Why not deism?

[Anomalocaris]

Creation is not intervention?

If we accept that creation is like a mechanism capable of independent operation (ie it's more like a clock than a march box car), then there is no requirement for continuous intervention.   In such a case, it seems to me a deist god is just a god that let his creation that runs by itself for a longer stretch of time than other ideas of god.

A Diest is just a theist who doesn't think it is right to cry for mommy whenever the light is turned out, but is still comforted by the notion of a mommy.

The Abrahamic god routinely intervenes in the Cosmos (at least according to the manuals).  In theory, then, it should be at least possible to find some evidence that this meddling has taken place.  One would not expect to find such evidence if the Cosmos was created by a god who stopped at creation and then went its merry way.

And no, creation is not intervention.

Boru

It seems to me the distinction between creation and intervention is rather arbitrary.    Presumably the act of creation in the deist sense involves ordering the creation that it can operate on its own.   There is not necessarily any way to distinguish a god who A) created the universe and ordered it at that very instant, and then left it alone, from B) one that created the universe, ordered it for a long time, and then abandoned it in the comparatively recent past,  or C) one who continues to reorder the universe, but do so in such a way that he leaves no discernible evidence that a previous, different order, had existed to betray the reordering.

The only certain distinction would be if a interventionist god reorder the universe in such a way that evidence of a previous, different order can still be clearly discerned after the reordering.

[Simon Moon]

Creation is not intervention?

If we accept that creation is like a mechanism capable of independent operation (ie it's more like a clock than a march box car), then there is no requirement for continuous intervention.   In such a case, it seems to me a deist god is just a god that let his creation that runs by itself for a longer stretch of time than other ideas of god.

A Diest is just a theist who doesn't think it is right to cry for mommy whenever the light is turned out, but is still comforted by the notion of a mommy.

The Abrahamic god routinely intervenes in the Cosmos (at least according to the manuals).  In theory, then, it should be at least possible to find some evidence that this meddling has taken place.  One would not expect to find such evidence if the Cosmos was created by a god who stopped at creation and then went its merry way.

Exactly.

Theists make all sorts of testable claims. Miracles, communication with a god, gods as authors of ancient texts, healings, answered prayers, prophecies, etc.

These are all testable claims.

Hell, most theists (Christians especially) are running around claiming to be little "god detectors". That is a testable claim.

But the fact is, theists die at the same rate as non theists, get sick as often, have remissions as often, are no more happy, no more wealthy, etc, etc.

[mordant]

For me it all comes back to the question: How exactly would you tell the difference between a god who is indifferent, non-interventionist, absent, or non-existent? Even if all those types of gods were supposedly creators, how would you tell the difference between an eternal universe and a created one? Between a universe that we have evolved to be suited to and a universe created to be suitable for us?

Such gods are described as ineffable, inscrutable, and/or beyond human understanding. But ineffability and inscrutability and incomprehensibility are just weasel words for "I have no evidence" -- I don't know how you'd tell the difference between absence of evidence and those concepts, either.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

[Simon Moon]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

But it could be a, transcendental duck, that is outside space and time.

Certainly such a duck could be 'logicked' into existence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1.  It is possible to imagine a maximally great duck.

2.  If it is possible to imagine such a duck, it must exist in some possible world.

3.  In order for it to maximally great, it must exist in ALL possible worlds.

4.  Maximally great ducks are up against it when roast potatoes are involved.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

1.  It is possible to imagine a maximally great duck.

2.  If it is possible to imagine such a duck, it must exist in some possible world.

3.  In order for it to maximally great, it must exist in ALL possible worlds.

4.  Maximally great ducks are up against it when roast potatoes are involved.

And therefore, a maximally great duck exists on my plate.

Have any toothpicks?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Now I'm hungry for duck.  Dammit.

Boru

[possibletarian]

Crispy duck is awesome, maximally crispy duck is of course, very crispy

[Anomalocaris]

1.  It is possible to imagine a maximally great duck.

2.  If it is possible to imagine such a duck, it must exist in some possible world.

3.  In order for it to maximally great, it must exist in ALL possible worlds.

4.  Maximally great ducks are up against it when roast potatoes are involved.

And therefore, a maximally great duck exists on my plate.

Have any toothpicks?

The duck love you so much that he gave you his only begotten duck so that you may shit.    How can you not believe in the duck?

---

Crispy duck is awesome, maximally crispy duck is of course, very crispy

Put the duck in dry ice makes it even more crispy

[Mister Agenda]

Ah, I didn't read the part about deism where it requires that there be no evidence that it is the case, just that the creator of the universe not intervene in the universe it has created.

In order for such a creator to leave evidence, it would have to intervene, don't you think?

Boru

Don't see why, the one act it's supposed to have done, creation, could leave evidence of divine creation. We haven't found any and I think the chances are infinitesimal (IMHO) that we ever will, but there's no logical contradiction in the act of creation having left evidence. Unlike the Abrahamic God, which is incoherent in concept and attributed authorship of events that we know didn't actually happen, the only problem with the God of deism is that there isn't any good reason to think it's real.