Questioning Deism

[Jac3510]

Don't quit. Just think. That's enough for me. There is nothing wrong with your admission, nor anything wrong with not just believing the conclusion. Things are never so simple.

What would be wrong would be to just quit. I hope you continue this conversation with k and others. Multiple perspectives will help you come to your own defendable beliefs. Of course I hope that ultimately means believing in God through Christ. But that is your journey. I just want you to be honest enough to stay on the road, and I think you will, wherever you end up.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

We need to make a forum called "how to read HappyFlappyDeist and understand his sense of humor."
"I quit" isn't a serious statement, "I have recognized the extent of my knowledge pertaining to a certain art" is far more accurate. My last quip was meant as light humor.

[Jac3510]

I may be a pseudo-philosopher, but I'm not so dense as to miss interwebz humor. I just decided to run with it and play on the line about getting you thinking. And hopefully to encourage K to get back to his questions!

In short, carry on!

[Kurieuo]

Anyway, what are your thoughts on why a deist god would go to the hassle of creating create the universe, if such was ultimately uninterested?
That to me seems strange. Like did some fairy dust, err god dust accidentally drop or?

And if this god planned to create, then that has to make creation personal to God (Theism) -- however minimal such might be.
It's not my intention to dictate what is/isn't deism... But, the only way I can think of a deistic god truly exist is if such created the world by accident.
However, I can't picture such a powerful being being so clumsy.

Thoughts?

Questioning why the deist god did what it did is indeed a tricky one. I could steal from the Judeo-Christian theist position and state this "being" did it to marvel at it's creation. However the creation in question here is not one of life existing, rather it's of the expanse that is the universe (or multitude of) and it's laws existing.

This does not really seem like the position of the Judeo-Christian faith.
I can speak for Christian theology, but it does sound rather strawman-like --
something I'd expect to be written on an Atheist's skeptics website ("God created because she's egotistical").

Certainly, there would be diverse and varied positions within Christendom as to why God created.

The number one often stated is that God's love is limitless and overflowing.
Not that this is something God needs, but rather it's a part of God's nature to love.
God created rational beings, not because God desired us to bow down and marvel, but because He wanted to enter into a relationship with His creation.
Our freedom to choose is therefore something God also desires to respect. Since love is never forced.
In order to allow for the greatest good -- love -- we must be free to choose otherwise, to turn from God and choose evil (opposite of God's desires).

To just marvel at His own creation isn't really one I've come across.

Perhaps this deist being knew life would be created somewhere, this would seem to indicate this being wanted it to and thus lead to theism. Obviously I disagree.

I believe that this god of mine did allow for life through the laws it established, but is not interested in us (thus the deism). Under my view and understanding of this universal expanse we are one of many, we are not unique.

So, do you think your deistic God at least planned to create?
Or did some of his creative dust perhaps clumsily fall from the table and wella, our universe popped into existence?

Allow me to put forward a simple syllogistic argument for why I think this is important:

1) If "God" planned to create the universe then God's creation is personal to him.
2) God planned to created to create the universe.
3) Therefore God's creation is personal to him.

I think the question a Deist absolutely needs to explain is why God created in the first place, if God then kept on walking. Otherwise Deism doesn't really hold much weight at all.
That is, it doesn't make sense. Unless God accidentally created (e.g., spilt some creative dust). But, I can't comprehend such a powerful being -- your Fred -- being so clumsy.

Therefore, it seems most reasonable to conclude Theism. Because Deism doesn't seem to have much explanatory power, and causes unnecessary questions.
If you believe none of the world's religions really know who God is, then that's a different issue.

I don't see how rejecting all the world's religions because you believe they're all wrong and/or deluded necessitates Deism.
Rather, as the simply arguments I think prove above, if you believe God purposefully then God is personal (Theism).

You might like to call it Deism, but this to me is only possible if one believes in a god who is clumsy or a bit nuts.

Perhaps this "being" (who will now be referred to as Fred because "being" might confuse in a sentence, and god might indicate YHWH) wanted something to marvel at his creation (Fred is very egotistical) thus why he allowed through the laws he created for life to evolve somewhere. We are certainly capable of admiring creation, we all look up to the stars are marvel at the majestic expanse around us; we're also at a point now where we can even understand the laws that Fred created! I don't think that, if we really are what I just theorized above, this means we're significant or Fred cares at all about us.

I don't think God is like that either.

As theist state, we cannot understand the mind of God or his reasons. Trying to understand Fred through our logic is impossible, he's above our way of reasoning; Otherwise our reason would lead us to "if he created something to admire him, why wouldn't he care about us." I've tried to come up with a analogy but I can't ( I was going to use "do you care about a scribble on paper you created", but a scribble cannot appreciate you or it's own creation). To understand my view of Fred you must ignore your concept and understanding of God. Fred is not YHWH, he's not a loving, forgiving God, he's not an evil God, he might not even be a egotistical god as I stated above. I don't know his reasons, I don't know his thoughts, but I know he must exist through the complexity of what exists (meaning Laws of Physics).

That we cannot understand the mind of God or his reasons has always sounded stupid to me.
I can't remember whether it was a Catholic lecturer, Anglican or Uniting who venerated such a thing during my theology studies.
To the point one must almost not entertain questions about God's nature, because such presumes we can understand God.
This does not gel with me at all. Do they seriously believe in a personal God? If so, the God can reveal.

Theologians who rant such baloney may as well just reject Christ and and His teachings. They're just being inconsistent.
Those who say God is mysterious and we can't know are just trying to elegantly say, "I'm stupid and just don't know."

There are many things I believe we can know about God.
And if God is personal it stands to reason that God will reveal Himself to us in varying ways.

Consider the Psalm 19 passage in the header of this board:

• 1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
  And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
  2 Day to day pours forth speech,
  And night to night reveals knowledge.
  3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
  Their voice is not heard.
  4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
  And their utterances to the end of the world.

Now I find it significant that you found signs of God in the very thing this passage talks of -- such that you are Deist.
BUT, if you are convinced that the law requires a lawgiver, I wonder if there might be other positive signs of design that you could deduce from God's creation.
That is, approaching all that exists neutrally, not assuming that God just didn't care further.
Are you able to see any other speech in the cosmos or creation?

This is kind of what I was alluding to when I mentioned the anthropic principle.
Such seems to suggest that God actually did care to have sentient life in the world.
That God did desire us to live. But, I'm still not really sure what you make of such.
I mean doesn't such a principle requiring even some guiding on God's part of the laws?
If so, then it seems God does care to have us more than your Fred.

Are there other things in the world besides the cosmological laws that seem so improbable that it appears to be a royal flush?
Well, I think life's origin is one. How the heck did that even happen? Homochirality and the like?

In fact, I think if one believes in natural evolutionary laws for all life then Theism provides the best basis for belief in evolution.
One should not be a Naturalist (philosophical belief that there are no "super" natural beings like God guiding or planning anything), as it's just unfathomable to believe that pure luck could produce life -- let alone the complexities of life that we see.
To believe that everything is unguided and unplanned is to me quite naive and gullible. It is like believing someone who keeps beating you in poker, who keeps turning over a royal flush hand after hand, hasn't stacked the deck in their favour.

So I put forward that purely blind, random and unplanned evolutionary processes would have never lead to life as we have it. It is just as unlikely and improbable as all the fine tuning of the physical laws that we see in the cosmos.
Such that if you are convinced by these finely tuned laws that some deist god must exist, then so much more for the finely tune laws required by life and evolution to unfold as we see it.

If you want a neutral perspective, have a read of agnostic ID proponent Dennis Jones' article: RESPONSE TO THE MARK PERAKH CRITIQUE, “THERE IS A FREE LUNCH AFTER ALL: WILLIAM DEMBSKI’S WRONG ANSWERS TO IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS”

Since he is Agnostic you might even have much in common.
Like you he is open to the complexity seen in the natural laws that needs explaining.
He really is a novelty I think, considering his mix of beliefs -- kind of like you.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

This does not really seem like the position of the Judeo-Christian faith.
I can speak for Christian theology, but it does sound rather strawman-like --
something I'd expect to be written on an Atheist's skeptics website ("God created because she's egotistical").

Certainly, there would be diverse and varied positions within Christendom as to why God created.

The number one often stated is that God's love is limitless and overflowing.
Not that this is something God needs, but rather it's a part of God's nature to love.
God created rational beings, not because God desired us to bow down and marvel, but because He wanted to enter into a relationship with His creation.
Our freedom to choose is therefore something God also desires to respect. Since love is never forced.
In order to allow for the greatest good -- love -- we must be free to choose otherwise, to turn from God and choose evil (opposite of God's desires).

To just marvel at His own creation isn't really one I've come across.

Addressing the 1st paragraph, It wasn't meant to be an assault on theism, if that's how you took it. God did marvel at his creation after each day did he not? "He saw that it was good." Obviously God had multiple reasons for his creation, I stole on off the list and applied it as a possibility to Fred.

So, do you think your deistic God at least planned to create?
Or did some of his creative dust perhaps clumsily fall from the table and wella, our universe popped into existence?

I think this is a question.....
Yes, obviously in different words, but yes this is what I believe. Fred simply created the laws that allowed for the possibility of 'creation.'



Addressing "we can't understand God or his reasons"; you say this is not a Christian position, I'm in no position to disagree. It's something I thought was a Christian position but you make it sound as if it's not, which you are in a position to do as a Christian. You stated a bible verse explaining why we can know God's reasons, this does not however explain Fred's reasons. Fred does not have a Bible, I have no way of knowing his reasons.

In fact, I think if one believes in natural evolutionary laws for all life then Theism provides the best basis for belief in evolution.
One should not be a Naturalist (philosophical belief that there are no "super" natural beings like God guiding or planning anything), as it's just unfathomable to believe that pure luck could produce life -- let alone the complexities of life that we see.
To believe that everything is unguided and unplanned is to me quite naive and gullible. It is like believing someone who keeps beating you in poker, who keeps turning over a royal flush hand after hand, hasn't stacked the deck in their favour.

Why is it unfathomable? With billions of stars and hundreds of billions of planets, with a possibility of an unknown amount of universe's each with the same statistics as the former list, It was bound to happen somewhere ( oof I know this is getting quoted; I.E "It was bound to happen= Fred wanted it to"). Chances are it's happened somewhere else as well, and there's a good possibility that it exists in our own solar system. Using simple statistics, If life has occurred in 3 places( let's assume mars, earth, and Europa) in this solar system, what's the possibility that it exists nowhere else in the billions of other solar systems? Is life guided on all these other places as well? Does God take special interest in them? We've stated that "it's unfathomable to believe that pure luck could produce life" so this must mean God wasn't satisfied with simply making us and wished to "love his creation" elsewhere as God doesn't create to simply marvel, correct?

So I put forward that purely blind, random and unplanned evolutionary processes would have never lead to life as we have it. It is just as unlikely and improbable as all the fine tuning of the physical laws that we see in the cosmos.

I just simply disagree with with this. The arousal of the law's of physics do not have any coherent hypothesis (other than the absurdity that they've always existed) , the arousal of life does. We can create models actually producing amino acids ( i'm sure you've heard this one before) which given 4 billion years, do have the ability to produce life. The watchmakers analogy isn't a viable one and neither is that absurd number ( 4^300) that dictates the possibility of life arising is impossible. Do you have any atheist threads on here arguing for the eternal existence of the laws? I'd love to read them.

The only reason I believe is a deist god, as I've stated before, is because of the existence of the laws of physics. I did blindly state that Fred may have guided the big bang because of it's precision, but this is not even necessary. Given infinite time, and infinite amount of collapses it may have happened without guidance.

[Kurieuo]

This does not really seem like the position of the Judeo-Christian faith.
I can speak for Christian theology, but it does sound rather strawman-like --
something I'd expect to be written on an Atheist's skeptics website ("God created because she's egotistical").

Certainly, there would be diverse and varied positions within Christendom as to why God created.

The number one often stated is that God's love is limitless and overflowing.
Not that this is something God needs, but rather it's a part of God's nature to love.
God created rational beings, not because God desired us to bow down and marvel, but because He wanted to enter into a relationship with His creation.
Our freedom to choose is therefore something God also desires to respect. Since love is never forced.
In order to allow for the greatest good -- love -- we must be free to choose otherwise, to turn from God and choose evil (opposite of God's desires).

To just marvel at His own creation isn't really one I've come across.

Addressing the 1st paragraph, It wasn't meant to be an assault on theism, if that's how you took it. God did marvel at his creation after each day did he not? "He saw that it was good." Obviously God had multiple reasons for his creation, I stole on off the list and applied it as a possibility to Fred.

Feel free to assault all you like, I'm sure you'll feel at times assaulted.
But, I can separate "the debate" if you will from you as a person.
So it's all good.

Re: marvelling. I did mention there would be diverse and varied positions.
But, I still take exception to God or Fred just creating to marvel. Such seems like a reason assigned after the fact.

Consider something that I might create with my own hand.
I've done many renovations to my house for example, and often once finished I'll just stare and marvel at my handiwork for 5-10 mins.
But, the reason I renovated wasn't to marvel at my work. So too, if God creating just to marvel at his handiwork seems too superficial and after the fact.
Maybe after God's creative act he did marvel, but that doesn't explain the reason why God created.

In asking what the reason God created is then, the implication is that one is looking for an explanation before the fact, rather than any consequence of having created such as marvelling.

Since you make mention of God's marveling at his "good creation" in Genesis, let me also point out God's desired relationship with humanity.
That, I'd argue, is the reason for God creating -- because God or Fred wanted to have a relationship with an sentient being and express his love.
And that is why the physical laws appears rigged for sapient life such as us.

So, do you think your deistic God at least planned to create?
Or did some of his creative dust perhaps clumsily fall from the table and wella, our universe popped into existence?

I think this is a question.....
Yes, obviously in different words, but yes this is what I believe. Fred simply created the laws that allowed for the possibility of 'creation.'

So if Fred set out to purposefully create the laws (which would then actually be his "creation"), then my previous argument still applies.

1) If "God" planned to create the universe then God's creation is personal to him.
2) God planned to created to create the universe.
3) Therefore God's creation is personal to him.

So then I think we actually have a form of Theism -- whether or not you see this I suppose is up to you.
But, I'm leaning towards considering you a minimal Theist unless you in fact believe God's creating was accidental.

Addressing we can't understand God or his reasons"; you say this is not a Christian position, I'm in no position to disagree. It's something I thought was a Christian position but you make it sound as if it's not, which you are in a position to do as a Christian. You stated a bible verse explaining why we can know God's reasons, this does not however explain Fred's reasons. Fred does not have a Bible, I have no way of knowing his reasons.

I disagree that you have no way of knowing God's reasons.
In fact, you are willfully choosing to believe that God created and then lost interest.
Therefore you are saying something about your deist God, namely that he has no interest in us and just wanted to create for the sake of it.
So you are assuming to know that God wasn't interested to anything further beyond setting in place laws.
This seems quite unconvincing as a position, since it beggars belief why God went to the hassle in the first place.
What reason do you have for that?

A more logical position would be Agnostic Theist in my opinion.
You don't know that God didn't intervene more, or guide natural laws here and there whether through careful planning in the beginning, or direct intervention.

However, I'm picking up, that you have great fear of belief in God.
Maybe you feel that belief in God lets the "cat out of the bag" if you will.
Perhaps your perception of what is "scientific" might come crashing down around you.
I read this in how you preferred to distance yourself from an "intelligent being" to just call it "some thing".
Then how you now wish to remove the word "God" and substitute in "Fred" as though that makes a difference.

Seriously. Pause for moment.
Are you afraid of believing in God?
How does it make your gut feel?
What is so off putting?

I'll just say, that many pioneers of modern science were Christian.
Including many you highly respect.

There is nothing unscientific more or less scientific about belief in God, than Naturalism.
Seriously. Both a philosophical beliefs and of a different category to science.

As I pointed out elsewhere, to say "belief in God is more/less scientific than Naturalism" is like saying, "red is more/less rounder than blue."
So for what reason are you afraid of belief in God?

In fact, I think if one believes in natural evolutionary laws for all life then Theism provides the best basis for belief in evolution.
One should not be a Naturalist (philosophical belief that there are no "super" natural beings like God guiding or planning anything), as it's just unfathomable to believe that pure luck could produce life -- let alone the complexities of life that we see.
To believe that everything is unguided and unplanned is to me quite naive and gullible. It is like believing someone who keeps beating you in poker, who keeps turning over a royal flush hand after hand, hasn't stacked the deck in their favour.

Why is it unfathomable? With billions of stars and hundreds of billions of planets, with a possibility of an unknown amount of universe's each with the same statistics as the former list, It was bound to happen somewhere ( oof I know this is getting quoted; I.E "It was bound to happen= Fred wanted it to"). Chances are it's happened somewhere else as well, and there's a good possibility that it exists in our own solar system. Using simple statistics, If life has occurred in 3 places( let's assume mars, earth, and Europa) in this solar system, what's the possibility that it exists nowhere else in the billions of other solar systems? Is life guided on all these other places as well? Does God take special interest in them? We've stated that "it's unfathomable to believe that pure luck could produce life" so this must mean God wasn't satisfied with simply making us and wished to "love his creation" elsewhere as God doesn't create to simply marvel, correct?

So you think there's life on Mars and one of Jupiter's moons?
If there is any life, I doubt it would be indigenous to such planets.
Given Earth's longevity it is perhaps likely that we'll find remnants on Mars.

You sound like you have the problem to the origin of life nailed.
Maybe you should submit a paper to a journal explaining how it arose.
As you remarked similarly to someone else (fair's fair), you'll be famous and stand to earn a lot of money.

In any case, it is more than the issue of life coming to be.
You have probably heard of the ID term of "complex and specified complexity" (CSI).

To quote who I'd consider a fair-minded ID agnostic, Dennis Jones writes in his article in discussing Dembski:

• What's important is that just as improbable as it is to be dealt a Royal Flush, so likewise the level of difficulty natural selection is up against to produce what appears to be designed in nature. And, when CSI is observed in nature, which occurs occasionally, then that not only confirms ID predictions... but also tips a scientist a clue that such might be evidence of additional ID-related mechanisms at work.

Before you dismiss, I'd recommend reading his article in full and also Jones' introduction to CSI.

Hold off on what you've heard. Reserve your opinion for 10 minutes or so, and take a read of those two articles. They're really good primers.
Keep in mind, this guy is agnostic and not part of the ID movement -- although he has come it seems to make a stand for the logic and rationale of concepts within.

I previously encouraged people to look over his article on universal common descent also (which I mention, as I understand people including perhaps yourself don't like to read "creo" sites -- but this is by no means your "creo" kind of guy as you'll see reading over this article).

I obviously disagree with his agnosticism, but he is someone I've come to recently respect.
And as he has written on things relevant to what I'm trying to get at with you, I felt he might be a good more neutral source.

So I put forward that purely blind, random and unplanned evolutionary processes would have never lead to life as we have it. It is just as unlikely and improbable as all the fine tuning of the physical laws that we see in the cosmos.

I just simply disagree with with this. The arousal of the law's of physics do not have any coherent hypothesis (other than the absurdity that they've always existed) , the arousal of life does.

Quantum theory shows particles popping in and out of existence. Why not universes?
While going against Occam's razor, physicists not content with our universes beginning hypothesise the possibility of other universes that ours popped into existence from. Some of these (e.g., Lee Smolin) postulate the contingency of physical laws that a universe inherits, such that they could be otherwise.

So then, why is it absurd to believe that the physical laws have always existed, in some form or another?
I don't disagree with you, but I'm interested to know your answer. Actually, I found your answer from an earlier post of yours on this board.

• HFD: I believe in a god because of the apparent mathematically ordered and precise composition present in molecular/atomic/-to a certain extent- quantum physics, the absolutely insane (1 quintillionth) precision that had to be associated with the big bang for it not to collapse, as well as the dilemma of wether or not the laws of physics could have spontaneously arouse and so perfectly governed all.

So it seems that you are assigning an improbability, to reach some sort of absurdity with the physical laws always just existing especially in relation to the fine tuning of the "big bang".
Perhaps we're not that far a part. Because it certainly sounds to me like a similar principle I'm invoking when thinking of the improbability of life and evolution unfolding as it did via pure luck.

Again, what are you so afraid of in considering something of the natural order has an intended purpose?

We can create models actually producing amino acids ( i'm sure you've heard this one before) which given 4 billion years, do have the ability to produce life. The watchmakers analogy isn't a viable one and neither is that absurd number ( 4^300) that dictates the possibility of life arising is impossible. Do you have any atheist threads on here arguing for the eternal existence of the laws? I'd love to read them.

A-huh, amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins and as such life.
Have you read the book, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe?
Highly recommend it.

Re: amino acids, I don't claim to be an expert here... but I can and do read.
There are a specific set of 20 that occur in proteins.
While it is conceivable that others could fulfil the role, research says otherwise.
I came across an article on RTB that referred to a study published in 2011.

In this study, a team compared the range of chemical and physical properties possessed by the 20 protein-building amino acids versus random sets of amino acids that could have been selected from early Earth’s hypothetical prebiotic soup. They showed that amino acids found in biological systems possess properties that evenly and uniformly varies across a broad range of sizes, charges, and hydrophobicities. They demonstrated that the amino acids selected for proteins is a "highly unusual set of 20 amino acids; a maximum of 0.03% random sets out-performed the standard amino acid alphabet in two properties, while no single random set exhibited greater coverage in all three properties simultaneously."

To quote from their published study's abstract: "Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone."

More than can be explained by chance alone? Wow.

The only reason I believe is a deist god, as I've stated before, is because of the existence of the laws of physics. I did blindly state that Fred may have guided the big bang because of it's precision, but this is not even necessary. Given infinite time, and infinite amount of collapses it may have happened without guidance.

Why back peddle now on your previous statement?
I'm not sure that you blindly stated previously.

You made more sense previously, accepting the most obvious and straight-forward conclusion that doesn't require massive assumptions.
Law of parsimony, occam's razor, all that.

Again, I'm puzzled by what you are so scared of in embracing God as planning the world and even life?
It doesn't, and isn't, an irrational or illogical conclusion. Far from it.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I disagree that you have no way of knowing God's reasons.
In fact, you are willfully choosing to believe that God created and then lost interest.
Therefore you are saying something about your deist God, namely that he has no interest in us and just wanted to create for the sake of it.
So you are assuming to know that God wasn't interested to anything further beyond setting in place laws.
This seems quite unconvincing as a position, since it beggars belief why God went to the hassle in the first place.
What reason do you have for that?

I did already address this but not to your satisfaction. I have absolutely no idea why and stating he lost interest (which I never said) doesn’t address reason at all anyway, all I can do is make hypothesis of why ( I.E to marvel). And I’ll just add Fred did not create us as you stated above, it’s important to break from that mindset to get a grasp on Deism.

I don’t quite understand the whole “life couldn’t arise indigenously on Europa or mars” comment either. It certainly could on Europa ( assuming the ocean is there anyway). Life can survive, evolve, and exist around geothermic vents that are most certainly active on Europa. I’m sure we’ll know the answer to this question within tis century.

And this

You sound like you have the problem to the origin of life nailed.
Maybe you should submit a paper to a journal explaining how it arose.

Everything I said (summarize: amino acids + geothermic vents on Europa) isn’t really revolutionary and it takes an undergraduate science education to have a basic grasp on the concepts of this. My knowledge from this does come from education, is this unreliable?
If I made some grandstanding new models your slightly mocking comment would apply, but again everything I said is pretty well grounded with regards to modern scientific understanding. To address amino acids, I think you summarized what I said and put a different conclusion on it. That article from UoH seemed like a stub and seemed to address that evolution is not random--maybe-- (how ‘shocking’, it’s not). Also, I think we should give that award to the groundbreaking discovery by AiG that polonium rings tell us the age of the earth.

Nothing presented shows clear lack of natural properties possibly guiding life, so I think I’ll take the rest of this time to address why deism instead of theism on a partially unscientific level as the cultural aspects are far more convincing.
I'll draw my "deist to christianity" chart so you can understand my positions better before I start.

1)Laws of universe must have had a beginning------->2)Deism--------->3)Life could not have possibly arisen without direct interference from a supernatural being on a planetary scale--------> 4) Theism ---------> 5) The god who guided our creation takes a vested interest in every humans well being --------> 6)???? -------->7)????-------> Christianity


The answer to my question mark in the chart will hopefully be filled in by you later; keep reading!

Let’s ASUMME Fred guided life on earth, this to me points to theism, but to which one? One might say “Christianity is pretty historical accurate”, so is Islam with Islam being an extremely well documented case (that is Muhammad’s conquest). One might say “I know it in my heart”, so does every single other religion in the world and this statement by itself means nothing to me. One might say –going back to history- “it’s a historical fact Christ rose from the dead”, obviously it goes without saying I don’t believe this and Muslims would say the same about Muhammad lifted up to heaven. So now that I’m a –hypothetical- theist which one do I choose? I have about 4200 to choose from so this is a tough decision.

My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion; Christianity was simply a sect of a middle-eastern religion that spread like wildfire. It had a system to it that was unique, a system that made people feel obligated to spread it. This is unique in the scale that it occurred with Christianity as all previous religions relied mainly from conquest of other cultures for converts. We didn’t see Zeus evangelicals running around most of the known world erecting statues of his and converting others to be ‘saved’.
So my hypothetical self is in a pickle, every single culture has a religion, who’s right? Is it the biggest one or the one that has the most devout followers ( I’d better be Muslim if the latter is a quality). Is it the one with the most to gain? Is it the one with the greatest sense of purpose? The most historically accurate? The most comforting. The least comforting? The least stressful? The most stressful?

It’d be a good starting point to address what qualities a “true” religion encompasses and how Christianity addresses that.

[Kurieuo]

Hi HFD,

Sorry if it seemed I was being unfair in any of my previous comments.
They really are unintended, but I do try to be fair and keep on the issue.

Really, if you don't see any problems with life arising and think it's all naturally explained, then well...
I'm not sure what I can do to change that. But, I'll say that such is not really view amongst individual scientists in their practice.
Your words here, and this whole discussion, just bring to my mind something the Agnostic Paul Davies wrote.

Paul Davies wrote in one of his best sellers, The Origin of Life (previously The Fifth Miracle):

• When I set out to write this book I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origin. The dramatic evidence for microbes living deep underground, which I first learned about from Gold, promised to provide the 'missing link' between the prebiotic world of biochemical soups and the first primitive cells. And it is true that many scientists working in this field confidently believe that the major problems of biogenesis have largely been solved. Several recent books convey the confident message that life's origin is not really so mysterious after all. However, I think they are wrong. Having spent some years researching the field I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding. To be sure, we have a good idea of the where and the when of life's origin, but we are a very long way from understanding the how.
  
  The gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna. I am not suggesting that life's origin was a supernatural event, only that we are missing something very fundamental about the whole business. If it is the case, as so many experts and commentators suggest, that life is bound to arise given the right conditions, then something truly amazing is happening in the universe, something with profound philosophical ramifications. My personal belief, for what it is worth, is that a fully satisfactory theory of origin of life demands some radically new ideas, perhaps in the area of complexity theory and information theory, and possibly, as I have suggested, involving quantum information processing in some way.
  
  Many investigators feel uneasy about starting in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seem to be two reasons for their unease. Firstly, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists [sounds kind of like you, huh?] and their god-of-the-gaps psudeo-explanations. Secondly, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding, especially for the search for life in space. The view seems to be that governments are more likely to spend money seeking extraterrestrial life if scientists are already convinced it is out there. (bold emphasis and square bracketed comments mine)

The books is quite inexpensive on Kindle, but if you are interested I'd be happy to try lend you this book...

Also, you can be Theist without embracing a religion.
There's a thing that cats like to do called fence sitting.
But to deny a personal God because of man-made religion sources which you see in essence as "stupid". Well, that there is a classical genetic fallacy. Theism can still be true even if all the worlds' religions are wrong.

[Jac3510]

I think that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection would be just the place to focus on myself. HFD's comparison of that eveevent with Muhammad's ssupposed ascension to heaven is, for me, extremely telling as to what he does and doesn't know about both subjects and possibly about historiography in general . . .

[Kurieuo]

I think that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection would be just the place to focus on myself. HFD's comparison of that eveevent with Muhammad's ssupposed ascension to heaven is, for me, extremely telling as to what he does and doesn't know about both subjects and possibly about historiography in general . . .

I'd obviously agree, and the claims of each ought to be tested rather than just leaving it to be a matter of "heart".
Certainly HFD calling such just a matter of a feeling in our "heart" shows any examination has only been superficial at best.
Why I think I'll choose chocolate today and be Muslim for a bit... :p

BUT, "the point" as I saw it seemed to be HFD doesn't respect any religion today so was rejecting Theism:

My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion...

This isn't really a good or valid reason for rejecting Theism.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I think that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection would be just the place to focus on myself. HFD's comparison of that eveevent with Muhammad's ssupposed ascension to heaven is, for me, extremely telling as to what he does and doesn't know about both subjects and possibly about historiography in general . . .

Ouch. I consider both historically inaccurate from what I've read (which contrary to your belief is satisfactory for knowledge) and I tend to see a pretty good pattern of later christian revisionism to support historical "fact."

I'm pretty open to new information. I don't have my feet in concrete on this, feel free to present information Jac; I do pride myself on opening most links posted.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion...

This isn't really a good or valid reason for rejecting Theism.[/quote]

I'm blind, 4200 different people are trying to convince me what color this flower in front of me is. Who do I believe?
This is how I feel in regards to religion.


"respect any religion"
I'm not sure if that means as it sounds but if it does, it's not true.

[Kurieuo]

My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion...

This isn't really a good or valid reason for rejecting Theism.

I'm blind, 4200 different people are trying to convince me what color this flower in front of me is. Who do I believe?
This is how I feel in regards to religion.

Ok, but then Theism is wrong because you feel (or even accepting as a given) no religion to date is right?

[HappyFlappyTheist]

My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion...

This isn't really a good or valid reason for rejecting Theism.

I'm blind, 4200 different people are trying to convince me what color this flower in front of me is. Who do I believe?
This is how I feel in regards to religion.

Ok, but then Theism is wrong because you feel (or even accepting as a given) no religion to date is right?

Yes. It's a large leap from "some being created the laws" and has far reaching cultural implications.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I'm working on my "--in depth--why i'm no longer a christian post" fyi, I'm balancing between that and a lab summarization. I think I may slip up and accidentally answer a few of your standing questions regarding my personal beliefs.