Summations Only

The "first cause" concept in general is just creationist mumbo-jumbo, it has no scientific basis. Regarding its application to intelligent life, you seem to have forgotten about the infinite regression - what is the first cause of the first intelligent life? Science accepts that which has evidence. Mechanisms without evidence, as Jar described a few posts earlier, can be imagined without limit and have no place in scientific theory. At best they have a place as hypotheses awaiting evidence, like string theory (which is a hypothesis despite the name).--Percy

Concerning first causes, I thought the context was science, so I was speaking scientifically. I don't mix my science with my religion.About why I'm a deist, I have no idea, I just am. I don't put a lot of time or effort into examining my irrational beliefs. Their main purpose in my life seems to be to make me happy. Other than that I can't find any particular practical application for them, and I certainly don't try to reconcile them with reality.As to whether my religious beliefs include a first cause, I would say most definitely not. But while I don't include it, I don't exclude it either, so I guess I'm a definite "I don't know" on this one.As to how we can both be deists while believing differently, the original deism movement was based upon human reason, and given what we knew in the 17th and 18th centuries it held that God created the universe and then let things run their course. But much like the beliefs of some established Christian religions, this belief hasn't been updated to reflect more recent knowledge. If deism is supposed to reflect human reason then there's a lot it's leaving out, but if you want to go strictly by today's definition then I guess I'm not a true deist. --Percy

I am not an atheist.--Percy