luvluv

Skeptical says:

"In any case, even if belief were a choice, your logic is still flawed. Let's posit that God exists and that everyone believes God exists. How, exactly, is that supposed to affect us. Are you saying that we would all automatically obey the same set of rules of behavior?

A cursory glance of history shows that this is absolutely false. There are more Christian sects than you can shake a stick at. Supposedly they all at least agree that God exists and they even agree on the same set of religous documents, yet they have serious differences about practical appliation of that knowledge."

You are misconstruing my argument. I said that undeniable proof of the existence of God would be coercive. I said nothing of belief. Part of our freedom is that it allows us to believe certain things differently about God. But if God were to reveal himself, those beliefs would be shattered and that freedom to disagree would not exist.

At any rate, I did not argue that a common BELIEF in God would lead to coercion, I argued that undeniable PROOF of God would.

Skeptical says:

"God could perfectly well reveal himself/herself/itself and not give any other information except that existence. This would in no way coerce someone to follow a particular sects set of rules and practices. God could simply pop in every now and then and say hello and then be on his way. Where is the coercion to follow particular rules or standards of behavior?"

Well, on a certain level, Christians believe that God has done just that to certain individuals, namely the prophets. But I assume you mean that God would do this to every human being at some point during the human beings life. I do think that just the fact of God's existence would entail coercion.

For an analogy, what if while you were watching television, a government official popped onto the screen for a brief second... called you by name... described what you were wearing and your current activities... just to let you know they were watching... and then the image disappeared. Would that experience not have any influence on your future viewing habits? On what you do in front of your television? And would you be watching your behavior in front of the television on the basis of love and agreement with the principles the government espouses, or because of the fact that you knew you were being watched?

madmax says:

"The bible disagrees with you. According to it, the bibliical deity often attempted to coerce people in some powerful fashion. The threat of hell, for instance, is entirely about forceful coercion."

I think you are avoiding or not reading some of my earlier responses. I already acknowledged to tronvillian once, and then repeated to you again, that God at SOME point would have had to reveal Himself to establish his existence and his character. This explains the Biblical passages you keep referring to. Also, I already reiterated that you are interpreting Hell as a threat. It may not be. In the Bible God rarely says "Do this and I WILL cast you into hell." He generally says do "Do this and this is WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU".

Have you considered that you may be mistaken in assuming Hell is a literal destination that God throws people into?

"Fine, but you've agreed that my "decision" not to believe is a reasonable one ."

I did not exactly say that. You base your disbelief in the lack of evidence. My argument is that a loving God would leave no evidence, therefore the lack of evidence is an invalid grounds upon which to disbelieve. My argument is that your decision to disbelieve is hasty at best. It does demonstrate some rationality, but may yet be completely wrong.

"If true, then this deity obviously values the ability to choose above any choices we actually do make."

I don't think this is entirely accurate. I think he considers all of our choices invalid unless we were free to make them on our own. He certainly would rather us make the right decision, but He would rather us make a wrong decision than to be FORCED to make the right one.

"Yes I do exclude faith. It is an extremely poor tool for discerning truth from non-truth. To me the very definition of "faith" prohibits "knowing" a God, since if you did know one existed, it wouldn't be faith, it would be actual knowledge. You either have faith in a diety or you know about a deity - not both."

Prove to me that your wife loves you. If you cannot provide me concrete, non-circumstantial proof, then do you believe she loves you? And if so, why do you believe?

"Ah, so you don't agree with many of the biblical stories in which the deity forcably coerced many peoples, including its own, to go along with its wishes."

Maybe you should clarify which stories you are talking about? I do believe that prophets, for example, are held to a different standard... they are less free than the rest of us because of the great responsibility they have. The story of Jonah fits your example most directly, but in that particular instance God forced Jonah into a certain course of action for the good of a great number of people.

However, again, I have already conceeded that God would have to treat a number of people differently, and these people would have to be his prophets, or the people He uses to tell people about Himself. These guys are exceptions that prove the rule. God uses people who are witnesses to Him rather than directly revealing Himself to allow people the choice to believe or disbelieve. The few exceptions in the Bible, which we logically have already agreed would have had to occur, do not at all disprove my argument.

"Well certainly. But if the being specified that no harm would come to me if I didn't do as it wished, and I was still able to use my own judgement as to whether I should do anything it wanted, then all would be fine. If the deity directed me or anyone else to do something I considered improper, such as genocide, then I would be free to speak up and refuse to participate - and argue that others should refuse to participate as well."

I totally disagree. Are you saying that as long as you kept your free will, an Omnipotent power could never coerce you into doing whatever it wanted you to do? I think you are underestimating Omnipotence.

"But again you discount much of the bible where the deity did that very thing regardless. I can only conclude that the deity you believe in is much different than that portrayed in the bible. This is also a good thing."

Again, this ignores the argument I have made three times on this post. God would have to intervene with some people to reveal Himself, but that does not disprove my argument.

wendel1808

Referring to the following:
I am another theist...luvluv My perspective is that there is tons of scientific evidence that points toward one creator, The Creator, God. An astronomer by the name of Dr. Hugh Ross has devoted an entire website to this and has written several books such as, The Genesis Question. I think you, and several others, would be interested in the scientific approach the "Reasons To Believe" webpage addresses, so here it is... <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/skeptics" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/skeptics</a>

I want to clarify some things about this... "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see," Hebrews 11:1 and so my belief in God and the Bible is by faith. I am certain of God's existence and I know he exists and IS all powerful, even though I cannot physically SEE Him or touch Him.

How do I know He/God exists one may ask?
Proof through my own life. To make a VERY LONG story short, I was involved with drugs and alcohol for about 2 years during high school, lost my virginity, and becoming very depressed during my junior year. I didn't see the point in my existence and didn't feel like LIFE had a point. I was unhappy with my life.

But, then my best friend called me one night, and she had been participating in the same activities as I (but for several years more) and told me about a youth rally she had gone to at this church. She decribed the event, there were possibly a thousand teenagers in the building and all of them (nearly all) were singing and worshipping God with their hands raised in the air, some were clapping and jumping to beat of the song too. Some people talked about God and Jesus, and at the end she said the "sinner's prayer" and asked God to forgive her for everything she had done wrong and that she wanted to live for Him and that she wanted to accept what Jesus did on the cross. She became a believer (a Christian) that night.

As I spoke to her on the phone, God's spirit came to me (I know that sounds wacko) which some of you may know as "Holy Spirit" or the "Holy Ghost" and I knew that God was "speaking" through my best friend to me and saying, "Quit lying, quit the drinking, drugs, and sex and come to me." That night I also confessed my sins and it felt like a burden had been lifted from my life and I have been a Christian for 2 and a half years now.

I searched for happiness in so many things, and then I found Jesus/God, which is the only thing that can make my life fulfilled. I don't consider myself religious, but a person of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm a rational being and I am a full time college student at a small liberal arts college. And actually, HRG, the Bible says that we should not just believe everything we hear. God doesn't expect us to be stupid, irrational beings to be apart of His Kingdom. I was first exposed to Christianity when I was 8, was pressured by friends for about 4 years and then fianally, after I literally hit "rock bottom," stubborn me accepted the faith.

wendel1808

Specifically, here is the article that addresss the idea of not seeing God, but believing in Him:
<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/97q4faf/97q4reas.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/97q4faf/97q4reas.html</a>

Thanks,
wendel1808

luvluv

I'm all over Hugh Ross, I watch his show every Tuesday morning on TBN.

luvluv

wenedell I had not read that link and I think it's great. Thanks.

I think everybody should read it, it sheds a lot of light on this debate.

HRG

I have no objection to be coerced to know the truth. I did not object either when the lecturer presented the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra, although it removed my free choice to believee or disbelieve it.

IOW, the coercion argument is mot convincing at all. On the contrary, a loving God would give us full information about his existence and properties, so that we could make an informed choice to follow or reject him.
... and thus would be indistinguishable from a non-existing God.

I recommend to you reading Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" - the part where he introduces his famous Invisible Dragon in the Garage.

Regards,
HRG.

madmax2976

<strong> I’m reading your responses but with all due respect, they aren’t making any sense. Now you say this deity had to reveal itself at some point to “establish” its existence and character. If such a thing were ever actually established, then your entire claim would fly out the window. Your very argument presumes that this deity does NOT want to have its existence established, and therefore it shouldn’t have been doing anything that would make that happen.

<strong> Are you being serious? Read Matthew chapter 18 where Jesus offers a parable and then integrate that into this hypothesis you have above. Then explain how the first expression you give is coercion .but the second one isn’t.

<strong> Since I don’t believe in any hell or deity the answer to that is obvious. But as I listen to the claims of theists, this is the interpretation I’m often given and there are biblical passages such as the one I listed that seem to support it.

<strong> You haven’t given an “argument”. All you’ve done is to make numerous assertions about why you think some deity doesn’t reveal itself plainly to all. If I were to use the same reasoning that you are using I could just as easily say there isn’t valid grounds for you to disblieve in leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Odin, Thor, the tooth fairy, werewolves, vampires, and the Wizard of Oz - because lack of evidence for such things isn’t sufficient grounds for disbelief in these things. Don’t you see the slippery slope you’ve put yourself on?

<strong> And of course you may be completely wrong as well. But unlike you I’m going to go with what has worked tremendously well for humans and has vastly outshined any other methodology ever offered - I’m going to require evidence be presented before I gullibly accept fantastic claims. You haven’t “argued” that my decision is “hasty” - you’ve just made an assertion that you’ve failed to support. Actually demonstrate it was a "hasty" decision and you might have something.

<strong> This is completely in line with what I said. Where’s the difference?

<strong> “Proof” is useful for geometry equations. Outside of that I limit myself to evidence that supports a reasonable conclusion. I support the claim that she loves me by the things she does and says - which is evidence - and reach the reasonable conclusion that she does. If I had to have “faith” that she loves me, this means I wouldn’t have any evidence to point to. If I couldn’t even verify her existence, as in the case of a deity, I’d have no good reason to think she loved me at all.

<strong> The question is whether the biblical stories contradict your assertions. Having read much of the bible myself, I see the deity as being completely opposite of what you are claiming. Its whole purpose was to get people to follow its wishes. To this end it had no problem with commanding genocide, implying threats of torture, creating plagues, killing tens of thousands of its own people, raising peope from the dead, etc.etc.

<strong> Of course an omnipotent power could force or coerce me into doing whatever it wanted. But this is NOT the claim you are making. The claim you are making is that the mere knowledge that this deity exists would provide undue coercion. Stop confusing the issues with omnipotence and power, as they have nothing to do with your claim - knowledge that a deity exists does.

<strong> The incoherence of your claim gives me all the reason I need to discount it. A deity which both does and does not wish to reveal itself - that values freedom of choice, but coerces decisions based on fear of eternal torture, genocide, plagues, etc..

You haven’t supported your hypothesis at all luvluv. All you’ve done is to make excuses for why the deity you believe in doesn’t provide us with evidence so that we can know it exists. Any religion in the world can do the same thing and be just as justified as you - which in my opinion is not all all.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

luvluv

madmax says:

"If I were to use the same reasoning that you are using I could just as easily say there isn’t valid grounds for you to disblieve in leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Odin, Thor, the tooth fairy, werewolves, vampires, and the Wizard of Oz - because lack of evidence for such things isn’t sufficient grounds for disbelief in these things."

To my knowledge, none of the things you mentioned claim to be singular, omnipotent, omniscient, loving Gods who desire the freely given love of it's creation. My argument is from God's CHARACTER and his POWER. He is omnipotent, and therefore capable of overpowering our free will, yet He is loving and does not desire to do so. Therefore, in the interests of His desire to be loved freely, He allows us a choice as to whether or not to belive in Him, because a KNOWLEDGE of His existence and his omnipotence would be coercive. The same does not apply to any of the things you mentioned because the things you mentioned do not claim omnipotence or a desire to be freely loved. It is a claim that applies to the Christian God alone, as far as I know, though the same would apply to any omnipotent God who wished to receive the free love of it's creation.

you say:

"Are you being serious? Read Matthew chapter 18 where Jesus offers a parable and then integrate that into this hypothesis you have above. Then explain how the first expression you give is coercion .but the second one isn’t."

I don't understand this. There are two parables in Matthew 18. Which one, the parable of the lost sheep or the parable of the debtor?

To answer your second question, the second one is not coercion because it is a warning of a natural process. If I take my nephew to the grand canyon, and tell him "Don't step off the cliff or you'll fall to your death" I am not threatening him, I am informing him of the natural consequences of his actions. This is not a threat, in fact, the fact that I am informing my nephew of the consequences of stepping off of the cliff could be interpreted as an expression of my love for him.

You seem to think that it should be possible to create a world in which man has free will yet there are no adverse consequences for any of their actions. My argument to you is that that universe may be impossible. The question you ask might be like my nephew asking me to allow him to walk off the cliff and not fall, instead of me "punishing" him by forcing him to fall. Again, if Hell is simply unbridled selfishness which progresses to the point where the self is swallowed by the self-will, this is not an imposed state, and therefore not a coercion.

you say:

"Since I don’t believe in any hell or deity the answer to that is obvious. But as I listen to the claims of theists, this is the interpretation I’m often given and there are biblical passages such as the one I listed that seem to support it."

I understand that, but what I am asking you is what does my idea of hell as a natural consequence do to your position? Would you care to comment on that?

you say:

"And of course you may be completely wrong as well. But unlike you I’m going to go with what has worked tremendously well for humans and has vastly outshined any other methodology ever offered - I’m going to require evidence be presented before I gullibly accept fantastic claims. You haven’t “argued” that my decision is “hasty” - you’ve just made an assertion that you’ve failed to support. Actually demonstrate it was a "hasty" decision and you might have something."

My argument is that there would be no observable difference between a loving God who desired the freely given love of his servants and a God who did not exist. You have yet to demonstrate why this possibility is impossible. Lets just exclude the Bible for a moment and deal with this totally philosophically. Lets say for the sake of argument that this loving God is not the God of the Bible but some other God. Can you comment on the nature of my argument without resorting to the Bible?

you say:

"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If true, then this deity obviously values the ability to choose above any choices we actually do make."
I don't think this is entirely accurate. I think he considers all of our choices invalid unless we were free to make them on our own. He certainly would rather us make the right decision, but He would rather us make a wrong decision than to be FORCED to make the right one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is completely in line with what I said. Where’s the difference?"

Not much you just implied a God who isn't really interested in what we do. I believe He is extremely interested, like you would be with your own children. But like you are with your own children, you would not use any means to force your children to make the decision you wanted them to choose.

By my whole commentary about your wife, I meant simply to imply that most of your relationships with people revolve around a faith, or a trust, that is not measured exactly to fit the evidence. If someone came to you claiming that your wife had cheated on you, even if he presently had more evidence to prove that she had cheated then you had to disprove it, you would probably continue to believe in your wifes fidelity until it was absolutely disproven. Until you had the chance to confront your wife with the truth, though you would have doubts, you would probably believe against the evidence for a period of time. I mean only to suggest that you do use the principle of faith in the realm of your life that is most precious to you, i.e. your personal relationships. Faith or Trust are essential in every relationship, and there is not a human being who is involved in a meaningful relationship who does not use faith and trust. SO therefore, it is not an invalid means of conducting a relationship with God.

you say:

"The question is whether the biblical stories contradict your assertions. Having read much of the bible myself, I see the deity as being completely opposite of what you are claiming. Its whole purpose was to get people to follow its wishes. To this end it had no problem with commanding genocide, implying threats of torture, creating plagues, killing tens of thousands of its own people, raising peope from the dead, etc.etc."

I am not necessarily making my argument from the Bible, I am making my argument from everyday existence. My own personal belief is that God did what He did in Biblical times in order to provide us with the information to place our faith in, once that faith is presented as a choice to us. Yet again, it is not my argument that God would never intervene, quite obviously if His greatest goal was to recieve our love, He would have to give us some word that He exists. He gave us that initial word in the collected stories of the Old Testament. However, observationally, that is obviously not the way He wants to conduct His business with everyday humanity. My argument is from the currently observable facts.

Again, let's discount that the God of the Bible is the correct God for a momment. What is to stop you from believing in another God if what I am saying to you is correct.

Do you have an argument apart from the Bible? For the purposes of this thread, I will be satisfied if you can just conceed that any loving God that desired the free love of his servants would not force the knowledge of His existence onto those who did not wish to serve Him. Can you refute this without resorting to the Bible?

madmax says this:

"Of course an omnipotent power could force or coerce me into doing whatever it wanted. But this is NOT the claim you are making. The claim you are making is that the mere knowledge that this deity exists would provide undue coercion. Stop confusing the issues with omnipotence and power, as they have nothing to do with your claim - knowledge that a deity exists does."

But Max I mad my response in response to this statement on your part:

"Well certainly. But if the being specified that no harm would come to me if I didn't do as it wished, and I was still able to use my own judgement as to whether I should do anything it wanted, then all would be fine. If the deity directed me or anyone else to do something I considered improper, such as genocide, then I would be free to speak up and refuse to participate - and argue that others should refuse to participate as well."

Of course when you take my arguments out of context it looks like I am wavering on my argument, but I am not. I digressed to answer a specific claim of yours that I found objectionable.

you say:

"The incoherence of your claim gives me all the reason I need to discount it. A deity which both does and does not wish to reveal itself - that values freedom of choice, but coerces decisions based on fear of eternal torture, genocide, plagues, etc.. "

Again, let us assume I am merely a theist. Then what would be the basis for your objection?

madmax2976

<strong> Yes I understand that's how you and other theists claim and define your deity, but that changes nothing. Anyone can define something to be a certain way - its easy.

Your argument is that the lack of evidence for your deity is not sufficient grounds for disbelieving it exists. To show you how utterly absurd this reasoning is, I gave you examples where the same type of reasoning could be employed. That you further define your deity as having some particular character or power changes nothing at all. An illogical argument is still illogical regardless of what entity your addressing.

1. There is a lack of evidence to conclude that X exists
2. A lack of evidence is insuffient reason to disbelieve that X exists
3. Therefore X exists

Do you see just how irrational your argument is? Of course you attempt to modify it a bit:

1. There is a lack of evidence to conclude that X exists
2. A lack of evidence is insufficient reason to disbelieve that X exists because X is defined to be all powerful
3. Therefore X exists

I guess you think there's a logical argument in here somewhere luvluv, but I completely fail to see it. If you could lay it out in step by step fashion as I have done above then perhaps we can get somewhere.

<strong> From Matthew 18:

34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "(30) My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Not let me get this straight luvluv. The "king" is going to "hand over" this person to the TORTURERS and Jesus says this is what his heavenly father will do to others as well , and you have to audacity to talk about "consequences" and falling off cliffs??? Wake up and smell the roses luvluv - the bible talks about TORTURE - not about accidental consequences. There wouldn't even be a place of torture unless some deity created it in the first place - going along with the supposition that a deity created everything.

The coercion here is overwhelming - Do "this" or I'll you'll be tortured for all eternity. It can't get any plainer than that.


<strong> Sure. First of all its not a "natural" consequence - it a supernatural place where torture supposedly occurs. In order for this hell to even exist, this deity would have to have created it. This deity would have been the one that set the very rules that get people cast into it. This deity would be the one who "judges" people and decides if they go there based on the very rules it laid out. This characature of a deity that can absolve itself of the responsibility of a hell that it created and sends people away to is ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong luvluv -you can define hell any way you want since you can?t actually support its existence. But to claim that hell is not coercion is absurd. Hell is the ultimate coercion. Everlasting, eternal punishment for finite wrongdoings. You can't get much more unnatural, coercive or irrational than that.

<strong> Huh? Why would I attempt to do such a thing? Leprechauns and unicorns are "possible" luvluv, your deity is possible, but I'm much more considered with what is probable. All three are very improbable indeed.

<strong> Sure. How does my step by step layout of your argument change? Its still illogical. Lets see if I can rephrase it to make it any better:

1. There is a lack of evidence to conclude X exists.
2. This lack of evidence is intentional so that people are not unduly coerced into following the quidelines that X has somehow laid out.
3. Therefore the lack of evidence is insufficent reason to disbelieve X exists
4. Therefore one should believe that X exists

Is this it luvluv? Is this the conclusion your attempting to argue for?

<strong> I haven't seen you give one "observable fact" yet. You made numerous claims and defintions, but as for facts, your claims are entirely devoid of any. What you have done is made assertions - in this case the assertions are meant to address the lack of evidence for your deity. However your argument, such as it is, remains completely illogical and I'll need you to lay it out in step by step fashion if I am to ever hope to understand it.

<strong> Your saying that lack of evidence is not reason to disbelieve and supposedly that I should believe. But you've failed to provide me with any reason to believe other than there's a lack of evidence to conclude a deity exists. You've made claims as to why there is a lack of evidence, but so far they're nothing more than claims that you've failed to support.

Come to think of it luvluv, I'm not exactly sure what it it your attempting to argue for. Do you offer this claim, that the lack of evidence for your deity is intentional, in order to have other people believe your deity exists? Is this supposed to convince us? Or is it just to protect your own beliefs from questioning?

<strong> Certainly not. If that is all your claim amounts to, I wouldn't even bother to try. Its an easy task for anyone to define and make claims about their deity in order to make their belief such than it can?t even be questioned. This is what I see that you attempting to do - protect your own belief system from serious critique.

Of course all that you can really do with this claim is offer it as a "possibility" which is not all that interesting. There are perhaps endless things that are possible. I was assuming that your claim was attempting to show that your deity is probable.

<strong> Well that depends on what your attempting to argue for with your claim. Again, I understood you to be arguing for the probability that your deity exists, but since you seem to be arguing for the mere possibility that it exists, we will have no disagreement. I would concur with that even without your claim. Of course, Leprechauns and unicorns are possible as well, but I do not believe they are probable and neither is your deity from what I've seen so far.

There are other deistic concepts that define themselves such that they are impervious to critique luvluv - yours would not be the only one. The God of Deism is another type deity that offers little if anything that one can critique. Of course just like yours, nothing rational is offered to make its existence probable either.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

luvluv

Madmax I think you are misunderstanding my argument.

You say:

"Your saying that lack of evidence is not reason to disbelieve and supposedly that I should believe."

I never said that. I just said your unbelief was not justifiable on the grounds that there was no evidence. If you want to disbelieve for any other reason, I may not necessarily disagree.

You say:

"1. There is a lack of evidence to conclude X exists.
2. This lack of evidence is intentional so that people are not unduly coerced into following the quidelines that X has somehow laid out.
3. Therefore the lack of evidence is insufficent reason to disbelieve X exists
4. Therefore one should believe that X exists"

I have never been arguing for 4. My argument ends at 3. My contention is that if God exists and has all the attributes Christians claim He has, then He would not leave evidence of his existence. Therefore, the lack of evidence of direct evidence of a God neither proves nor disproves his existence. My contention is not that you should believe, but that lack of evidence provides no grounds for disbelief.

To refer to Hell as a place of torture is kind of simplistic. Prison is a place of torture, does that mean that judges and juries that sentence people to jail are evil? And what is the alternative for God? To allow adulterers, murderers, pedaphiles, rapists, to allow all these people into heaven? Remember, the Christian contention is that human spirits are eternal. To allow a person to continue to live a corrupt life in paradise would soon turn heaven itself into hell. If these beings can never be killed and can never be set aside to a seperate place, you are basically advocating them exporting their evil to heavens doorstep to torment the innocent for all eternity.

Again, it is my contention that the torturers are the people in hell themselves, who are tormenting each other by continuing to do the same murdering, raping, and savagery they have committed on earth. God is not doing the torturing, the people in hell are torturing each other of their own free will.

What would you do madmax? Would you let the murderers into heaven? Would you send them to a place where they could only hurt themselves? Would you destroy them? Would you take away their free will and make them slaves and force them to do good? What do you do with those who for all eternity would refuse to obey laws and would torture and torment those who would throughout eternity?

Before you consider God a merciless manipulator, consider his choices.

Like with human law, a person can choose his actions but he cannot choose his consequences. A person on earth can choose to murder but he cannot choose to be an unrepentant murderer and remain among the general populace. Likewise, God will not allow those who would turn heaven into hell to do so, he will not destroy the lives of those who want to live like Him for the sake of those who refuse them.

I'll just ask you directly, what would you do?

you say:

"Its an easy task for anyone to define and make claims about their deity in order to make their belief such than it can't even be questioned. This is what I see that you attempting to do - protect your own belief system from serious critique."

I'm not at all doing that, I simply don't see how humans can co-exist with an Omnipotence that constantly makes it's presence known to them and still have said humans be free moral agents. I just see this as a psychological fact. I am not trying to protect my belief system from critique at all, I am subjecting your belief system (or lack thereof) to critique.

And there is much more to my belief system than simply a belief that God exists, so even if that was what I was up to there would still be plenty that is left open to critique.

you say:

"There are other deistic concepts that define themselves such that they are impervious to critique luvluv - yours would not be the only one."

I wouldn't say it is impervious to critique, you have been critiquing it pretty well. I am not trying to set up some kind of shield that protects myself from all scientific advances or discoveries.

"The God of Deism is another type deity that offers little if anything that one can critique. Of course just like yours, nothing rational is offered to make its existence probable either."

Except the existence of intelligent life, natural laws, all that kind of stuff. Of course, it could all be an accident. But it takes faith to believe that too.