Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as a person who is convinced of a creator, i was wondering why the acceptence of a diestic/theistic god is considered impractical or improbable
"Impractical" or "improbable" are not the words I employ for this, they are "irrelevant" and "unnecessary." If there is a creator out there which has specific desires regarding our conduct, but fails to make any of these desires known, we are in the same situation we would be in if there was no creator. Until any creator decides to put in an appearance and give us an operator's manual for life, all we can do is make ridiculously wild guesses about what it wants us to do, or even if it cares what we do or pays any attention at all to us. Under such circumstances, why bother even thinking about it? Irrespective of the answer, your life is the same.
I am agnostic relative to a First Cause. I have nothing against the concept itself. I just don't know what that means for the likes of us. If it is removed and uninvolved in human affairs, is impersonal, etc., then it has no real impact on my day to day life.
If the universe is conscious and alive (and many think it is), then it would naturally generate life.
Some atheists might say, ok maybe the universe is conscious, we don't know. But if it is, that in no way implies there is a personal God, as described in the Western bibles.
No, it doesn't. But there is also no reason to think a universal consciousness could not have a "personality." There is no reason to think it could not generate an infinite number of personalities, which include ourselves, and all the super-physical entities referred to as spirits, demons, gods, etc.
People can believe all they want and I believed and started to get closer and closer to NOT believing in my 60's....you close to that age yet?
You posted recently about a spiritual organization you belong to, which believes in universal consciousness. So I don't understand why you say you don't believe. What do you not believe in?
You posted recently about a spiritual organization you belong to, which believes in universal consciousness. So I don't understand why you say you don't believe. What do you not believe in?
I don't believe in a supreme being, but I subscribe to MOST of the principles of Science of Mind and I believe I said, I make alterations for my beliefs.
The Power of Positive Thinking foremost. Half Full vs Half Empty thinking about life.
I personally don't have major issues with a deistic god. I think a deistic god is superfluous when it comes to explaining the natural world, but otherwise - meh. I suspect most atheists would feel about the same. It's the Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham types who have seriously allergic reactions to the idea of a christian-based deistic god.
What atheists *are* seriously allergic to is
1) insisting that some holy scripture or other should be the source for civil law, and
2) demanding that conflict between holy scripture and science must be resolved in favor of scripture
As long as a deist avoids both (1) and (2), I won't be all that interested in arguing the point, but if you're seriously interested in arguing it, sure, I'll play.
Last edited by jacqueg; 11-03-2018 at 12:28 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
