Asking of the Designer what we would of any other designer (The atheist delusion)

by whateverist , Saturday, July 30, 2011, 18:39 (4651 days ago) @ David Turell

[I'm still experimenting with ways of formatting quotes. Is there any standard protocol here?]-David's response: That assumption required oodles and oodles of pure faith. Just as faith in a diety requires oodles and oodles.-To my post: I would like to know how we got here. It would be fascinating to find that out. But for me personally, not much rides on it. I'm content to assume there is a natural explanation for the natural world even before the details are completely understood.-David, you may be right to say my assumption requires lots of faith but I don't think that is quite on par with the level of faith required to opt for a deity.-When my wife can't find her keys and I tell her they've got to be here somewhere I am asserting faith in a natural cause for their being missing. If you like you may assert that divine intervention cannot be ruled out. Holy hijinks is a possible explanation, it just isn't a tempting one and nor is it helpful.-There is an important difference in motivation between our two forms of faith when it comes to the origins of life. I'm motivated by curiosity but you have more at stake. You very much want for there to be a creator god, my opinion of course, because the idea of such a god has become fundamental to the way you conceive of meaning and purpose. So for deists generally (didn't mean to make it personal), faith really is something fervently wished for or expected. -It is also different because you MUST consider the possibility of a natural explanation. You must rule it out in order to turn to a deity. Even if I can't figure out exactly how the inorganic became the organic there is no logical necessity to considering the action of a deity. I frankly can't conceive of the circumstances that would make that a compelling hypothesis.