(February 5, 2016 at 3:12 am)robvalue Wrote: When assessing unfalisiable claims, all we have to go on is the amount of assumptions that have to be made in order to accommodate the claim.
Deism assumes some sort of creator.
Other forms of theism also assume some sort of creator. But then they go on to assume specific traits about that creator, and that it has interacted (or even continues to interact) with our reality while leaving no evidence behind.
Deism wins, due to less assumptions needed. Deism is still irrational, in my opinion, but less irrational than all other forms of theism.
I absolutely agree it is irrational. But it is not meaningless, as EP asserts it is.
It is wonderfully useful....it allows the Theist to have their belief in God,
and shed Religion at the same time.
Like Divinity...who has posted in this thread.
She is both Deist, and Anti-Theist (or anti-religion, if you want to quibble over the exact definitions of terms).
