More Denton: derail (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, August 01, 2015, 17:23 (3402 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

You start from the premise of naturalism. 
Actually I start with the premise that naturalism is pretty good at giving us understanding of the universe and continues to improve our understanding of how the universe ticks. Occasionally we have to backtrack but over the long haul it moves forward.-> I start from the premise of theism. So, assuming that:
> If
> A) I believe in God
> and 
> B) I believe that God created the Universe, even if I don't claim any certainty about HOW he did 
> then,
> C) The creation (i.e. the universe and everything in it) is evidence of God's power, among other things. 
>
This ends up as one massive assertion
 
> >Romansh: And your commentary on Occam's razor is a little tainted, I can't help thinking.
> > 
> > God as an explanation is not an explanation, it is an abdication of an explanation. That we don't have the wit to give an accurate account of creation does not mean god did it.
> 
> Actually, it IS an explanation of first cause. I have repeatedly stated that it is not an explanation of HOW it was done. But, just like you can tell someone that an engineer designed your vehicle, and that is a suitable explanation of the point of origin of the guiding principles behind your vehicles design, so is pointing to God and saying that he designed the universe. Now, if you want to get into the details of HOW or WHY, that is an entirely different question.-Actually it is simply an assertion of the first cause. 
One is immediately drawn to the question of what are the properties of this god? Is it a delinquent type where it sets the universe is motion and then buggers off and leaves the universe to its own devices? (deism)-Is it more of participatory type of god a la Zeus, Abrahamic god, Norse gods etc (theism)-Or is it one of the more subtle variations that we have ... eg
http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28075#p28075