(December 6, 2012 at 11:54 pm)SpecUVdust Wrote: It's not about what's "yucky" and what's not... You believe in a designer/creator with a complete lack of evidence.
Correct. I don't have the evidence therefore making me Agnostic, which I believe everyone should be because it's the most honest position, given all the collective knowledge we have thus far.
Quote: I don't blame you though, as to believe in any god you must do so with no evidence
Agreed.
Quote:and therefore, no reason.
If you see a bunch of rocks on a plain which happen to be sitting in such a way as to form a circle, you can think of three ways in which it happened:
1) It was blind luck.
2) They were physically arranged like that by someone.
3) Someone thought of a process in which this would happen without ever coming in contact with the rocks.
#1 reflects the atheist position in a nutshell.
#2 reflects the theistic position in a nutshell. When I say "physically arranged" I'm alluding to the things that theists say like "I ran out of fuel on the freeway, so I prayed. God refilled my tank" where what they're claiming is that God directly intervened in the natural world.
#3 is what I believe, which to me is the Deistic position, where the Creator set forth the processes that we see today: solar systems, evolution, terraformation etc. (and even the order we see in the periodic table and physics phenomena).
My reasoning is that none of this was a coincidence, but at the same time we don't find this Creator mucking about in the natural world. What's done is done.
Therefore, I greatly oppose your idea that no evidence = no reason. Think of Deism as a hypothesis and NOT a theory. Of course, I acknowledge that it can't formally be a hypothesis because it can't be scientifically tested, but I'm simply demonstrating why I think I can rationally hold on to Deism without direct evidence of a Creator.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
