Question for deists: Why is there a Creator?

[Zenith]

If I were to create a stack "perfect" stack of blocks in which they do not tip over I could. But I could also easily make one that has no chance of standing still and is horrible made. I have both options. Your suggesting that since God created us "imperfections" it some how means he isn't "perfect".

I see things the following way: (first off, I'll use "good" instead of "perfect", for several reasons):
a) there is a man who creates a robot (very advanced, technology after 300 years), robot which is built to kill people, innocent people. The robot is released by its creator and send to kill: he kills innocent men, women, children, babies. The robot is finally destroyed by authorities and its maker caught. Now, who is responsible for killing so many innocents, the robot or its maker? who will be condemned? I guess we all agree that the robot's maker. why? because the robot didn't have a choice - he did what his master commanded him. So building a robot to kill (or ordering someone to kill) is the same evil as killing with your own hands. So the point is: if God created us to do evil, then it is not our fault that we do evil, because we do what He commanded/commands us. Instead, God turns to be the author of the evil we do, because we do evil even if we don't want to do evil, but instead we want to do only good! (well, exceptions may be if we yield to evil by our own will/desire, i.e. our freedom allowed us to do good instead)

b) A man bears a son (well, his wife does). The child grows, being educated, and finally reaches maturity. If this son then kills a man, he is guilty of his own crime, because he did it willfully: his father cannot be punished for his son's crime, because it was his own son's will, desire, freedom of choice. In other words, the father is innocent and the son is evil.

c) A child is born to a family (husband and wife). Since baby, his parents never let him do what he wants. When he grew a bit older, his parents have implanted in his brain some device that never lets him do anything he wants (not even go outside when he wants, not to eat when he wants, not to read a book when he wants, etc.), but all that he does is good. When the parents are caught by authorities, they are found guilty and punished (what they did was evil, because they destroyed the freedom of choice and any other freedom to their son).

d) A man creates a robot (again, very advanced, technology after 300 years) which doesn't have freedom of choice, though this could have been done - actually, I don't know how possible that is, but let's assume it is indeed so. The man is not guilty for creating a good robot without freedom of choice, and nobody accuses him of any evil.

P.S. the stack of blocks are not human beings. And the most important difference here is that blocks don't feel pain (physical, emotional).

Besides making the world perfect wouldn't be the ideal life for some of us.

Really? how so? it sounds like "I don't want to be happy!", "I want to be mistreated!".

Not to mention how would it differ from the place God wants us to be heaven?

perhaps you can also say how exactly it would differ.

---

---

Tack Attack (someone I find myself classifying more and more as the days go by as one of the cool christians) made a great post on it in another thread. I hope he doesnt mind me posting it here:

The typical definition of fundie around here is usually -

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fundamentalism


A set of religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals; a 20th century movement among some Protestant sects in the United States.
http://asn.am/classes/standards/terms/r/r.php

-quoted from wiki

And also usually involves people not changing a particular belief or ideal despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, in effect denying evidence.

---

I've also found some definition of "fundamentalist", but what I found looks less 'evil':

( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
...
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
...
Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
...
"Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics." [Laws, "Herald & Presbyter," July 19, 1922]

If the opposite of fundamentalism is liberalism, then I guess the liberalists refute their own bibles. And if I know well, there are such christians (that refute their own bibles).

As for the definitions of liberal christians and fundamental christians, I'm not sure which is the best complete explanation.

Also, look what I found (on the wikipedia link you gave me):

Christian fundamentalists see the Bible (both the Old Testament and the New Testament) as infallible and historically accurate.

It is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and "Fundamentalist" groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part. It would appear that there is no significant Christian denomination which is "literalist" in the sense that they believe that the Bible contains no figurative or poetic language. As the term is commonly used, "literalists" are those Christians who are more inclined to believe that portions of scripture (most particularly parts of the Book of Revelation) which most Christians read in a figurative way are in fact intended to be read in a literal way.

So it seems that it is not a characteristic of fundamentalism to take things literally.

Also, about liberal christianity:

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the Biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of Scriptural hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible) within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historical or cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding.[2] Thus, most liberal Christians do not regard the Bible as divinely inspired (God's Word), but subject Scripture to human reason. However some modern liberal Christians believe in a divinely inspired bible, albeit a predominantly spiritual interpretation of the text and very few, if any, literal interpretations (especially concerning the Old Testament).[citation needed]

In the 19th century, self-identified liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of "pagan" belief in the supernatural.[3] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings. The effort to remove "superstitious" elements from Christian faith dates to intellectual reformist Christians such as Erasmus and the Deists in the 15th–17th centuries.[4] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[5]

Attempts to account for miracles through scientific or rational explanation were mocked even at the turn of the 19th–20th century.[6] A belief in the authenticity of miracles was one of five tests established in 1910 by the Presbyterian Church to distinguish true believers from false professors of faith such as "educated, 'liberal' Christians."[7]

Contemporary liberal Christians may prefer to read Jesus' miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.[8] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but may reject the polemicism that denial or affirmation entails.

As about "And also usually involves people not changing a particular belief or ideal despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, in effect denying evidence.":
I don't think the difference between liberal christianity and fundamental christianity is "open-minded" vs "closed-minded". I mean, most people are very open-minded when it's about criticizing others (showing how others are wrong) and very closed-minded when somebody else contradicts them in what themselves firmly believe. (now I'm speaking in general, all fit here: christians, other theists, deists, atheists, etc.)

[Darth]

What you said is good.

Always nice to hear it from someone else

Though perhaps I did not express myself correctly: you hear one saying that God created the universe and became the universe, you hear other that says that God created the universe but is incapable of interfering in the creatures' lives, you hear other that believes in a God who performs miracles every day in his life, you hear other that says that there are a lot of gods that need to be worshiped, and you hear others that say that no god exists (I skipped some, and perhaps I don't know all beliefs). Now you pick one and ask yourself "is that wise or insane?". How can you judge that? Even the most insane man sees his own beliefs to be true and evident and see others' as being insane or stupid or something.

Ah, well as an outside observer, with my fallible sense and logic, I judge how wise or sane people are are by

A) is there evidence/logical underpinning for their claim/assertion?
Evidence supporting it
No evidence for it,
Sound logic that would suggest it
or evidence and logic to the contrary...

and B) How convinced are they?
Completely,
room for doubt,
tentative...

... (And of course things like how good is that evidence, what evidence do they have/ were they exposed to...)

That's how I judge people's wisdom, sanity & knowledge.

The theistic god concepts have evidence to the contrary and are logically unsound. The deistic idea's have no evidence for or against, they fit neatly into the god gap and stay there, making belief in them a whole lot more sane than belief in a theistic god. That's the problem with the theistic gods, they poke their heads out of the gap and into a logical and evidentiary guillotine.

I find questioning my own ability to judge sanity/wisdom to at least some degree of accuracy is a sure way to lose all sanity.

[Zenith]

The deistic idea's have no evidence for or against, they fit neatly into the god gap and stay there, making belief in them a whole lot more sane than belief in a theistic god.

Why? is it because deists are not blindly devoted to their God? Or because they are rather agnostic (i.e. "but I might be wrong")?

[Arcos Plage]

Ooh ooh oohh an atheism vs deism battle, I WANT IN! (Used to be a pandeist of sorts), I'm still agnostic towards deism and its variants, I still have a lot of time for them. Gnostic atheist to all theistic claims.

Someone asked about pantheism and how it relates to deism, didnt see a response to the question so:

-Pantheism is the belief that 'God' and 'the universe'/'nature' are synomynous, nature = god. You can leave it at that or take it further with things being interconnected into some sort of panpsychism, never got into it myself, seemed like a pointless semantic gymnastic exercise in its weakest form, and more religious shenanigans in its stronger forms. Non personal, non anthropomorphic... (I'm not the best person to ask for a definition of it as you can see, pantheists might object to how I've described their belief)
-Deism is the belief that there is a creator (or creators) who created the universe. That's it. Again, non personal, non anthropomorphic. Anything after that is speculation.

You didn't ask but I'll tell you anyway:
-Pandeism is a combination of the two. The creator deity created the universe, by becoming the universe. It's easier to speculate reasons for the creation with pandeism than it is with deism (and funner as well). Its more logical than deism for that reason(Imma drawnin my lines in the sand here, Imma take EVERBODY on!).

some prefixs/affixes explained...
-en- means that the god is the universe, BUT, there is more to the god than the universe. 100% of the universe is within or=god, but god is larger than just that. So panendeism would be the belief that the creator deity, created the universe, by mostly becoming the universe, but it left some part of itself outside, that didn't become the universe. Panentheism, the universe/nature = a part of god.
-poly- of course means multiple creators. Polypanendeism... =P

The deistic/pandeistic god needn't be infinite, only 'very' x (intelligent, powerful) enough to start the universe going as it is, and nothing more.

I do seriously doubt the claims of "like any other religion". The panthiests and deists would never start annihilating each other over doctrine. "God = universe" or A "deity/s created the universe" if that's it then what's to fight about, there are no ramifications. Neither has much scope for real life applications, might as well be atheists really (who believe in a god =P). Apatheism almost, its irelevent in day to day living, untill you crave a good debate or are probing the origins of the universe. Edit: Wow, just had a look at that site, I can see where you're coming from (though it's hard to argue that a world full of deists and pantheists wouldn't be a thousand times more peaceful than a world full of theists. For an antitheist, if given a choice of a theistic world, a deistic world and an atheistic world, deistic would be the seccond choice). I'm not that interested in defending the author of that article, he's a numpty, but I do feel you took him a little out of context given what he then goes on to say (His fault for making it so easy though, "demands" honestly...) Think hes doing a bit of a true scotsman there, deism says nothing of the sort. "Will make your life and the world better..." I'm sure some theists who became deists (as they are want to do, deism and pantheism are often transitional stages) were displeased at having their best buddy become an impersonal indifferent deity. If I make a site about atheism, atheismisawesome.whatever and then claim that "atheism demands that, to the depths of your being, you believe a) there is no god (or don't believe there is a god), and that this belief/lack of belief will make you a better person and would make the world a better place" you'd object, "hold on, get your antitheism off my atheism, stop conflating the two it doesn't help, and 'demands' is an idiotic word to use for a simple lack of belief/belief there is no god, anything else is your own and unrelated to atheism.". Having said that, Who's this founder you spoke of? I didnt see anything on there about a founder (legitimate question, I'm not having a go at you here, I don't doubt that this guy has written that somewhere, that is if he isn't claiming he is)
What's your points about books? There are books on atheism =P.. (Oh yes I did)

The original point of the thread. I'd say a better definition of Deism is "There is at least one deity who created the universe" rather than "a deity created the universe". But then that's me, I seriously doubt there are many deists who will claim one, and only one. "At least one", I feel, is a more accurate description of what most would believe.

I am still a pandeist, and I don't see another option budging me off that position absent some rather extraordinary evidence, either proving that a designer is impossible or proving an intervening theistic deity ; I'm not sure what would do for either; I suppose a deity arranging a few dozen galaxies to spell out 'HERE I AM' would do for the latter, though I am able to conceive of a less-than-omnipotent entity which did not create our Universe still being able to do that within it.... the strike point for me is the fortuitous level of complexity of our Universe; not simply that it is complex enough to generate intelligent life, but that it is at the same time simple enough for intelligent life to figure out how to self-accellerate -- as though we were meant to figure out, this is how DNA works and (eventually) this is how we can rework it ourselves to make people ten times smarter, who can then solve even more complex conundrums!!