hinduwoman

In North India there is a sect called Prajapati Brahmakumari. According to them after the Supreme Lord of the Universe created the world he lost all interest in it and went away to dwell in the heavenly sphere. Since then he had never interfered in human affairs. That is why there is so much suffering and crimes on earth. The only thing for men to do is to pray that he will return some day --- but there is no fixed date and no guarantee of what will happen when He does.

I think this theology takes care of several problems associated with anthropocentric gods:
1. The problem of evil --- Since God is not here no wonder evil is allowed to flourish.
2. Free will --- Brahma only created but does not guide destiny.
3. Prophecy --- no prophecies, not even a date to drop by again.
4. Miracles --- zilch because he never interferes.
5. Commandments --- none because he never speaks through any holy man.
6. Contradictions --- no scriptures sent by him.

Overall this god has a higher probability of existing.

Bill

I would agree, because it seems to me that this particular god has only the attributes associated with the "First Cause" and "Argument to Design," which are the only two theistic arguments I'd personally feel were worth exploring.

== Bill

Vandrare

how do people know he exists though? did he leave a creation story with his people before he stopped interfering?

7thangel

Hey! how about the "interest?" You do not have a problem when a god just suddenly lost interest of his/her/its responsibilities? Do you just pick and choose what interests you?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Someone else told about him doing it.

Jobar

Huh! A Hindu version of deism.

I've always heard that Africa is the cradle of all the human race, and that India is the cradle of all human religious ideas. (The Middle East is nothing but a bunch of plagiarists.)

fishbulb

Being self-consistent and congruent with observed reality are prerequisites for taking an idea seriously, but they are not the only prerequisites.

To say that one concept of god is more likely to be true than concepts that cannot possibly be true because they are inconsistent or flatly contradict other things we know to be true is not saying very much of anything at all. It's like saying that a 95 year old man with two broken legs has a better chance of winning the New York Marathon than a corpse. Strictly speaking, it is true because a corpse cannot, even in principle, run a marathon. But that says nothing about what the 95 year old's chances are to actually win the marathon.

If all you can say is that your idea is more likely to be true than ideas that are inconsistent with observed reality, you haven't made a statement of any significance at all. It is only when you can show that your hypothesis has more supporting evidence and explanitory power than other consistent hypotheses that you have anything of value.

hinduwoman

A bit of problem with this among my informants. could have told someone, or it was learnt through meditation.

hinduwoman

Fishbulb, I said that this god had a higher probability of existing than other gods of most religion. That is because he does not have the problems associated usually with a kind omnipresent interfering god.
I did not say he is actually true.

Jobar

A deistic god never bites his/her/its own tail. No proof for the idea exists, but the idea itself is not self-contradictory.