume I am being played here 'cause you've got nothing and simply keep repeating it.

There is much more evidence for the creation of the universe by a Big Bang than there is of a creation by a god.

The question is what caused the Big Bang. It's massively obvious that I fully accept the Big Bang premise. How did you come to assume that I didn't?

Any god creation inevitably leads to the next logical question, "Who created god?"

To assume that God was created assumes an environment involving time, so that there was something "before" God. Quantum mechanics is showing that quantum transactions occur "outside" of the universe in a timeless environment. Time, as a dimension, apparently began with the Big Bang.

Also, scientists and atheists are very happy to admit, "We don't know"

Not all atheists, by any means; and most deists are agnostics.

Yes I would agree that an atheist stance that claims no god, would at the very least be alluding to some other explanation for existence. Which is what I mean by saying atheists really claiming "anything but god".

While the revealed religions claim anything but no God. What's the common bond?...a rejection of reason while "alluding to some other (unjustified) explanation based on total hearsay".

That is roughly my understanding of deism, God makes creation and then becomes incognito. In the case of pandeism same thing instead god does become "the embodiment of the universe" as you put it but then in a sense ceases to become god.

What is the rationale? Why would God decide to, essentially, die?

I'm not sure why god would do that, it isn't my belief but what I understand of deism. See below.
.

It's not a deist belief (though anyone can say they're a deist and claim such a belief), and I've never talked with a pandeist who believed that.

See what "below"?

 

[Altfish]

The question is what caused the Big Bang. It's massively obvious that I fully accept the Big Bang premise. How did you come to assume that I didn't?

OR the question is, What caused God? You just seem to be adding one extra question, I stop at What caused the Big Bang?...answer...We're not sure but we're working on it.
The other question, What caused God? the answer appears to me to be, "OK, that's not a fair question because Gods always been here."
I didn't assume you didn't accept the Big Bang theory. How did you come to assume that I did?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

OR the question is, What caused God? You just seem to be adding one extra question, I stop at What caused the Big Bang?...answer...We're not sure but we're working on it.

OK, but so far, both sides have zip. And your advocating that surely there will be something come up to justify your opinion.

The other question, What caused God? the answer appears to me to be, "OK, that's not a fair question because Gods always been here."

Asked and answered, see my last post.

I didn't assume you didn't accept the Big Bang theory. How did you come to assume that I did?

You said, "There is much more evidence for the creation of the universe by a Big Bang than there is of a creation by a god." The implication being that I believed in God as an either or with the Big Bang.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Huh?

Christian: Why don't you believe?
Atheist: Numerous reasons about the erroneous nature of the bible, the conflict between the nature of the god of the bible and the reality in which we live, history and science which conflicts with bible accounts.
Deist: That's not an argument against my viewpoint.
Atheist: it wasn't meant to be, I was talking about Christianity to a Christian.
Deist: why aren't you including arguments about other gods?
Atheist: because this debate wasn't about other gods. If you want to debate other notions of God's I will, but don't assume this debate is supposed to encompass all beliefs. Christianity comes up most frequently because it's the largest and holds the most power in the western world.

I'm not arguing against atheists being atheists. I've said over and over that it's a reasonable belief. I'm only arguing with those atheists who try to justify their belief by "strawmanning" (I like that word) deism by pointing out the flaws in the revealed religions.

Who does that though? The only time I've seen atheists talk about revealed religions is when debating someone arguing for revealed religion or has mistaken someone for being in one. Understandable mistake, since it makes up the vast majority of the people who ask the question 'why don't you believe in god.'

But the only one that stands up to reason due to its lack of reliance on hearsay that define the rest. That's why by convention, that deism is not thought of as a form of theism.

It is a form of theism, because all theism means is a belief in the existence of a god or gods, not anything about what their nature might be.

?

What didn't you understand about the statement?

That would be a good observation if it were true, and it would make God (my embodiment of Truth) a liar. But we only know that the universe began, and have no evidence as to how the Big Bang happened.

How is this related to what I said? I was giving a tongue-in-cheek reason why it's silly to presume there is a hidden God.

And there is no evidence for design in evolution which abides by the principle of survival of the fittest.

First of all, survival of the fittest isn't am evolutionary term, it was coined by an economist talking about world economy since 'fitness' could mean literally anything depending on the environment, it would be tautological applied to biology.

Second of all, we have more than that, we have evidence that evolution is not and cannot be guided, (because numerous physiological formats are inefficient, but make sense in evolution's short term, no end game change, but would make a designer incompetent) so humans were not a product of a creative force.

In fact, at one point, I considered the perfect lack of evidence for or against God to be evidence for God. You'd think a universe that wasn't designed would contain at least some evidence to that effect.

That's ...pretty silly. Like saying there must be a ghost in the room, because a ghost wouldn't leave evidence and since there is no evidence that confirms a ghost.

But I finally realized that we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence.

More like, if there was a god their should be evidence of design and there isn't, further there's evidence that a super knowledgeable agent wasn't at work, as well as naturalistic explanations for the big bang that work and don't require a god (again, brane mechanics)

All of those things are indeed possible, but contingent on one possibility, that God exists. I see no reason to denigrate hope, but if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

I certainly believe that if God does exist, It is watching. And why a being with the power to create the universe would then have Itself cease to exist, is a model for pandeism that makes no sense. It must be a remnant of Christian/revealed religion belief that just can't conceive of a God which has the power to interact, but doesn'tThose, especially the latter, are attributable to Christian denigration of deism. Again, they just can't conceive of a God who cares but isn't an interactively personal God.

Rather that most deists believe that a god that cares about the human soul or that even has a personality humans could recognize, and desires that aren't fully alien to the human mind is a Christian derived assumption. Really your form of deism seems more Christian-like than theirs.
Really the least presumptuous form of deism is to say you believe there is a god but that you don't have any idea what their thoughts, if there are any, desires, if there are any, agendas, if there are any, could be.

 

[Jumi]

All revealed God religions are dismissable, but that's another issue.

That is only if they are provable.

Asimov said, "...there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it.”

That's two equally likely, or equally unlikely, possibilities with no evidence for either. How could the odds for one be greater than those for the other, with no evidence for or against either? And how would you express that as other than 50-50

Even if we give all available unprovable choices equal chances on whim I can't see how a particular monodeistic God gets 50% being unprovable over other options that are unprovable, say non-deistic minimally active gods, polydeistic gods, simulated universes and repeating BB-GG-BB-GG-BB... universe, multiple BB universes...

Let's say you arrive at your cottage and find damage on your property. There is no evidence that someone did damage. Would you say it's a 50 chance that someone had intentionally caused damage there and 50 chance that it was caused by "chaotic" weather? The options aren't that limited.

If you find no evidence the damage was intentionally caused by a person, you'd probably eliminate that altogether.