Rational BAC

You are correct. A deist is a theist.

I should have said-----have all you atheists become theists?

And sorry to have misconstrued things. It sure seemed like all the atheists were arguing for the case of deism.

Doctor X

Actually, they were discussing the implications of Harlow's theism/deism . . . when not taking appart Magnus for his preaching.

In discussing a deity, one takes a similar approach to any hypothetical entity. A long time ago [Cue Sounds of Cold Winter Winds in the Still Night.--Ed.], scientists believed in an "aether/ether" that acted as a medium for light to travel in space.

Well . . . if such exists it must have properties. One of them should be a drag on light. Long story short, absence of an "ether-drag" demonstrated the lack of an ether, led to the development of Einstein's theories, and ultimately gave us quality footwear.

Thus, believer or not, one can propose an "if a deity exists he would. . . ." topic and analyze it. Indeed, much of what leads to atheism is the realization that this "if" leads to illogical conclusion, eroneous conclusions, et cetera. By Harlow's criteria, he indeed comes up with an "indifferent" deity--which approaches my irrelevant deity in one of my discussions.

Now, someone may not "like" that conclusion, but it is what the evidence leads to unless someone notices that the "if exists" suggests the possibilitiy that the premise is wrong.

--J.D.

wade-w

Of all of the various god concepts, the deist�s indifferent creator is the most probable. The slight possibility that this god may exist is the reason I am not a strong atheist. After all, how do you tell the difference between a universe with an indifferent god and a universe with no god? Before Darwin and modern cosmology, I think that deism was a reasonable position to take. Now, however, this god is a superfluous entity. Thus Occam�s Razor slices him right out of the picture.