if God were real...?

[Etritonakin]

Hi Etritonakin,



No, that's not exactly what I am saying. Not merely raw intelligence and knowledge from an intellectual standpoint (though they can help), but additionally wisdom and compassion are more fundamental. Wisdom and compassion are deeper than mere information alone, they speak to a deeper, more mature understanding and core feelings about self, others, and life in what I would call a spiritual or soulful sense.



Perhaps I should clarify a few things. Rather than define it in terms of obedience to a deity, I think of "rightness" in terms of how deeply insightful, psychologically speaking perhaps, a person is at understanding the causes of their own and others' sufferings. In Buddhism, which I think has a very accurate view of real human psychology, the causes of self-made suffering stem from the untamed passions or cravings: hatred, greed, and ignorance. A wise person is one who possesses such virtues as equanimity, compassion, wisdom, and diligence towards their efforts to cease the causes of suffering. In more deeply understanding the causes of suffering, one inevitably comes to recognize and release those causes, thereby detaching themselves from their negative influences. This actually increases our freedom. It does not make us programmed automatons as you suggest, but in fact has the opposite effect. Only when one is bound and attached to one's unconscious cravings or passions is one an automaton, enslaved to their base passions, perpetually creating suffering without control.

.

"the causes of self-made suffering stem from the untamed passions or cravings: hatred, greed, and ignorance. A wise person is one who possesses such virtues as equanimity, compassion, wisdom, and diligence towards their efforts to cease the causes of suffering. In more deeply understanding the causes of suffering, one inevitably comes to recognize and release those causes, thereby detaching themselves from their negative influences. This actually increases our freedom. It does not make us programmed automatons as you suggest, but in fact has the opposite effect. Only when one is bound and attached to one's unconscious cravings or passions is one an automaton, enslaved to their base passions, perpetually creating suffering without control."

I was not suggesting that would make us automatons -I was saying that not being allowed to do that ourselves -which requires time and experience -would make us automatons.

God actually can instantaneously give us understanding -even talents and skills -like something from The Matrix or the Forbidden Planet learning machines of the Krell....

Exo 31:2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
Exo 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
Exo 31:4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
Exo 31:5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

...but such cannot make us perfect and incorruptible.

Our being involved in that process is necessary, and while that is being accomplished -while WE freely travel to recognize and release those causes (and, in tandem, are given increased power and understanding to do so by the spirit of God), those causes are having the effects we see in the world.
Later -those effects will be erased, but we will no longer have the untamed passions or cravings: hatred, greed, and ignorance -and so will not need to repeat the same mistakes -so the environment (which includes ourselves and each other) will not be adversely affected as we see now.

While it may not be apparent -and you may not believe so, a human is able to do those things on a human level from a human perspective -but the spirit of God -which is given after initial repentance, baptism and laying on of hands -allows for a greater perspective of what is right -God's perspective -and the power to align one's self with it over time. A human may also travel to be wise and good, but then they die and cannot apply those things. A human cannot grant themselves eternal life to apply those things after they have recognized and released them. Regardless of how one might believe they might live again -it will not be by their own doing.

Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[serp777]

Consciousness is such an un-physical phenomenon.

That website looks sketchy and unreliable. COnsciousness is not fully understood and all indications from medicine suggest consciousness is physical. If you change the physical brain even slightly, you can completely alter someone's brain and consciousness--turning them into a completely different person.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Etritonakin,

"the causes of self-made suffering stem from the untamed passions or cravings: hatred, greed, and ignorance. A wise person is one who possesses such virtues as equanimity, compassion, wisdom, and diligence towards their efforts to cease the causes of suffering. In more deeply understanding the causes of suffering, one inevitably comes to recognize and release those causes, thereby detaching themselves from their negative influences. This actually increases our freedom. It does not make us programmed automatons as you suggest, but in fact has the opposite effect. Only when one is bound and attached to one's unconscious cravings or passions is one an automaton, enslaved to their base passions, perpetually creating suffering without control."

I was not suggesting that would make us automatons -I was saying that not being allowed to do that ourselves -which requires time and experience -would make us automatons.

And my point is that the process towards this liberation would be entirely unnecessary if God really existed as claimed and bestowed us with liberated wisdom to begin with. Those of us who go through the practices of releasing the causes of suffering do so because this is what we have to work with, because nobody is apparently going to do it for us.

In a universe without God, it makes sense that we would need to do this, since we are an evolving people, slowly learning as we go. But a universe with God, this seems to me like an enormous and unreasonably inconsistent oversight.

God actually can instantaneously give us understanding -even talents and skills -like something from The Matrix or the Forbidden Planet learning machines of the Krell....

Exo 31:2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
Exo 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
Exo 31:4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
Exo 31:5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

...but such cannot make us perfect and incorruptible.

I disagree. I think an enlightened person would be purified of all the causes of self-made suffering. I suspect, however, that ideas about what it means to be perfect and pure deviate between Christianity and Buddhism though. Again, I'm not speaking of mere technological advancement and power, but insight and wisdom, or enlightenment if you will.

Our being involved in that process is necessary, and while that is being accomplished -while WE freely travel to recognize and release those causes (and, in tandem, are given increased power and understanding to do so by the spirit of God), those causes are having the effects we see in the world.
Later -those effects will be erased, but we will no longer have the untamed passions or cravings: hatred, greed, and ignorance -and so will not need to repeat the same mistakes -so the environment (which includes ourselves and each other) will not be adversely affected as we see now.

While it may not be apparent -and you may not believe so, a human is able to do those things on a human level from a human perspective -but the spirit of God -which is given after initial repentance, baptism and laying on of hands -allows for a greater perspective of what is right -God's perspective -and the power to align one's self with it over time. A human may also travel to be wise and good, but then they die and cannot apply those things. A human cannot grant themselves eternal life to apply those things after they have recognized and released them. Regardless of how one might believe they might live again -it will not be by their own doing.

Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

It is necessary. But again, it would not be if God instilled in us the wisdom necessary for an enlightened perspective from the start. Which only reaffirms my position that the universe as we know it is entirely consistent with a godless one.

As an aside, in Buddhism it is believed that an ordinary person can indeed attain the "greatest perspective," as you put it. Enlightenment, the cessation of dissatisfaction and suffering. I believe this is possible. I am more skeptical of supernatural claims in any religion, but traditional Buddhism portrays the Buddhas as celestial beings who are incomparably more elevated in power and wisdom than the gods.

 

[Etritonakin]

Hi Etritonakin,



And my point is that the process towards this liberation would be entirely unnecessary if God really existed as claimed and bestowed us with liberated wisdom to begin with. Those of us who go through the practices of releasing the causes of suffering do so because this is what we have to work with, because nobody is apparently going to do it for us.

In a universe without God, it makes sense that we would need to do this, since we are an evolving people, slowly learning as we go. But a universe with God, this seems to me like an enormous and unreasonably inconsistent oversight.



I disagree. I think an enlightened person would be purified of all the causes of self-made suffering. I suspect, however, that ideas about what it means to be perfect and pure deviate between Christianity and Buddhism though. Again, I'm not speaking of mere technological advancement and power, but insight and wisdom, or enlightenment if you will.



It is necessary. But again, it would not be if God instilled in us the wisdom necessary for an enlightened perspective from the start. Which only reaffirms my position that the universe as we know it is entirely consistent with a godless one.

As an aside, in Buddhism it is believed that an ordinary person can indeed attain the "greatest perspective," as you put it. Enlightenment, the cessation of dissatisfaction and suffering. I believe this is possible. I am more skeptical of supernatural claims in any religion, but traditional Buddhism portrays the Buddhas as celestial beings who are incomparably more elevated in power and wisdom than the gods.

It should be obvious that having wisdom is not enough.
We still choose to do that which is against that wisdom.

What you are saying is not possible.
The only way to accomplish what you are describing is not to provide us with knowledge and wisdom -but to remove choice from us.
That would remove individuality -the ability to say "I am who I choose to be" -and that is something WE demand!
That is being forced to do something -that is something we would not choose -not like -and it would lead to rebellion.
God gives us sufficient wisdom and knowledge -and we still rebel.
God gave us the freedom to rebel.
God gave us the freedom to mature.
After much protest against God's wisdom and instruction,
God allowed us to grow weary of foolishness. He still gave us what we needed beforehand -so that it could not be said that he did not.
With experience we will be able to say "I am who I want to be -and I choose to be governed by God, because I have experienced that God is correct."

We cannot simply be told -we have to prove it -one way or another.
Even the two thirds of the angels who did not rebel have seen the fruits of rebellion.
The knowledge and wisdom we receive is tested by being applied to the reality in which we exist -by ourselves or others -to remove doubt -and experience -living the long term -causes us to choose the greatest long-term good.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Etritonakin,

It should be obvious that having wisdom is not enough.
We still choose to do that which is against that wisdom.

I disagree entirely. If someone opts to do something foolish, then it follows that they're not actually wise to begin with. Being capable of choosing to do something foolish precludes the possibility of being wise. Instead, being wise means one is aware of just how foolish a given action is, and will freely choose not to do it.

If one thinks one is wise and knows what is right, yet does something foolish anyway... then one is not really that wise then. Perhaps they glimpse a greater wisdom, but aren't quite there yet.

I think you are having trouble grasping what exactly I am talking about. Sorry if I am not being clear enough.

Let me put it to you this way. In Buddhism, being unwise is not seen as a freedom one has been bestowed with. Rather, it is likened to being symptomatic of mental illness. Causing suffering and being dissatisfied are symptoms of a corruption of one's true nature, of an unhealthy state of being, rather than a legitimate choice one can choose to make. Meditation, or the practice of releasing the causes of dissatisfaction and suffering, is likened to administering medicine for the sick. An enlightened person can be seen in this regard as a truly healthy person, and one who has inoculated themselves from being sick again in the future.

So when looked at in this way, we see that foolish actions are symptomatic of being ill, or of lacking wisdom, lacking awareness. Do we think of a sick person as a more free person than a well person? Is the sick person more free than a well person because they have the choice to either (a) continue feeling bad (or worsening and even dying painfully) or (b) to meditate and become well? Is the well person, inoculated from the causes of suffering and dissatisfaction, not free to choose to feel mentally sick again? These questions, I hope, begin to reveal the absurdity behind why we might think of the "freedom" to make wrong choices is somehow indicative of freedom.

What you are saying is not possible.

I believe it is possible. Which renders God's choice to not innately bestow us with said wisdom illogical imo.

The only way to accomplish what you are describing is not to provide us with knowledge and wisdom -but to remove choice from us.
That would remove individuality -the ability to say "I am who I choose to be" -and that is something WE demand!
That is being forced to do something -that is something we would not choose -not like -and it would lead to rebellion.
God gives us sufficient wisdom and knowledge -and we still rebel.
God gave us the freedom to rebel.

God gave us the freedom to mature.
After much protest against God's wisdom and instruction,
God allowed us to grow weary of foolishness. He still gave us what we needed beforehand -so that it could not be said that he did not.
With experience we will be able to say "I am who I want to be -and I choose to be governed by God, because I have experienced that God is correct."

We cannot simply be told -we have to prove it -one way or another.
Even the two thirds of the angels who did not rebel have seen the fruits of rebellion.
The knowledge and wisdom we receive is tested by being applied to the reality in which we exist -by ourselves or others -to remove doubt -and experience -living the long term -causes us to choose the greatest long-term good.

Honestly, I think this is an inaccurate portrayal of why we suffer and how we can overcome it. Instead of seeing life in terms of the authoritarian obedience and rebellion you describe above, I personally have long been drawn to Buddhism in lieu of Christianity which imo puts forth a deeper and more logical methodology for identifying and uprooting the real causes of suffering and dissatisfaction.

 

[Etritonakin]

Hi Etritonakin,



I disagree entirely. If someone opts to do something foolish, then it follows that they're not actually wise to begin with. Being capable of choosing to do something foolish precludes the possibility of being wise. Instead, being wise means one is aware of just how foolish a given action is, and will freely choose not to do it.

If one thinks one is wise and knows what is right, yet does something foolish anyway... then one is not really that wise then. Perhaps they glimpse a greater wisdom, but aren't quite there yet.

I think you are having trouble grasping what exactly I am talking about. Sorry if I am not being clear enough.

Let me put it to you this way. In Buddhism, being unwise is not seen as a freedom one has been bestowed with. Rather, it is likened to being symptomatic of mental illness. Causing suffering and being dissatisfied are symptoms of a corruption of one's true nature, of an unhealthy state of being, rather than a legitimate choice one can choose to make. Meditation, or the practice of releasing the causes of dissatisfaction and suffering, is likened to administering medicine for the sick. An enlightened person can be seen in this regard as a truly healthy person, and one who has inoculated themselves from being sick again in the future.

So when looked at in this way, we see that foolish actions are symptomatic of being ill, or of lacking wisdom, lacking awareness. Do we think of a sick person as a more free person than a well person? Is the sick person more free than a well person because they have the choice to either (a) continue feeling bad (or worsening and even dying painfully) or (b) to meditate and become well? Is the well person, inoculated from the causes of suffering and dissatisfaction, not free to choose to feel mentally sick again? These questions, I hope, begin to reveal the absurdity behind why we might think of the "freedom" to make wrong choices is somehow indicative of freedom.



I believe it is possible. Which renders God's choice to not innately bestow us with said wisdom illogical imo.



Honestly, I think this is an inaccurate portrayal of why we suffer and how we can overcome it. Instead of seeing life in terms of the authoritarian obedience and rebellion you describe above, I personally have long been drawn to Buddhism in lieu of Christianity which imo puts forth a deeper and more logical methodology for identifying and uprooting the real causes of suffering and dissatisfaction.

I am not saying what you believe I am on a few subjects.

I am not speaking of anything authoritarIAN. I am saying that God -by nature -is in authority -is the authority on everything. He freely gives perfect wisdom and knowledge -and we freely reject it -sometimes even when we know it is correct. God gave us the freedom to choose ignorance -ignorance is not itself freedom. Freedom is actually obedience to God -but we must choose obedience freely. Obedience to God is freedom because his law allows for creativity without conflict. Disobedience to God -to righteousness, as he is righteousness personified -causes conflict -and keeping those who choose conflict ignorant is wise, as it decreases their destructive power.
If God had not confused speech at Babel, we would likely have had the power to destroy all life on earth much sooner.

You are free to believe as you do -but I do not see proof of such in reality.
Also... I do not believe it effectively provides a remedy to the problems of humanity as a whole, as successive generations -regardless of what some learn -move us closer toward self-destruction. Even if not, they simply repeat the same mistakes and must learn the same lessons.

If we have wisdom -and grant it to the next generation -some listen and some do not. Some are moved to greater good -and some are moved to greater evil.
God gave everything necessary to the angels -but that wisdom -without experience -was the unproven word of one. It was doubted even though it could be reasoned within the mind.

Only if we are able to live again to apply what we have learned will any lesson make any real difference. Increased longevity will allow for more permanent application of wisdom -eternity more so.
Only if those who choose right are prospered and those who do evil are disciplined by righteous and powerful authority will things be righted. As it stands, evil may be illogical -but it has the power to completely destroy both the evil and the good.
Only if doubt and temptation are removed by experience can they be completely eradicated.

The plan outlined in the bible answers all of those issues.

God is perfectly able to make beings incapable of disobedience -incapable of unrighteousness -but they would be fundamentally different, and would be lesser than what we will be in the future -that being completely independent persons having chosen by their own will to be righteous and to be governed by perfect authority -to master reality themselves.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Question -
If God were real ... and If we were all created by this God ...and if he was good and if he loved all the people that he created and his intentions and motives were perfect and He had our best interest in mind, would you follow him? And Why? if you don't mind

Yes.

If his intentions and motivations were perfect, he would have absolutely provided clear evidence for everyone on a global scale.

He would have written his instructions with clear, concise text in all languages that was not culturally specific, perfectly confirmed or predicted all scientific evidence we could ever find, and contains no reversal of character or moral controversies.

I would follow that God, and I'm sure you would too. Anything less is beneath both of our dignity as rational, caring human beings.

Is this the God you follow?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes.
If his intentions and motivations were perfect, he would have absolutely provided clear evidence for everyone on a global scale.
He would have written his instructions with clear, concise text in all languages that was not culturally specific, perfectly confirmed or predicted all scientific evidence we could ever find, and contains no reversal of character or moral controversies.
I would follow that God, and I'm sure you would too. Anything less is beneath both of our dignity as rational, caring human beings.

Evidence is found today on a global scale by the international proclaiming about the good news of God's kingdom today - Matthew 24:14
Modern technology has helped make rapid Bible translation possible so that people even in earth's remote areas can now have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.
It is scientific that the Earth hangs upon nothing - Job 26:7
God's moral standards do Not change - Hebrews 13:4
Intentions and motivations are perfect: Mankind can live forever on Earth as long as keeping God's Law.
Satan and father Adam lost healthy human perfection for us.
Jesus will undo or reverse all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.- 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8
Mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' on Earth for the healing of earth's nations as mentioned at Revelation 22:2
That is in fullfillment to God's promise to Abraham that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Question -
If God were real ... and If we were all created by this God ...and if he was good and if he loved all the people that he created and his intentions and motives were perfect and He had our best interest in mind, would you follow him? And Why? if you don't mind

Didn't Peter, as spokesman for the 12 disciples, already answer the ^above ^ at John 6:67-69 ?_______

 

[Milton Platt]

What specifically in your life leads you to say God does not appear to exist?

lack of good evidence, despite 2,000 years of professional apologists giving it their all.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

lack of good evidence, despite 2,000 years of professional apologists giving it their all.

Let me rephrase my question:
What specific event in your life led you to conclude for the first time that God did not appear to exist?

I am pretty sure that at age 7 you could not have examined 2000 years of data.
I am trying to get to that proverbial straw that made the camel wince one times too many.

 

[Milton Platt]

Let me rephrase my question:
What specific event in your life led you to conclude for the first time that God did not appear to exist?

I am pretty sure that at age 7 you could not have examined 2000 years of data.
I am trying to get to that proverbial straw that made the camel wince one times too many.

I don't recall mentioning that I examined all the apologetics at or by age 7......

No specific event at all was required. I simply started out as a child without any beliefs about gods ( except maybe those in comic books) and as an adult, decided that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was one. I've looked at it all, by now....I'm 67 this year (well, with respect to the Christian/Jewish god, anyway). I do not think there have been any really new arguments (aka apologetics) over the years, but often a repackaging of older arguments.

I would never argue that there is a 100% certainty that there were no gods of any kind, but I am as certain about the absence of gods as I am about the absence of unicorns. If you have any evidence that is not the repeatedly refuted standbys, I would be happy to hear them. Google them first to see if they are truly new...it will save us time.

I admit that I don't have any idea what evidence I would need to believe such a fantastical claim, but the god should know. I guess it chooses to withhold the information. If that's the case, I can't do much about it.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I don't recall mentioning that I examined all the apologetics at or by age 7......

No specific event at all was required. I simply started out as a child without any beliefs about gods ( except maybe those in comic books) and as an adult, decided that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was one. I've looked at it all, by now....I'm 67 this year (well, with respect to the Christian/Jewish god, anyway). I do not think there have been any really new arguments (aka apologetics) over the years, but often a repackaging of older arguments.

I would never argue that there is a 100% certainty that there were no gods of any kind, but I am as certain about the absence of gods as I am about the absence of unicorns. If you have any evidence that is not the repeatedly refuted standbys, I would be happy to hear them. Google them first to see if they are truly new...it will save us time.

I admit that I don't have any idea what evidence I would need to believe such a fantastical claim, but the god should know. I guess it chooses to withhold the information. If that's the case, I can't do much about it.

I just use the age of 7 as a benchmark. Still there must have been a time when you felt you had made up your mind
that Thor of the comic books was not going to lend you his hammer (and the others were also uninterested in you).

I really do not see how Aquinas' argument from design can be refuted using logic; at least for an impersonal Deist idea of The God.
But such is often denied due to emotive claims towards a God that cares. Personal grief being seen as carrying more weight than logic.

The intricacy of the laws of physical nature especially (and biology as well) are far too neat to happen through chance.
I suggest that any denial of Aquinas argument from design can only be based on the emotion of grievance towards The God.

My own appreciation of just the force of gravity puts me into a deep relationship to The God.
Another example is the Divine perfection of Pythagoras' triangle.
Are you involved in the laws of nature intimately?

 

[Milton Platt]

I just use the age of 7 as a benchmark. Still there must have been a time when you felt you had made up your mind
that Thor of the comic books was not going to lend you his hammer (and the others were also uninterested in you).

I really do not see how Aquinas' argument from design can be refuted using logic; at least for an impersonal Deist idea of The God.
But such is often denied due to emotive claims towards a God that cares. Personal grief being seen as carrying more weight than logic.

The intricacy of the laws of physical nature especially (and biology as well) are far too neat to happen through chance.
I suggest that any denial of Aquinas argument from design can only be based on the emotion of grievance towards The God.

My own appreciation of just the force of gravity puts me into a deep relationship to The God.
Another example is the Divine perfection of Pythagoras' triangle.
Are you involved in the laws of nature intimately?

Well, Thor was an easy one to figure out. Nobody was insisting he was real, anyway.

I cannot pinpoint an age where there was a switch from theism to atheism, and I only learned about the word deism a few years ago, so it did not even figure into my thinking. I also never used the word atheist untill about maybe ten years ago, and that was because a theist brought it to my attention. Certainly I must have heard the word before, just never gave it any rhought, just as I never gave gods or religion any real thought from day to day.
For there to have been a specific turning point from theism to atheism, I would have to have been a theist in the first place.

If there had to be a supernatural force that created everything, deism would certainly make more sense as oposed to theism.

But all I hear are arguments from ignorance. People essentially don't positively demonstrate the existence of their god, they just tell me that this or that could not exist without their own version of whatever deity they believe in.

It's sort of, "well,look at this or that....how could it be this way without a god?" My position is "I don't know, and neither do you". Just because you can think of no other explanaition, there is no reason to insert a god into the knowledge void.

I would only use the argument of evil with a theist, not a deist. At least none that I have conversed with so far.

Am I involved with the laws of nature intimately? There is,no human that is not.....it is those laws that describe how the natural world works, and we are entirely natural.

But we must remember that they are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are called laws by us because we chose that moniker. The laws are our own description of how things work. The laws don't cause things to work, they simply describe how thing work.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well, Thor was an easy one to figure out. Nobody was insisting he was real, anyway.

I cannot pinpoint an age where there was a switch from theism to atheism, and I only learned about the word deism a few years ago, so it did not even figure into my thinking. I also never used the word atheist untill about maybe ten years ago, and that was because a theist brought it to my attention. Certainly I must have heard the word before, just never gave it any rhought, just as I never gave gods or religion any real thought from day to day.
For there to have been a specific turning point from theism to atheism, I would have to have been a theist in the first place.

If there had to be a supernatural force that created everything, deism would certainly make more sense as oposed to theism.

But all I hear are arguments from ignorance. People essentially don't positively demonstrate the existence of their god, they just tell me that this or that could not exist without their own version of whatever deity they believe in.

It's sort of, "well,look at this or that....how could it be this way without a god?" My position is "I don't know, and neither do you". Just because you can think of no other explanaition, there is no reason to insert a god into the knowledge void.

I would only use the argument of evil with a theist, not a deist. At least none that I have conversed with so far.

Am I involved with the laws of nature intimately? There is,no human that is not.....it is those laws that describe how the natural world works, and we are entirely natural.

But we must remember that they are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are called laws by us because we chose that moniker. The laws are our own description of how things work. The laws don't cause things to work, they simply describe how thing work.

It seems your position is actually agnostic, which is quite different to saying that The God does not exist.
But have you considered the following argument (which is my own but inspired by Aquinas' argument from design):

Consider where humanity will be in say 2000 years; probably colonizing the stars is a fair prediction.
(There are other less positive scenarios, but its not a wildly far-fetched prediction)
Now consider 20 000 years: terra-forming entire planet-scapes; making worlds like Venus habitable.
And after 200 000 years? Fabricating entire life-forms, no doubt.
After 2 million years?
Perhaps causing stars to go nova in order to construct entire worlds out of the debris.
20 million, 200 million?
2 Billion years?
Somewhere we will get to the point of being able to build entire Universes.
We will be able to eventually construct Universes more amazing than this one.
We will in affect be fabricating the laws of nature of such Universes.
We will become greater than The God (Deism) is to us now.
If there is no Soul that survives death, we will make it.

This is all because the capacity to design is the essence of what Creation is.
And there is nothing at all weird about this process.
So it is the only explanation for how this Universe came to be what it is:
Created by a Designer.
There is just no other explanation.