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

[idav]

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".

Pretty much.

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

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"?

I referenced the definition of pandeism as I described. I take it you don't agree with the definition, thats fine but I was able to reference exactly what I think it is. If you have any other sources for pandeism belief I'm open and not picky. People believe as they prefer so I'd like it explained if people generally think differently.

The answer as to why I suppose would be progression, god would have decided to become something else as in existence as we know it. I'm pantheist so I would just be speculating on reasons based on the reference I gave for the definition of pandeism.

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?

I don't know is fine answer but sounds agnostic, and not so much atheistic unless the person is saying "not god".

Didn't say you did, I went by the premise "not god" when referencing atheism, since that would be all there is to is.

 

[idav]

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?

Oh I missed one of your more important points. The same answer for "what caused god" would be the same as "what caused the universe", simply put, existence is default, but god doesn't get to be special in that respect, god being the universe solves the dilemma. I think a source as powerful as what science is finding should be called god, not that science is allowed such a label, they just say "IDK just not god". Science already points to an uncaused outside of time scenario so it isn't all that far fetched.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

But why? Was your God bored, and in need of a soap to watch?

It seems you have a need to believe in something, but you can't bring yourself to believe in the Abrahamic God, so you have adopted a theism-lite approach. But your version of God sounds redundant and irrelevant, frankly rather pointless.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But your version of God sounds redundant and irrelevant, frankly rather pointless.

Why is it, almost universally, that the atheist's last resort is always a glib smirk? It's an expression of arrogance, due no doubt to their deft ability to shoot fish in a barrel.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why is it, almost universally, that the atheist's last resort is always a glib smirk? It's an expression of arrogance, due no doubt to their deft ability to shoot fish in a barrel.

It wasn't a "last resort", it is an observation I have made to you several times. And it's not my fault if your beliefs are so easily challenged, maybe you just need some better beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It seems like you're using terms in a different way from the accepted usage, and it's getting in the way of communication.

I - and I believe most other people - understand the term "deist" to mean "a person who believes that the deistic God exists." I get the impression that when you say "deist", you mean something like "someone who considers the deistic God to be possible."

Do I understand you properly?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is it, almost universally, that the atheist's last resort is always a glib smirk? It's an expression of arrogance, due no doubt to their deft ability to shoot fish in a barrel.

Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to convince atheists that they should be pantheists instead? None is self-evident.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It seems like you're using terms in a different way from the accepted usage, and it's getting in the way of communication.

I - and I believe most other people - understand the term "deist" to mean "a person who believes that the deistic God exists." I get the impression that when you say "deist", you mean something like "someone who considers the deistic God to be possible."
Do I understand you properly?

There are deists, there are those who aren't, and others who abuse the term with hyphenation. I can't control what people believe and the terms they use. I guess all I can claim is that deism is an abused term with no standardization. I even differ from classic deists in some aspects. But yes I am"someone who considers the deistic God to be possible", or have an agnostic stance on deism--with which a vast majority of actual non-hyphenated deists would agree. I know of no hard deists.

Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to convince atheists that they should be pantheists instead? None is self-evident.

I think pantheism is just another form of revealed theism, and pandeism is an irrelevant diversion from deism--except for the absurd unfounded assumption that that God ceased to exist--for whatever unfathomable reason. That isn't standard to pandeism btw, unless it has become so very recently.

The point of this thread is to reach out to reasonable atheists, with whom I don't disagree, in an effort to promote reasoned philosophical/religious thought. Hard atheists (many of whom are little more than closet nihilists) are apparently not interested in that objective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Me, I think you are lending the matter a lot more significance than it can sustain.

Far more than half of the reasons for choosing among pantheism, deism, atheism and other variations are pure personal preference.

As it should be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are deists, there are those who aren't, and others who abuse the term with hyphenation. I can't control what people believe and the terms they use. I guess all I can claim is that deism is an abused term with no standardization. I even differ from classic deists in some aspects. But yes I am"someone who considers the deistic God to be possible", or have an agnostic stance on deism--with which a vast majority of actual non-hyphenated deists would agree. I know of no hard deists.

I don't know any "deists" - or anyone else - beside you who don't consider actual belief in a Deistic God to be a requirement for a person to be a deist.

I think there's quite a bit of talking past each other in this thread. From how other people have responded to you, I take it that the vast majority of people in this thread (everyone but you, I'd wager) take "deist" to mean "person who believes in the deistic God." Most are responding to you on that basis.

It took quite a while for me to realize that you were using your terms in a... unique way. For a while, I thought you were making an unjustified leap from "a god might exist" to "a god does exist."

BTW: you used the term "hard deist"; there's no such thing as a "soft theist" or "soft deist"... unless you've come up with your own definition for "soft", too. There's no such thing as implicit god-belief, anyhow.

Personally, unless you actually believe in a deistic God - i.e. not just entertain the possibility, but actually accept it as true - I wouldn't call you a deist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Me, I think you are lending the matter a lot more significance than it can sustain.

So the meaning of life, and death, are insignificant.

Far more than half of the reasons for choosing among pantheism, deism, atheism and other variations are pure personal preference.

Pantheism is just another form of unsustainable personal/interventionist god, theism. Pandeism is an irrelevant diversion from deism. Anarchy and nihilism are political diversions which feed atheism. Only atheism and deism are reasonably sustainable, and that's because there's no evidence against either.

As it should be.[/QUOTE]

I don't know any "deists" - or anyone else - beside you who don't consider actual belief in a Deistic God to be a requirement for a person to be a deist.

Well until now, you didn't seem to be that familiar with deism? Belief is something based on evidence somewhere between ignorance and certainty. So what is there to base a belief? All I can claim is a preference, which I do. I think all this is important and worthy of precise thought.

I think there's quite a bit of talking past each other in this thread. From how other people have responded to you, I take it that the vast majority of people in this thread (everyone but you, I'd wager) take "deist" to mean "person who believes in the deistic God." Most are responding to you on that basis.

It's a moot point

It took quite a while for me to realize that you were using your terms in a... unique way. For a while, I thought you were making an unjustified leap from "a god might exist" to "a god does exist."

How/where did that happen?

BTW: you used the term "hard deist"; there's no such thing as a "soft theist" or "soft deist"... unless you've come up with your own definition for "soft", too. There's no such thing as implicit god-belief, anyhow.

Hard=certain. Soft=uncertain. There are all kinds of terms floating around that express those modifiers. Was my meaning unclear to you? If so, has it been cleared up now? You appear to be trying to score debate points. I never joined a debate team because I'd never have been able to argue against what appears to be, or is, true.

Personally, unless you actually believe in a deistic God - i.e. not just entertain the possibility, but actually accept it as true - I wouldn't call you a deist.

So if I'm not certain (word for accepting something as absolutely true) of deism, I'm not a deist? You equate belief with certainty? As is plainly stated below my avatar, I'm an agnostic-deist. Would you deny that label as well? You're still looking for debate points, while reducing Truth and reality to asterisks, frilly flowers to be set floating down the river.

 

[LuisDantas]

So the meaning of life, and death, are insignificant.

Attempts at decreeing them "logically" by way of god-beliefs are.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Attempts at decreeing them "logically" by way of god-beliefs are.

Huh?

 

[idav]

Pantheism is just another form of unsustainable personal/interventionist god, theism. Pandeism is an irrelevant diversion from deism. Anarchy and nihilism are political diversions which feed atheism. Only atheism and deism are reasonably sustainable, and that's because there's no evidence against either.

As it should be.

Naturalistic pantheism doesn't have evidence against it, I don't think it's how you describe, and doesn't resort to unsubstantiated claims that deism and atheism do.

 

[McBell]

Naturalistic pantheism doesn't have evidence against it, I don't think it's how you describe, and doesn't resort to unsubstantiated claims that deism and atheism do.

What "unsubstantiated claim" have I made?

 

[idav]

What "unsubstantiated claim" have I made?

If your referring to atheism, "not god" is an unsubstantiated claim. It's a mighty powerful universe, god could be staring us in the face.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Naturalistic pantheism doesn't have evidence against it, I don't think it's how you describe, and doesn't resort to unsubstantiated claims that deism and atheism do.

What unsubstantiated claims? And I need to know what you mean by pantheism.

 

[Augustus]

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.

The likelihood of 1 of 2 unknown probabilities is not 50/50.

It is unknown.

 

[idav]

What unsubstantiated claims? And I need to know what you mean by pantheism.

Atheism and Deism do have commonalities in which we are in agreement. They believe the natural universe but add something to what is though to be the cause of existence, while one says "not god" the other says "god" but without being able to prove otherwise cause both will look just like nature. With deism its like saying some supernatural thing exists just outside the universe and conveniently enough has no evidence against it, which is another agreement we have. That is the "no evidence against it part".

Pantheism is seeing all of reality as holy but not because of simply relabeling reality but because those are attributes of the universe, being timeless, omnipotent, omnipresent, to name a few. Atheists and science will not label the universe as such due to bias but that doesn't change the fact that the attributes are there. The omniscience(not named above) is one very important aspect harder to gain evidence of but its similar to physicists describing the universe as a computer matrix which would give our reality a default intelligence. There is still a bit of opinion of course but there is no evidence against pantheism either and evidence leans towards its validity as far as I can tell.

 

[McBell]

If your referring to atheism, "not god" is an unsubstantiated claim. It's a mighty powerful universe, god could be staring us in the face.

I do not make any claim of "not god".
I flat out say "I Do Not Know".
I have not seen/heard/experienced/etc. anything that convinces me god exists.
However, I understand that that does not mean god does not exist.
Thus I do not know.