What about deism? (Introduction)

by Cary Cook , Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 02:40 (5792 days ago) @ dhw

>Although by your own definition George 'knows definitely and objectively that there is no God', - Stop. Wrong track. You ignored the first part of that statement: "If George is telling the truth". I assume the rest of your post is not based on the above assumption. If it is, we'll have to start over.
--------------------------------------------
>how could an all-good God create evil? - He couldn't. Who says we're dealing with an all-good God?
-------------------------------------
>Why does God allow natural disasters? - After you create nature, it sorta comes with the territory ... unless you want to run all over the place with miracle band-aids.
------------------------------
>Which is the true religion? - Mine.
---------------
>Why the millions of years of mindless organisms and other forms of life before God produced us? - Slow learner. But seriously folks, The above objections are legitimate only against the patchwork concept of God handed down to us by millennia of priests & scribes & a few renegades trying to make semi-sense of the crap that was handed to them. Why waste our time bashing the stupidity of our ancestors? The creator of this world doesn't have to be omnipotent or omniscient or good or any of the crap they sing hymns about. We're FREE THINKERS for Christ sake! Let's FIGURE IT OUT!
-------------------------------------------------
>Would such a God be just? I'd say justice doesn't come into the equation. Part of the interest would lie in the endless round of generations, developments and events. No need for justice, an afterlife, punishment or reward, though it's feasible that he might step in occasionally if he feels like it. - Much better! From God's perspective (in this scenario) justice doesn't come into the equation. If God just likes to watch dinosaurs or gladiators fight, then no need for justice, an afterlife, punishment or reward. If, however, God starts thinking in terms of good vs. evil, then whole new ball game.
------------------------------------------------
>One objection would be that this is an anthropomorphization of God ... but why should we suppose that designers create things totally alien to themselves? - Uh... Doesn't the second part of this statement answer the original objection?
----------------------------------------------
>Another is that the concept goes against the teachings of most religions, but since these religions cannot give a convincing answer to the above questions, it has clear explicatory advantages. - We're clicking. I like this "answering your own objections" thing.
---------------------------------
>A third is that it does not hold out the hope of future happiness or just reward ... but our aim is to look for truth, not for comfort. - YEAAAAAH!
-------------------------------------------
>On the other hand ... the above questions can be covered by George's theory that life came about by chance. - Agreed. That's one non-disprovable theory.
-------------------------------------------------
>Can we dismiss completely every single testimony by every single witness down through thousands of years and in countless societies as to the existence of a personal and caring deity and a life beyond the grave? - I can neither dismiss them completely, nor put a bit of trust in them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically there are two relevant possibilities: afterlife or no afterlife. If afterlife, the next two relevant possibilities are: worth it or not worth it. So what I REALLY want to get to is under what circumstances is life better than non-existence, and under what circumstances is life worse than non-existence? - Consider this possibility: You die. You wake up in a sterile looking cubicle. A guy in a lab coat comes in and asks, "Want to do it again?" What questions would you ask before answering?