I saw an atheist say today that he was agnostic on the subject of God creating the Universe. He science has not discovered the true origin of the Universe.

Is it easier to accept that God might have created the Universe and then stepped out of the picture than it is to believe in a God that is personally involved with us?

Where do you stand on this?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

This is a very common belief in many early mythologies, the pwoerful god who creates, and then disengages from his/her creation, leaving a host of less powerful and less wise deities to run things.

Of course, it re-emerges in gnosticism, in a more developed form.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

Einstein and Baruch Spinoza (whom Einstein considered his mentor) both felt that the idea of a deity who interferes in everyday activity is "childish", to use Einstein's word. Their rationale was how could an omniscient deity not know all that he created, including what would happen with it? And why would this deity interfere with his own creation once established? Did he goof up somewhere? How could he if he's omniscient. Therefore, both Spinoza and Einstein were pantheists (although deists claimed Einstein as their own as well) and also predestinationists.

Please realize that since I'm a non-theist, I have no irons in this fire.

Shalom,
Vern

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Since I do not believe in a monotheistic deity (with all the ineherent contradcitions of omnisicient, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence etc to work out), I must say I wonder the same things.

It isn't a problem for a polytheist, of course. While our multiple gods may concur, they may also have both different approaches, and different agendas. I think it is hard to logically argue for a montheistic deity AND a deity who intervenes in human affairs, much less for a deity with who you can have a "personal" relationship.

But then again, I long since gave up on people holding consistent beliefs.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

I believe that God, outside of linear time and space, through the process of involution, created the universe within the confines of linear time and space. I guess this could be seen as "stepped out of the picture."

I do find the Deist non-interventionist creator-god(s) concept far more reasonable than the concept of a unique "personal" god.

One would think that, if one and only one personal god existed, its "message" would be consistent across multiple religions. Furthermore, humans' encounters with such a being would, likewise, be consistent. This does not appear to be the case in real life.

I would think that this atheist could be equally aptly described as an agnostic on the scientific explanations of the origin of the Universe.

It's possibly easier to believe - rather than to accept - but it seems to me that if a god 'created' the Universe and "and then stepped out of the picture", he/she/it can no longer be in the Universe. It must somehow be using us as puppets from outside. I don't think that this is a very likely scenario.

I certainly don't think that a god is somehow personally involved in our lives (peering through bedroom windows, etc.? )

My own position is that the Cosmos is a sentient being, of which we -- along with everything else -- are a part.
In the same way that our bodies are comprised of cells, we are as cells in the body of the Cosmos, in my opinion.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

But that would not be the deist stance at all. The idea that god stepped out of creation means precisely that he is not using us as puppets, from inside or out. It means that god is not involved, that we are on our own, that no guidance will be forthcoming that isn't already here, that prayer will be ineffectgive (except as it motivates the supplicant to do something for him/herself), and so forth.

The idea is rather like the amphibian that lays eggs and leaves. There will be no parental involvement in the lives of the offspring.
Okay, here we go again. I don't suppose that the cosmos itself might be part of a larger, super-sentient being? And it part of an even larger, hyper-super-sentient......

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

.... have i ever claimed to be a deist?
I don't believe in a 'god', in any sense of the word, but it is sometimes necessary to use the word in order to describe -- without going into lengthy descriptions -- a concept which is easily-understood by the majority of people.... that is: a spiritual being which may (or may not) be an entity which may (or may not) demand -- or even deserve -- worship, obedience, sacrifice, etc., etc. from humans, and that is - in some way - superior to us.

Yes - i got completely confused trying to answer this.
I blame Lightkeeper for asking it.

That is precisely how i see it.

.... yes, here we go again....
I have stated my beliefs, and before the massed hordes of pink unicorns, leprechauns, and assorted other imaginary creatures have a chance to materialise, i will leave it there.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

The analogy works, but only to a degree, and ever there, being anthropocentric we may miss things.

1) Some people might balk at their deity being compared to a frog or toad. While I get the point you are trying to make, there is a possibility that this could be a deliberate insults -- after all, if naming a teddy bear after Mohammed is cause enough for people to demand the death penalty, then analogies between the Creator and a creepy-crawly had best be appraoched with some tact.

2) Although frogs and toads and salamanders may be creatures of little intelligence, evolution or their own rudimentary abnility to think leads them to find sdources of water, in a host of environments, that will endure long enough to give the young a figthing chance at survival. They may not be cuddly parents, but that does not mean that, by their lights, they have no skill at all. For those toads and frogs in dry countries, that must spawn in temporary puddles, they must find the puddles large enough enough to provide food for their offspring, and deep enough to endure until the young can complete their metamorphosis. Those frogs and slamanders that breed in the tree-canopy of the rainforest must find the bromeliads that not merely hold small puddles of water in the joints of their leaves, but are positioned in a stable enough way that wind and storm will not dash the water and the young out.

3) "Walking away" may be how it appears to us. It may not be how it appears, either to the amphibians or the deities involved. We may not be in the best position to judge what is really going on. The frogs, toads and salamanders are not heartless; their young simply do not require them, and there are far too many of them for 1 or 2 parents to provide any kind of protection for them. That may well be the case for a deity who has brought forth a universe of billions of billions of stars and their planets.

(It's also possible that frogs etc DO provide a degree of parental care, and we are just missing it. When I was a kid, every book about reptiles commented how the parents gave no care to their youngsters...the only trouble was, it wasn't true. Scientists had made statements without actual backing them up with detailed observation, and had missed many clues that reptile parents were involved with their young. Perhaps the creator deity is involved, but in a subtle way, that does not violate Creation, and that we simply cannot eaily observe.)

"Be seeing you...."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas