(April 28, 2011 at 2:39 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:Thats a sweeping generalisation of theists which I do not believe is true at all. I do not think you can offer any reasoning to suppose that a deist god is more likely than a theist god. The diest god is subject to less critcism merely becuase it offers less to be attacked in the firts place and it is hard to see the difference between a diest god and no god at all.(April 28, 2011 at 1:29 am)Minimalist Wrote: The difference between a deist god and no god at all is ______________________________________________________________________________________?
The question you are asking implys that deists need a god for some reason. I don't need a god. People who need a god are called christians, or muslims or whatever. They need a god so they can explain away their miserable lives or make sense of their day or justify their war or understand why "bad things" happen. Revealed religions of the world are designed for weak stupid people who want some kind of reason to get out of bed in the morning. I don't need a god .... therefore its of no concern to me whether hes watching over the planet or has completely forgotten all about us. I like the fact that in my mind the life cycle of all things, for all time has been taken care of a long time ago and I need not worry about anything. That is the difference.
Deism (although I can only speak to those I have conversed with on this subject) seems to spring forth from a desire to explain perceived order (design) and or get things started in the first place; but prima facie we now have superior explanations for the universe, so...hence what is the diffenrence between a diest god and there being no god at all?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
