Amoral Inaction

[Cinjin]

..not everything in the universe is explainable just yet...

I made no such claim.

-and I made no such claim that theists are flawed in their beliefs - I stated that the reason for having a God is fundamentally different for Deists and Theists ... pray tell, where did I say that theists are flawed? Interpolate what you want - the post is clear and plain to read.

And regarding that the universe is explainable .. you did indeed say that, regardless of how you now want to define it. You wrote, quote, "we now have superior explanations for the universe". Only now are you putting perameters on that statement (see your new post below).

I stand by what I said about rebuttals. You added an argument that I didn't initially make and you deny your own statements (see above) Obviously, ANYONE who believes in God, whether it be a Deist or not, is going to take issue with the phrase, "we now have superior explanations for the universe", because in the context you wrote it - it was a sweeping generalization about mankinds knowledge of the entire universe.

You did not offer a answer to Mins question (at least in my opinion) and I disagreed with your unecessary generalizations of theists. You set deism against theism in that response, arguing theism/theists are flawed for their beliefs. If this is the case then you should be able to state why deism is more reasonable than theism (which is why I pointed out that I don't think you can).

With respect to cosmic origins and teleological arguments; I believe there are superior arguments than those tentatively proposed by deism; how is that a sweeping generalisation?

If my answer to Min's question was not to your satisfaction, there's little I can do about that, but that does not change the fact that I answered it. Read both my response to Min and my response to Doubting Thomas - I did indeed answer the question. It's plain to see that I believe my God has a creative role in the cosmos and obviously, no God would have no role. Clear enough?