Hi Bluejay,
I think you may have not considered my entire reply (message 67) to Percy, and missed Rahvins replies soon after. I think we are all already in agreement, but I'll try to recap. Please note the boldface following quote:
dronester writes:
Doesn't mean there isn't a god(s). Only evidence of not a caring/personal/higher purpose god(s).
THEISM: It is rational to believe a parent wouldn't want any harm to their children. So, using your list, yes, a parent would want to keep poisonous spiders, forest fires, and running noses (colds/sickness) AWAY from their children. A parent would consider those things "bad" for their children. By extension, it is logical/natural to project that a personal, loving god wouldn't want harm to its creations also . . .
In my original post, I mentioned malaria, and starvation. Recently, in a different thread, there was a brief discussion about a parasitic worm's raison detreit burrows into the eyes of its human host. Another thread discussed how illogical an "intelligent" designer would be to produce creations with major/fatal defects (cleft palate, spina bifida, congenital defects, etc, etc, etc).
This is just one area where a theist's position breaks down. With the above evidence, it is NOT rational to believe a LOVING, PERSONAL god exists.
Which leads to DEISM . . .
Bluejay writes:
. . . why would a "higher power" want to create something boring and meaningless?
Yes, you are correct . . . IF there is a higher power/higher purpose, one can infinitely speculate that a non-loving, non-personal god might NOT want to create something boring and meaningless. It may even enjoy all the above "bad" things. I think Rahvin even wrote it is POSSIBLE god is an asshole. (Sure, why not also speculate about the flying spaghetti monster's crusty sidekick, "garlicbread-boy"?)
Yet, some part of this belief system moves Percy to be a deist (something he himself admits is IRRATIONAL and won't expand in discussion/clarification).
By originally presenting my list of "bad" factors to Percy, I hoped to highlight already lingering dissonance in a DIEST mindset. However, I still admit, it is POSSIBLE that seemingly "good" or "bad" or "boring" or "exciting" intentions could serve some bizarre higher purpose at the remains of the day. But, as Percy wrote, it becomes an irrational proposition quickly.
HOWEVER, the greatest point of this discussion is that the above arguments are moot, . . .
As Rahvin (message 78) had clarified, because there is no evidence that supports any god or even a higher purpose, parsimony rejects both Percy's appeal to "purposefullness" and my appeal to consequences. ATHEISM is then left standing alone.
I think this shows one facet of the distinction between theist, deist and atheist.
regards
Edited by dronester, : clarity
Cogito, ergo Deus non est
™ Version 4.2
