If there is a creator, so what?

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be special revelation.  Ironically, special revelation is why a person should care.  God made a promise of goodies to followers. Believe in me and do as I say, and you will escape death.  If you wan't to have confidence that you will be counted among the faithful, you must be among the faithful. There may be other ways to get the heavenly cookie, but do you really want to risk your everlasting afterlife on a longshot?

[Whateverist]

No, I'll forgo any claim to the basket of goodies being offered for blind faith. But my faith will follow where I'm given reason. Otherwise Jesus can just blow religion out his ass.

[philadelphialawyer]

New here.

Just wanted to say that, having read most of the posts, and all the run around and flowery language from poster "Ignorant" and so on, the basic answer to the thread question is that there is no reason why you should care.


It seems to me that the OP posits a deist "God" or "Creator" or "First Mover," as opposed a "personal," theist entity (whether the Abrahamic "God" or something like it). 

Well, sorta the whole point of historical deism was that "God" didn't really matter. He/It/Whatever set the universe in motion, but then left the scene. This view allowed enlightened 18th century folks to avoid the socially damaging and possibly even dangerous label of "atheist," while at the same time freeing them from the obligation to actually care about the alleged "Creator." The whole absurd business about talking snakes and the like, and the general nastiness of the Old Testament, and the need to account for the fact that the New Testament is pretty clearly an awkwardly attached add on that doesn't jibe with the Old, could all be jettisoned, and the parts of Jesus' nice philosophy of selflessness, forgiveness, etc could be retained because of their humaneness, without the mumbo jumbo about him being the "Son of God," the need for blood sacrifice, and so on. Jefferson, I believe, produced a version of the New Testament that only included the ethical teachings, and simply cut out all the miracle and other supernatural bullshit! Science and history could be pursued to actually find out about the real world around us, and morality and ethics could be evaluated based on their intrinsic worth, rather than merely accepted as being promulgated from On High. Deism freed humanity from the pointless, endless, and bloody theological nonsense debates, and from the straight jacket that theological obsession put on the search for real knowledge.

To be a deist meant not having a "relationship" with God. Much less the "personal relationship" with God that the current Born Agains prate on about.

So, sure, just like one might want to know about the Big Bang, one might want to know about the deist Creator who got the ball rolling. But only in an academic way. And one can certainly live without it.  One might compare it to Continental Drift theory. Unlike the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of humanity questions, the question of the validity of Continental Drift theory doesn't seem to inspire much heated controversy. I take the theory to be true because, like every other schoolboy, I have looked at a map and seen that South America and Africa seem "fit," and, more importantly, because trained geologists persuasively say it is the best theory around. But, if a new and better theory took the place of CD, if trained, specialized scientists were to assert and show that the evidence is that there never was a Gondwonoland or Pangea, well, so what? Why would it matter to me in any real, personally important way?

Much the same here. Without the threat of heaven and hell, without ethical rules supposedly emanating from a being that cares about me and will eventually judge me (in other words, without a theist "God"), the mere existence of a creating being is only of marginal concern to me, as a person living in this time and place and enmeshed in my own life, my own web of human relationships, and so on.

Deism pushes God to the beginning of Time, and thus makes him irrelevant. Again, that is what it was supposed to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, for the purposes of this thread blind faith is a non-issue.  That god exists, it made that promise.  Most of what our resident apologist has offered, in any case, is the argument from necessity repackaged as something it's not.  General revelation of gods -existence-, but not the hook, not the reason to care.  So, if you find that formulation of general revelation credible or reasonable, or simply approach it as a given, as we have in thread, you wouldn't have blind faith, but what you considered/would be to be a rational means of ascertaining the truth of your faith.

[Whateverist]

Welcome aboard, Phillylawyer. Great exposition on deism which I hadn't really thought much about. You can see why we all talk past each other so often here when we are prosecuting such differing god claims.

There is a section for making an intro thread if you like. Frankly I rarely find what little people write in such a post half as enlightening as one solid post such as you've made here. So suite yourself. I personally didn't get around to making an intro thread for almost a year and then only because it seemed so important to one older member I liked. But you can be as open or as cloaked as you like around here.

[robvalue]

I agree! Excellent post. Welcome to the forum

[PETE_ROSE]

Welcome to the forum sir. Obviously an educated man, but I must ask have you studied the Christian bible?

You make some valid points on deism, however your adjectives are negative, leading, and appear subjective, not objective. .

[The Joker]

Welcome to the forum sir.  Obviously an educated man, but I must ask  have you studied the Christian bible?  

You make some valid points on deism, however your adjectives are negative, leading, and appear subjective, not objective.  .

What he said!

[robvalue]

Welcome to the forum sir.  Obviously an educated man, but I must ask  have you studied the Christian bible?  

You make some valid points on deism, however your adjectives are negative, leading, and appear subjective, not objective.  .

Of course he has, he's an atheist

[philadelphialawyer]

Thanks everyone.

As for being "negative," my view of deism, which I thought I conveyed, is generally a positive one. For its time, it was the "correct" position. And, even today, it is not a bad half way stance, for the reasons stated. 

Anyway, regardless of my "subjective" view of deism, I think the distinction between a theistic deity (who is supposedly a "person" in existence today, who is open to prayer, perhaps intercedes in human affairs, and, in any event, judges human souls and presides over heaven and hell) and a deistic "creator" (who made the universe, however many eons ago, but is no longer around, for whatever reason, today) is pretty clear, in terms of the OP's question about caring or not caring. A theistic deity, if it indeed exists, would be something that one might very well need to care about, whereas, a deistic creator, not so much.