Dishonest Apologetics

[Cinette]

Dear Surfmeister

I owe you a debt of gratitude. You opened my mind to a truth which got me reflecting and reaching a conclusion which is really important.

I had never really known the meaning of deism and if I came across the word I might have just ignored it. I am not sure, but here on this thread you nagged me into looking up the word, you insisted that Sartre and Einstein must have believed in a deist god. To my mind the logical conclusion of Einstein and Sartre’s words was that they finally acknowledged the existence of a Creator - God. That is still my conclusion.

But you kept nagging me and insisting that I define this God. You made a distinction between what you called a Catholic God and a deist god. You were like a thorn in my side! You made me mad! Now I thank you.:yup:

I began to reflect on my life and the 27 years when I had turned my back on God and His Church. I never denied the existence of God but I might have. I thought I didn’t need religion - that it was for weaklings and the feeble minded. It was during that time that I met my husband and we had two more children who were not baptised.

Then one day I felt the need to pray for peace in the world. I had misread something in the newspaper that there was a call to pray for peace at a certain hour. I recall it was 31st December and my Mother in law who also felt a desire to pray with me came with me to Church for an hour of meditation. We were surprised to find that there were just a few people obviously the usual people who come daily for a visit and prayer. We remained for an hour anyway. That was the start of my return to the Catholic Church.

I realise now that during those 27 years I was a deist! I have often thanked God for taking care of me during that time. I bore two healthy children, I married a good man and who knows what else I might have been protected from? I realise how indifferent I had been. Indifference is worse than nonbelief. Being a deist is worse than being an atheist!

So I thank you again Surfmeister, very much.

It is now 3.05am and I have been up for an hour thinking about this and smiling - yes, I owe you a debt a gratitude and I feel the need to tell you this. Thank you again.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well Mr Atheist, I would like you to show me where in my post I said that this brilliant scientist believed in God because of his research. You are reading that into what I have written. Even Cinette’s post never ever claimed that Einsteins’s belief was based on scientific research.

I didn’t mean his research in the sense that science somehow showed him that God exists. I meant that it sounded like you were saying that Einstein’s experiences led him to belief in God. Since you brought up a famous scientist, I figured you thought that science factored into his thoughts on God (though I didn’t think you meant it was solely due to science). It is natural to figure that there was some reason that you (or Cinette) chose to mention a brilliant scientist. For example, it would seem pretty strange if I were to make a post about how Patton Oswalt is an atheist, and you might not understand why I would feel that it was worth mentioning. However, if I said that Steven Hawking was an atheist, you would probably think that I was either trying to show that it’s possible for a smart scientist to be an atheist, or that science and intelligence lead to atheism.

I did not assume your intent. I just thought I should be honest and say how the posts sounded to me. I was not making assumptions about your intent.

All I wrote is that a brilliant scientist believes in God. Nothing more nothing less. If you read more into that then that is your fault. … “When in doubt, ask” is a good dictum.

But when we mention facts, we typically have a reason. For example, while an interesting fact, I don’t usually mention that the capital of Honduras is Tegucigalpa. We can’t know what someone meant, but we try to make the best guess we can. I did not assume that my guess was correct, and I don’t think I’ve accused anyone of being dishonest. I wanted to say how I interpreted your words so that hopefully you can set the record straight. Maybe it would help if you explained why you thought it was worth mentioning that a brilliant scientist believed in God. I guess I’m just still slightly unclear about your original intent.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist! Hey!

There is an interesting book called “How the Catholic church Built Western Civilization.” by Professor Thomas Woods. Woods is the author of the NewYork Times best seller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History as well as The Church Confronts Modernity. etc. etc. He holds 4 Ivy League degrees, including an A.B from Harvard and a PhD from Columbia.

Even if you don’t believe you will at least be surprised. A most enjoyable book.

Cheers
Cinette

Thanks for the recommendation. Most of it was on Google Books, so I decided to read a bit of it. It was okay, but I didn’t think I’d get all that much out of it. I’m not a Hitchens-type atheist claiming that religion is pure evil and has done no good in the world. So it might give me more details about the Church’s history, but I don’t think it would change my views about anything. Right now I’m trying to focus more on books that are about reasons for belief, or disbelief. Thanks again for the recommendation, and let me know if you think of any other books I might like.

 

[Cinette]

I didn’t mean his research in the sense that science somehow showed him that God exists. I meant that it sounded like you were saying that Einstein’s experiences led him to belief in God. Since you brought up a famous scientist, I figured you thought that science factored into his thoughts on God (though I didn’t think you meant it was solely due to science). It is natural to figure that there was some reason that you (or Cinette) chose to mention a brilliant scientist. For example, it would seem pretty strange if I were to make a post about how Patton Oswalt is an atheist, and you might not understand why I would feel that it was worth mentioning. However, if I said that Steven Hawking was an atheist, you would probably think that I was either trying to show that it’s possible for a smart scientist to be an atheist, or that science and intelligence lead to atheism.I can only answer for myself but I believe that Science probably did lead Einstein or any other scientist to come to the conclusion of the existence of God. I remember when my husband was reading one of these scientific books he tried to explain something about atoms or cells (amino acid and protein I think - can’t speak to him now he is asleep!!) and how they were perfectly lined up and in sequence and how perfectly balanced they were and how it was impossible for science to replicate them. He said something about the balance of things and how if rocked things can go horribly wrong. Please be patient with my simple explanation - I cannot reproduce these things accurately. So yes, I believe that scientists who are able to understand these things and who also perceive other dimensions (other than those 4 which we laymen perceive) can come to the conclusion that there MUST be a superior being, a Creator, a GOD!

I did not assume your intent. I just thought I should be honest and say how the posts sounded to me. I was not making assumptions about your intent.

But when we mention facts, we typically have a reason. For example, while an interesting fact, I don’t usually mention that the capital of Honduras is Tegucigalpa. We can’t know what someone meant, but we try to make the best guess we can. I did not assume that my guess was correct, and I don’t think I’ve accused anyone of being dishonest. I wanted to say how I interpreted your words so that hopefully you can set the record straight. I am sure you will recall that Benedictus said she was off for a week on a project but she is quite capable of taking a peek at this and answering you. I have to admit that I was rather disturbed in being labelled a “dishonest apologist” by someone else. I was flattered to be considered an apologist but very disappointed to be called “dishonest”. If I am wrong and make a mistake (whoever has never made a mistake…has never made anything!) I will recognise my mistake and try to right it but don’t call me dishonest please! Maybe it would help if you explained why you thought it was worth mentioning that a brilliant scientist believed in God.Your conclusions were correct in my case! I guess I’m just still slightly unclear about your original intent.

 

[Cinette]

Thanks for the recommendation. Most of it was on Google Books, so I decided to read a bit of it. It was okay, but I didn’t think I’d get all that much out of it. I’m not a Hitchens-type atheist claiming that religion is pure evil and has done no good in the world. So it might give me more details about the Church’s history, but I don’t think it would change my views about anything. Right now I’m trying to focus more on books that are about reasons for belief, or disbelief. Thanks again for the recommendation, and let me know if you think of any other books I might like.

Well there are those two books I mentioned by Gerald Schroeder which did have a marked influence on my husband. I notice he is reading another book which perhaps is not of the same category but is interesting nevertheless The Science before Science - A guide to thinking in the 21st Century. Anthony Rizzi.

I can only repeat myself. To always seek truth is important for everyone and we continue in this quest always - we never arrive because the goal posts keep moving. We never exhaust our thirst and hunger for more. We were made that way. God has given us an inbuilt mechanism which keeps us going. Like St Augustine said, “Our hearts were made for you Oh Lord and will not rest until they rest in you.” Not sure how accurate my representation is but you understand I am sure.

We will never be fully satisfied in this world. Isn’t that great? We have this mechanism which drives us all the time - this tension!

Cinette

 

[joe370]

EvilAtheist;5322839]If Jesus performed even 1/2 of the miracles you listed, that would be enough to convince me to believe (and actually, one miracle would be enough). The issue for me is that I don’t have enough reasons to trust the biblical account. I don’t assume that what is written in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon is correct until someone shows me reasons to think it is true.

**So, what you want is confirmation from God, before you will believe?

**
My current belief is that the Bible is based on a small amount of true events and that these were exaggerated and expanded as the story spread. So I don’t think it works to cite Bible stories until you establish that they are true. And the same thing holds with prophecies that the gospels say that Jesus made. If there’s no good evidence that Jesus made them, or that the prophecies were made before the events happened, then I don’t think they’re good evidence for Christianity.

**Why do you believe that the Bible is based on a small amount of true events? Is there good evidence for atheism?
**

I’m still waiting to hear good evidence that there have been Christian miracles or incredibly accurate prophecies. I do not believe that the miracles claimed by any religion are real (at least until I see good reasons to think that they are).

**Unless God provides you with said evidence, no doubt you will never embrace Christianity. If you are looking for this evidence from a Christian, you will be waiting for a very long time my friend; we cant’ prove to you that Jesus worked miracles; we were not there; we simply have faith. Type in: the apparitions of Garabandal, if you want to witness people witnessing miracles. **

No, because we have experience with how cars come into being, whereas we have no experience with how universes come into being.

So you are saying: since I do not know how the infinite universe was created, then it must not have been created?

Also, the universe (and by universe I mean the entire natural world) could easily have existed eternally.

Sure, but without a designer?

 

[joe370]

So just like you (I presume) can’t explain why there is a God and the universe instead of no God and no universe, I don’t know why there is a universe instead of no universe. There are some questions that we can never know the answer to.

**YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, at least until we leave this world.

**
Assuming the girl hadn’t drank gallons of olive oil, and the girls had no natural way of knowing who owned the rosaries, either of these would be excellent evidence that Catholicism is true (probably enough for me convert)

**So, you really believe that if I drink a bottle of olive oil, I will exude 100% of said oil, from my body? If I drink a coke will I sweat the coke out, in its original state?
Insulin, an important protein hormone is secreted by the pancreas; what part of the body secretes 100% olive oil, of an unknown origin? Scientist who observed this phenomenon insist that this is no different than a person exuding 100% automobile oil. Surely if I drink auto oil 2 things will happen: I will die, and it will not secrete from my skin! Check it out for yourself:

google.com/search?q=apparitions+of+garabandal+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
**

I researched them a little bit though and couldn’t find good sources to back up your claims. There have been plenty of religious hoaxes by various people over the years, so I’d need some actual evidence that the claims are true.

**Research them a lot and prove me wrong!!! Sure there are hoaxes, but not these apparitions, and I am not naive! You are a modern day Thomas; if Thomas couldn’t actually see Jesus and put his fingers in His wounds, he would not have believed. Christianity is based on faith not evidence. Like I said, no one here is going to be able to set you up with a one on one interview with God. The visible universe is clear evidence that a creator was necessary, destroying the man-made myth, atheism, in my humble opinion! Can something come from nothing? Not on this planet. Every finite thing designed here on earth, requires a designer; surely something infinite does too??? Atheism fails the logic litmus test. Everything requires a beginning, a middle and an end, with the exception of the universe, if the atheist position is correct.

**
The problem I have with Lourdes is that we have no way of knowing if the number of unexplainable remissions is higher than the number of such remissions for people who don’t go to Lourdes.

**So you admit that unexplainable miracles occurred there?

**

According to Father Liam Griffin of the Sanctuaries of Lourdes, there have been 66 declared miracles over about the past 150 years at Lourdes. However, he also says that they receive 80,000 sick visitors every year. Even if that number used to be somewhat lower, we’re still talking about many millions of total visitors. So somewhere around 1 in 100,000 had a recovery that the Church was confident could not be explained naturally (not just cases where there wasn’t enough information).

**They scrutinize for a reason. You said that all it would take was one miracle, not 66!
**

Considering that spontaneous remissions do happen, even without attending Lourdes, I’d need to see that the odds of recovering of those who went to Lourdes was much higher than for those who didn’t. Right now it doesn’t seem like there’s a significant difference.

**Give me an example of a spontaneous miracle.
**

I agree. I think there are some atheists who don’t want God to exist and this cloud’s their reason, just like there are some Christians who really want to believe the Christian story and this clouds their reason.

**Which point of view do you consider to be more consistent with logic: an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, or, an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, by an infinite Intelligent designer? Surely nothing can’t give rise to something without a designer.
**

 

[wasmit]

I owe you a debt of gratitude. You opened my mind to a truth which got me reflecting and reaching a conclusion which is really important.

I had never really known the meaning of deism and if I came across the word I might have just ignored it. I am not sure, but here on this thread you nagged me into looking up the word, you insisted that Sartre and Einstein must have believed in a deist god. To my mind the logical conclusion of Einstein and Sartre’s words was that they finally acknowledged the existence of a Creator - God. That is still my conclusion.

I can only answer for myself but I believe that Science probably did lead Einstein or any other scientist to come to the conclusion of the existence of God.

This is not true as shown by Einstein’s correspondence with Raner.

 

[joe370]

This is not true as shown by Einstein’s correspondence with Raner.

If Einstein didn’t create the universe, why would I defer to him, regarding the creation of the universe???

 

[Cinette]

This is not true as shown by Einstein’s correspondence with Raner.

That would depend on the timeline. When did he make the statement I quoted and when did he have the correspondence with Raner.

Right now it is the least of my concerns. I am very pleased with the realisation which resulted from my exchanges with Surfmeister.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well there are those two books I mentioned by Gerald Schroeder which did have a marked influence on my husband. I notice he is reading another book which perhaps is not of the same category but is interesting nevertheless The Science before Science - A guide to thinking in the 21st Century. Anthony Rizzi.

Rizzi’s book does seem like it would be worth a read, at least to get the perspective of how theistic scientists see things. I added it to my list of books to read, but it’ll still probably be a while until I get to it considering how long my list has recently become.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I can only answer for myself but I believe that Science probably did lead Einstein or any other scientist to come to the conclusion of the existence of God. I remember when my husband was reading one of these scientific books he tried to explain something about atoms or cells (amino acid and protein I think - can’t speak to him now he is asleep!!) and how they were perfectly lined up and in sequence and how perfectly balanced they were and how it was impossible for science to replicate them. He said something about the balance of things and how if rocked things can go horribly wrong. Please be patient with my simple explanation - I cannot reproduce these things accurately. So yes, I believe that scientists who are able to understand these things and who also perceive other dimensions (other than those 4 which we laymen perceive) can come to the conclusion that there MUST be a superior being, a Creator, a GOD!

They certainly can come to that conclusion. As long as you aren’t saying that the evidence is overwhelming enough to convince all smart scientists (because there are tons of atheist scientists), I think it’s a valid point. Studying science certainly can lead someone to believe that there must have been a creator (although I do not think this happened to Einstein), just as studying the Bible and theology in depth can lead someone to believe that there was no creator (as has happened to some Christian scholars). But in both cases, either those led to theism, or those led away from theism may have reached their conclusions because of their own biases. That’s why I care more about the reasons people were drawn to, or away from, Christianity.

I am sure you will recall that Benedictus said she was off for a week on a project but she is quite capable of taking a peek at this and answering you. I have to admit that I was rather disturbed in being labelled a “dishonest apologist” by someone else. I was flattered to be considered an apologist but very disappointed to be called “dishonest”. If I am wrong and make a mistake (whoever has never made a mistake…has never made anything!) I will recognise my mistake and try to right it but don’t call me dishonest please!

If Benedictus wants to respond, it’s fine if she just waits until the end of the week. I won’t be going anywhere.

I think you were right to be offended at being called dishonest. You seem like an extremely honest person. I know what it’s like though; there’ve been a number of times on these boards where I have been called dishonest merely because I disagree about the existence of God. Although it’s not always easy, I think its best not to take it personally.

 

[Surfmeister]

Dear Surfmeister

I owe you a debt of gratitude. You opened my mind to a truth which got me reflecting and reaching a conclusion which is really important.

I had never really known the meaning of deism and if I came across the word I might have just ignored it. I am not sure, but here on this thread you nagged me into looking up the word, you insisted that Sartre and Einstein must have believed in a deist god. To my mind the logical conclusion of Einstein and Sartre’s words was that they finally acknowledged the existence of a Creator - God. That is still my conclusion.

But you kept nagging me and insisting that I define this God. You made a distinction between what you called a Catholic God and a deist god. You were like a thorn in my side! You made me mad! Now I thank you.:yup:

I began to reflect on my life and the 27 years when I had turned my back on God and His Church. I never denied the existence of God but I might have. I thought I didn’t need religion - that it was for weaklings and the feeble minded. It was during that time that I met my husband and we had two more children who were not baptised.

Then one day I felt the need to pray for peace in the world. I had misread something in the newspaper that there was a call to pray for peace at a certain hour. I recall it was 31st December and my Mother in law who also felt a desire to pray with me came with me to Church for an hour of meditation. We were surprised to find that there were just a few people obviously the usual people who come daily for a visit and prayer. We remained for an hour anyway. That was the start of my return to the Catholic Church.

I realise now that during those 27 years I was a deist! I have often thanked God for taking care of me during that time. I bore two healthy children, I married a good man and who knows what else I might have been protected from? I realise how indifferent I had been. Indifference is worse than nonbelief. Being a deist is worse than being an atheist!

So I thank you again Surfmeister, very much.

It is now 3.05am and I have been up for an hour thinking about this and smiling - yes, I owe you a debt a gratitude and I feel the need to tell you this. Thank you again.

Still using that capital G, though, hmmm?
If a deist is worse than an atheist (that’s pretty offensive to deists and atheists!), and Einstein and Sartre were deists, then I guess you’re probably going to drop them from your list of believers.

 

[Surfmeister]

There’s another dishonest apologist tactic that gets on my nerves. When atheists pretend to be searching, but they’re really just throwing little ropes around, hoping the theists will trip over them or hang themselves with them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

**So, you really believe that if I drink a bottle of olive oil, I will exude 100% of said oil, from my body? If I drink a coke will I sweat the coke out, in its original state?
Insulin, an important protein hormone is secreted by the pancreas; what part of the body secretes 100% olive oil, of an unknown origin? Scientist who observed this phenomenon insist that this is no different than a person exuding 100% automobile oil. Surely if I drink auto oil 2 things will happen: I will die, and it will not secrete from my skin! Check it out for yourself:

google.com/search?q=apparitions+of+garabandal+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a**

My point was just that if she didn’t drink any olive oil, it would definitely be miraculous. If she had been subsisting on nothing but olive oil for a week, I’d still think it would be impossible to sweat 100% olive oil, but I’m no expert on the human body, so I’d want to do a little bit of research to confirm that it would be impossible in that case. But my big objection is that there’s no good evidence that it happened. I don’t believe stories merely because some other people believe them, because quite a lot of urban legends and supernatural stories are false. I’ve looked at a number of sites dealing with Garabandal, and have yet to find evidence for which there is no plausible natural explanation. If you have found any, I’d be really interested in seeing it.

**Research them a lot and prove me wrong!!! **

It’s impossible to prove something like that wrong. For example, no matter how much I researched Bigfoot, I could not disprove his existence. Even if I could show that all the evidence for his existence was unreliable, that would not prove that he doesn’t exist. This is why the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.

**Sure there are hoaxes, but not these apparitions, and I am not naive! You are a modern day Thomas; if Thomas couldn’t actually see Jesus and put his fingers in His wounds, he would not have believed. Christianity is based on faith not evidence.

Like I said, no one here is going to be able to set you up with a one on one interview with God. The visible universe is clear evidence that a creator was necessary, destroying the man-made myth, atheism, in my humble opinion! **

If Christianity rests on faith instead of evidence, why are you trying to use evidence to prove it?

**Can something come from nothing? Not on this planet. **

Something cannot come from nothing on this planet because there is no absolute nothingness from which it can come. Quantum particles do spontaneously appear (based on our best current science), but even when they appear in the vacuum of space, you can argue that they are appearing out of space-time. So saying something cannot come from nothing because it hasn’t on our planet is no better than saying that there can’t be any aliens because there aren’t any aliens on earth.

**Every finite thing designed here on earth, requires a designer; surely something infinite does too??? **

I assume you are referring to temporal infinity. If every finite number could be fully written down (given enough time), surely every infinite one must be able to be written down also, right?

**Atheism fails the logic litmus test. Everything requires a beginning, a middle and an end, with the exception of the universe, if the atheist position is correct. **

And with the exception of God if Christianity is correct. By the way, there is no “atheist position”. There are a number of possible theories for what happened before Planck time, some of which hold that the universe had a beginning and some of which do not. I am pretty agnostic about which theories are most likely to be correct.

So you admit that unexplainable miracles occurred there?
They scrutinize for a reason. You said that all it would take was one miracle, not 66!
Give me an example of a spontaneous miracle.

I do not believe any miracles have occurred. Of course you could define the word miracle in a way such that there would be tons of miracles if God did not exist, but in that case, miracles would no longer be evidence of a God.

Which point of view do you consider to be more consistent with logic: an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, or, an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, by an infinite Intelligent designer? Surely nothing can’t give rise to something without a designer.

An eternal universe was never spawned.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

**So, what you want is confirmation from God, before you will believe? **

I would need some reason to think that it is more likely that God exists than that he does not exist.

**Why do you believe that the Bible is based on a small amount of true events? **

Because although the evidence is not very good, there is some evidence that Jesus existed. Also, many of the things mentioned in the Bible are not inherently improbable.

Is there good evidence for atheism?

Is there good evidence that there are not invisible trolls who are conspiring to destroy Microsoft? Is there good evidence that the universe was not created 10 minutes ago with memories implanted in our heads? Despite no evidence that either of these did not happen, I think it would be crazy to believe in them. I assume you do not believe in either of these, so you must agree that you do not need evidence disproving something, if there is no good evidence supporting something.

Unless God provides you with said evidence, no doubt you will never embrace Christianity. If you are looking for this evidence from a Christian, you will be waiting for a very long time my friend; we cant’ prove to you that Jesus worked miracles; we were not there; we simply have faith.

But why is Jesus the one you chose to have faith in? Unless there is evidence supporting your faith, how is this any better than having faith in Scientology?

So you are saying: since I do not know how the infinite universe was created, then it must not have been created?

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

Sure, but without a designer?

Yes. What’s wrong with this?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There’s another dishonest apologist tactic that gets on my nerves. When atheists pretend to be searching, but they’re really just throwing little ropes around, hoping the theists will trip over them or hang themselves with them.

I haven’t really seen that, although I’m sure it does happen. The two people who came here a couple weeks ago who were struggling with their faith seemed to legitimately be searching.

As for me, a lot of people on here like to assume that I’m searching, but I have said before that I think I have found the answer. I do not currently doubt my atheism. However, I am always willing to revise my beliefs based on new information. I come here because I like debating philosophical issues, not to be convinced of Catholicism or to make theists look like fools.

 

[Cinette]

They certainly can come to that conclusion. As long as you aren’t saying that the evidence is overwhelming enough to convince all smart scientists (because there are tons of atheist scientists), I think it’s a valid point. Studying science certainly can lead someone to believe that there must have been a creator (although I do not think this happened to Einstein), just as studying the Bible and theology in depth can lead someone to believe that there was no creator (as has happened to some Christian scholars). But in both cases, either those led to theism, or those led away from theism may have reached their conclusions because of their own biases. That’s why I care more about the reasons people were drawn to, or away from, Christianity.
It always leads us to one central factor of prime importance - Faith. Without Faith there is no belief. To an atheist this is something incomprehensible and unacceptable. I understand this. Our belief is based on Faith and Reason. I cannot expect you to understand as an atheist.
If Benedictus wants to respond, it’s fine if she just waits until the end of the week. I won’t be going anywhere.

I think you were right to be offended at being called dishonest. You seem like an extremely honest person. I know what it’s like though; there’ve been a number of times on these boards where I have been called dishonest merely because I disagree That is unfair. You are being honest when you say “I don’t believe in God” - even God understands that.about the existence of God. Although it’s not always easy, I think its best not to take it personally.

 

[jargon631]

Yes, that’s what I think a Deist would say. I, too, think that the Deist believes in a small ‘g’ god. The god is not a personal god but a force or an event or whatever. Which is why you CAN’T say that Einstein believed in God. If Einstein believed in a god, it was definitely a small ‘g’ god.

that, my friend, is where you are mistaken…lol…i dont believe in god as an event or force, but as a distinct creator with all the powers that would be in attendance for someone who could create a universe…THEN full stop…btw…i rarely capitalise, so whether i’m referring to the christian concept of god, the deist concept of god, or the pantheon of norse mythology, i simply wtite “god”…i hope this clears up any confusion……frederick

 

[jargon631]

well…it has no attraction for YOU…i’m not quite sure of the global census, but i think it would be fair to say that you probably dont speak for the entire poulation……fd

No, I don’t speak for the entire populaton.

It is just that, from my perspective, I cannot see the attraction to deism. You might like to enlighten me perhaps?

Blessings
Cinette

hi cinette…ummm…i dont think i can/want to “enlighten” anyone(no offense, i know that might sound rude)…the things that led to my belief are specific to myself, and as such, i am unable/unwilling to “project” them on another…in fact, the thought of trying to sway someone to my way of thinking is anathema…it’s a little too much like adventism and they beat that desire out of me when i was just a wee slip of a lad…lol…but i can say that i was never “attracted” to the way i feel…it is just what i believe…frederick