Question for deists: Why is there a Creator?

[Cinjin]

I dont bug deists about their beliefs. I get along great with deists as compared to fundy Christians.

I dont mind Deists, Budhists, and the really cool christians who are easy going. Sometimes the Pagans are pretty cool as well.

I dont bug them with questions, because I prefer their friendship instead.

Thank you Rev. My very best friends are all atheists.

...and actually they give me a little friendly ribbing once in awhile - and I love them for it. They're minds are sharp and they are real, honest and moral people that I can always trust.

....not like the assclowns I've met in churches across the US.

[Zenith]

I dont bug deists about their beliefs. I get along great with deists as compared to fundy Christians.

I dont mind Deists, Budhists, and the really cool christians who are easy going. Sometimes the Pagans are pretty cool as well.

I dont bug them with questions, because I prefer their friendship instead.

Its those fundies I cant stand. Unitarians I can get along with. Southern Baptists (I grew up as one) grate my nerves and deserve to be mocked.

Just curios... what is a fundy to you? what are the things you hate about them?
As about me, for some reasons I prefer the word "fanatic", and I can't stand those who can't talk about anything but religion and God, and can't talk to a man without trying to convert him to their own beliefs. As about the laymen - most of them never reading their bible, or if they did, they are not able to use it to bring an argument - they are very annoying as they don't know almost anything of what's written in it but act as if they know everything in this world - and whatever they say is what their preachers told them. Those that did study much, on the other hand, come with authority and a very strong confidence in themselves, also trying to impose things on others, believing their own words to be divine or something... (which is also very annoying)

[Eternity]

Because following a infinite regress of Creators is illogical. That and a universe such as the one we are in couldn't have come at a spontanious random. The odds of it all occurring are near impossible.

[Arcturus]

Because following a infinite regress of Creators is illogical. That and a universe such as the one we are in couldn't have come at a spontanious random. The odds of it all occurring are near impossible.

And it is illogical simply because you assert it to be? It's called begging the question.

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont bug deists about their beliefs. I get along great with deists as compared to fundy Christians.

I dont mind Deists, Budhists, and the really cool christians who are easy going. Sometimes the Pagans are pretty cool as well.

I dont bug them with questions, because I prefer their friendship instead.

Its those fundies I cant stand. Unitarians I can get along with. Southern Baptists (I grew up as one) grate my nerves and deserve to be mocked.

Just curios... what is a fundy to you? what are the things you hate about them?
As about me, for some reasons I prefer the word "fanatic", and I can't stand those who can't talk about anything but religion and God, and can't talk to a man without trying to convert him to their own beliefs. As about the laymen - most of them never reading their bible, or if they did, they are not able to use it to bring an argument - they are very annoying as they don't know almost anything of what's written in it but act as if they know everything in this world - and whatever they say is what their preachers told them. Those that did study much, on the other hand, come with authority and a very strong confidence in themselves, also trying to impose things on others, believing their own words to be divine or something... (which is also very annoying)

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.

---

Because following a infinite regress of Creators is illogical. That and a universe such as the one we are in couldn't have come at a spontanious random. The odds of it all occurring are near impossible.

But your creator, being infinitely more complex than this complex universe, you give a pass to and say "he always existed". Surely if a complexity is "evidence" of a creation, then your god is the biggest evidence that such a God needed an even MORE complex creator to make him...and a more complex creator to create that complex creator..ad infinitum..ad absurdum.

Sorry, but you have actually made a WORSE infinite regression in the name of avoiding an infinite regression.

Show me the odds..and show me proof that spontenaity (sp) actually had anything to do with a godless or god founded universe.

IF your God is all perfect, then why change anything..why create a universe? Sounds like his creating a universe was spontaneous to me..and also an imperfect act...how do you add to perfection anyways? Seeing that before the creation the only thing that existed was God, and he is supposed to be perfect. So hence, before creation, the only thing that existed was perfection. ..so why change that?

[Darth]

The deistic god is perfect? That's news to me. It needn't be infinite, just smart enough/powerful enough to create this universe (vast, but not infinite) this is the deistic god we're talking about, not the Judeo-christian one. The deistic god is at the least indifferent, unwilling or unable to help (or has gone off and doesn't know it's needed), hardly a perfect being (notice how it eliminates the problem of evil though). Supposing that the deity ISN'T perfect, Pandeism then provides some possible reasons for creation (as does deism, but I think pandeism does it better).

But I feel that the reasoning behind it is seccondary, the point is the creation, after that it's speculation.

edit: or were you talking to the muslim? Well the point is that these are not concerns in terms of the deistic/pandeistic gods.

I do agree with your point about the jewis/christian/muslim god moving from perfection to imperfection being yet another logic hole in an already holey (Gettit?) story.

Making the world 'perfect' wouldn't be the 'ideal' life for some of us?... erm... er..... er...

[Eternity]

But your creator, being infinitely more complex than this complex universe, you give a pass to and say "he always existed". Surely if a complexity is "evidence" of a creation, then your god is the biggest evidence that such a God needed an even MORE complex creator to make him...and a more complex creator to create that complex creator..ad infinitum..ad absurdum.

Sorry, but you have actually made a WORSE infinite regression in the name of avoiding an infinite regression.

Show me the odds..and show me proof that spontenaity (sp) actually had anything to do with a godless or god founded universe.

IF your God is all perfect, then why change anything..why create a universe? Sounds like his creating a universe was spontaneous to me..and also an imperfect act...how do you add to perfection anyways? Seeing that before the creation the only thing that existed was God, and he is supposed to be perfect. So hence, before creation, the only thing that existed was perfection. ..so why change that?

Why do I say God has always existed? Because the thought of something having always existing is more comprehendable then having a infinite regress. Now could there be infinite creators each creating the other? Sure, but then I can't see how any of which see came to be. Less you can give me direction to that information. Yeah I'm sure you can attach the "Always existing" to the universe as well it would makes sense in a way. I necessarily wouldn't agree with it as most people agree with the Big Bang having started the universe in which we are in. Why create the universe? I don't know I couldn't possibly answer that question for you. Also I disagree with your notion that god creating humans makes him imperfect. 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". Besides making the world perfect wouldn't be the ideal life for some of us. Not to mention how would it differ from the place God wants us to be heaven?

[reverendjeremiah]

The deistic god is perfect? That's news to me. It needn't be infinite, just smart enough/powerful enough to create this universe (vast, but not infinite) this is the deistic god we're talking about, not the Judeo-christian one. The deistic god is at the least indifferent, unwilling or unable to help (or has gone off and doesn't know it's needed), hardly a perfect being (notice how it eliminates the problem of evil though). Supposing that the deity ISN'T perfect, Pandeism then provides some possible reasons for creation (as does deism, but I think pandeism does it better).

But I feel that the reasoning behind it is seccondary, the point is the creation, after that it's speculation.

edit: or were you talking to the muslim? Well the point is that these are not concerns in terms of the deistic/pandeistic gods.

I do agree with your point about the jewis/christian/muslim god moving from perfection to imperfection being yet another logic hole in an already holey (Gettit?) story.

Making the world 'perfect' wouldn't be the 'ideal' life for some of us?... erm... er..... er...

I was making that post in reply to the Muslim.

[Zenith]

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)

I think the founder is Thomas Paine.
As about books, I haven't seen any book on atheism, so it's only speculation: I guess in them the religions are attacked (i.e. shown faults in them, refuted). I don't think there can be theories (i.e. a doctrine) related to atheism. I never read a deist book either, but it sounds (or, looks) as if there is more than "there is a God that does not interfere in our lives".

---

Wisdom is the realisation that you might actually be mad. Wisdom is the knowledge you're not wise, Madness is the knowledge you're not mad. A few deepities for you to chew on =P.

If wisdom is the realization that you might actually be mad, then I think madness should be the overconfidence that you are wise and right in everything you say.

What you said is good.
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.

[Darth]

He was a prominent deist, he didn't come up with the concept or found a religion based upon it. Well yeah in atheistic books theism is often attacked/refuted (but then you could argue that that is the antitheism in the authors showing, not the atheism) or its just to show a counter point "This is what they believe, this is why its wrong, in contrast this is what deists/atheists/whatever position you are advocating, believe...".

Go read the god delusion, if only for the delightful character description of Yahweh the malevolent. (or just look that bit up, best description of Yahweh the malevolent ever written)


edit: ah I see where you are coming from (and your own edit only just showed up, guess we were making posts at the same time), but I'm too drunj/sleepy to comment on such a thing just at the moment, I'll get back to you tomorrow, I hope.