(February 11, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Deism is more rational than traditional theism because it answers the evil question - God doesn't control humans and just set in motion the events that lead to our existence, so god is not guilty.

I still see it as an irrational position because it starts on the premise of incredulity - The universe is too good to be true, our lives are too good to be true, the complexity of humans and the human brain are amazing - Therefore a god created or helped creating all of this.

Most deists are freethinkers and probably don't think very differently from atheists so I don't really have a problem with them - I do dislike it when they claim their position is intellectually superior, because it's like they are trying to eat both halves of the cake ("Fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as fundamentalist theists").

By that i would like to see more deists than i would like to seeing people using a brand name like christianity because deism makes more sense than a traditional religion of god being good.

(February 11, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Lek Wrote: What I don't understand abut deism is the thought that God would be so great that he wouldn't be concerned with his creation. It doesn't make much sense that a great God would create a universe and then just let it go on it's own, not caring. I would think that it would be the other way around and that he would be involved in it's affairs.

A Deistic Parable

One day a skeptical bacteria cell was swimming through the morass of a cultivated petri dish. He encounters an evangelist hawker at a street corner waving a copy of "The Babble", sacred scripture among the worshipers of The Great Lab Coat. The skeptical bacteria intended to continue on his way but the evangelist stopped him to ask a question.

"Sir," the evangelist bacteria cell asked, "if your membrane wall were to decompose in the next second, are you prepared to stand before The Great Lab Coat?"

"I don't imagine I'll be standing in front of anyone," the skeptical bacteria shrugs, which is not an easy thing to do with no bone structure.

"That's not true," the evangelist bacteria objected, "The Great Lab Coat loves you, made this dish and has promised by Its Word in our sacred scripture..."

"The Great Lab Coat never wrote that book of yours," the skeptical bacteria interrupted, "It makes many claims about our dish and The Great Beyond that have proven to be false. Clearly, it's the writing of more primitive bacteria who didn't know better."

"You think there's no Great Lab Coat then?" the evangelist bacteria was shocked.

"I think there is one out there but I have no illusions that it loves me." the skeptical bacteria answered, "I'm just not that important."

"But why would The Great Lab Coat create this petri dish only to abandon us?" protested the evangelist bacteria, "that makes no sense."

"It's not a matter of 'abandonment'," explained the skeptical bacteria, "it's a matter of scale."

The evangelist bacteria gave a confused look, trying to understand the distinction.

The skeptical bacteria continued, "It made sense to believe in a personal Lab Coat when we thought the dish was all there was to the universe. But our scientists have shown us that we're a small part of a grand construct. The dish is just a tiny part of a grand room which is one among many on this floor and we know of at least three others. There may be more."

Normally, the evangelist bacteria would be crying out in indignation that the heathen bacteria scientists' discoveries were 'only theories' and that bacteria schools should be teaching 'both sides of the controversy.' However, through some strange plot device, he silently listened while the skeptical bacteria filled in the needed exposition.

"Also, our universe isn't 6,000 seconds old as your scripture says," the skeptical bacteria added, "our scientists estimate that The Grand Construct may be three decades old and who knows what lies beyond that..."

"Decades?!" the evangelical bacteria scoffed, "that's preposterous. Why not talk of centuries while you're at it?"

"I know it's hard for us to fathom the scale of our universe, either in its immense time or space, but that's what scientists have discovered." the skeptical bacteria assured, "and this dish was around long before our kind came to occupy it. The universe was not just created with us in mind and, for all we know, there may be more dishes like ours in this room alone, never mind all the other rooms on all the other floors."

"But The Great Lab Coat is a loving being," the evangelical bacteria insisted.

"That may be true," the skeptical bacteria again shrugged, "It may be a kind and generous being but again, it's a matter of scale, not love. It's not reasonable to insist that a being so grand that created our dish could relate to us on an individual level, never mind have a personal relationship with us."

Again by plot device, the evangelical bacteria was stunned into silence while the skeptical bacteria continued to explain the obvious metaphor in this story.

"Why would a being that's been around for at least decades ever want our worship or grant our wishes?" he asked rhetorically, "How insecure it would have to be in order to need such validation from us. On this scale, it must have larger designs. We are probably just one among many Cultivations."

"But life has no meaning then." despaired the evangelical bacteria.

"No." assured the skeptical bacteria, "we are small and our life is short and the universe includes far more than just us. But that doesn't mean our lives have no meaning. Just be the best bacteria you can be, contribute to your own little corner of the dish and that will be purpose enough."

"And if you're wrong?" asked the evangelist bacteria.

"Surely, if The Great Lab Coat wishes anything from us," concluded the skeptical bacteria, "there can be no better way to serve it than that."

Here endeth the lesson.

Hope this helps.

Welcome back Good to see you

(February 11, 2015 at 6:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Here endeth the lesson.

Hope this helps.

So the great lab coat was powerful enough and intelligent enough to create the dish, but why did he create the dish world? Maybe he was just twiddling his thumbs. Maybe he just hiccuped and didn't even realize he did. Whatever it was, he was too big and important to care about his little creation. I wondereth if he ever createth anything that he careth enough about to go back and visit once in a while?

(February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 11, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Irrational Wrote: I beg to differ. Deism makes a lot more sense than traditional theism. A God that allows suffering and catastrophes and disorder to occur in this world is best explained by deism that proposes God being too grand to be involved in our affairs. A loving God would make no sense with all this unnecessary suffering in the world.

Unless God is more than one-dimensional.

In what way does this refute my case exactly?

(February 11, 2015 at 7:50 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Lek Wrote: Unless God is more than one-dimensional.

In what way does this refute my case exactly?

You have created a one-dimensional image in your mind of what God should be if he's loving. You think that if he is a loving God he will never get angry, he will not be concerned with justice or punishment, and that he would not let us get ourselves into into any trouble. If he doesn't fit your image of what a loving God is, then you've decided that either he doesn't exist or doesn't care.

Eternal punishment, hellfire or no, has nothing to do with justice. Your god doesn't even fit your bible's definition of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. NIV.

Usually when someone accuses your god of not being loving and just, someone will claim we want to go way to the other extreme and not want to be punished at all. It's a strawman argument.

(February 11, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Eternal punishment, hellfire or no, has nothing to do with justice. Your god doesn't even fit your bible's definition of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. NIV.

Usually when someone accuses your god of not being loving and just, someone will claim we want to go way to the other extreme and not want to be punished at all. It's a strawman argument.

Get away from the eternal torment stuff. I don't believe the bible teaches it. Anyway, the deist position that God doesn't care is based on their own idea of what God should be and not what he is. It's like "If he lets us suffer, then he doesn't care or he doesn't exist."

But it's the mainstream christian view.

If he lets us suffer through things that happen through no fault of our own, he doesn't care, or doesn't exist. And we know how much he loves killing children because of things they didn't do.

(February 11, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: But it's the mainstream christian view.

If he lets us suffer through things that happen through no fault of our own, he doesn't care, or doesn't exist. And we know how much he loves killing children because of things they didn't do.

Okay. You can hold that view if you want to. I assume that if we love someone, we will not let them suffer through anything. And, of course, we disagree on whether or not it's our own fault. We've been through all that already.