Why do you need god as a starting point?
How did he manage to die?
If he didn't die why is he so inactive and what is he doing?


Seriously it even makes less sense then monotheistic bullshit.

The deist god is jerking off on planet kolob.

(March 15, 2014 at 12:52 am)Minimalist Wrote: The deist god is jerking off on planet kolob.

No wonder you have 27000 posts.

(March 15, 2014 at 12:48 am)tor Wrote: Seriously it even makes less sense then monotheistic bullshit.

However, it makes much more sense than (see how I spelled that?) dumping an animated ROFL emoticon behind your trail of trivial unamusing ramblings.

Is there any possible way you will voluntarily switch allegiance in the theist/atheist debate?

(March 15, 2014 at 12:48 am)tor Wrote: Why do you need god as a starting point?

Instinct and sentiment, mostly. I look at the universe and see a grand machine. I reflect on the human mind and the potential of our civilization and I see intent.

Quote:How did he manage to die?

What?

Quote:If he didn't die why is he so inactive and what is he doing?

It, not "he".

This is a metaphor I've often used in this forum and here it is again. It's a matter of scale. The human scientist doesn't relate to a bacteria colony cultivated in a dish. If the deist model of the universe turns out to be true, I'd expect to find we're one of countless such cultivations and we should expect to find many civilizations in the universe.

Quote:Seriously it even makes less sense then monotheistic bullshit.

How so?

Is god an intelligent thinking agent?

(March 15, 2014 at 1:53 am)tor Wrote: Is god an intelligent thinking agent?

I don't fucking know. Go ask Yogi Bear.

(March 15, 2014 at 12:48 am)tor Wrote: Why do you need god as a starting point?
How did he manage to die?
If he didn't die why is he so inactive and what is he doing?


Seriously it even makes less sense then monotheistic bullshit.

Word salad anyone? I have croutons of clarity, and a grammar vinaigrette:

Deism- belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

http://www.deism.com/

So you know what deism is in the future.

Also; I believe than is the word you were looking for, but I understand, those damned A & E keys are only separated by two letters diagonally.

(March 15, 2014 at 12:48 am)tor Wrote: Why do you need god as a starting point?
How did he manage to die?
If he didn't die why is he so inactive and what is he doing?


Seriously it even makes less sense then monotheistic bullshit.

I don't agree - despite not being a deist. I don't find the idea that the universe had an intelligent creator all that unbelievable in comparison to the idea that it is taking an active interest in the affairs of humanity - down to the individual level.

Whilst I see no need for intelligence in getting the universe going I can fully understand either the desire or the genuine belief that there must be one.

A being that could create the universe might have started many. There's no reason why not. That creator could be extremely active - just not here. If it built the universe to be self-maintaining then active involvement would be a complete waste of its time and resources.

There is also no need for it to be genuinely all powerful, all knowing and so on - just hugely more capable than we are.

I do have to say that when I argue against theist propositions I invariably find that, when dismissing them I end up at either no god or a deist god as the possibilities or probabilities.

Never yet found a way to dismiss the deist god other than the lack of a need for one - and that's not really provable at this stage.

After I discovered big bang the idea of a creator become pretty obsolete. Why would there be a need for an intelligence behind it?