Deism vs. Atheism. Which is more likely true?

[William]

Assuming for argument sake that it is possible for the universe to exist without intelligent design...

In what way is atheism still a better position to assume? In what way is atheism more likely to be truer than Deism?

One of the most popular arguments I ever come across for atheism over any type of theism usually goes along the lines of "if I were god, I would want to interact with my creation rather than stay absent like the Deistic god, and since there is no evidence of GOD existing through interaction, atheism is still the preferred position to have, because the deist GOD is absent anyway, so might as well not exist."

So, in what way is atheism more likely truer than Deism?

Or, are the two positions so similar that they are not even in conflict with each other and may as well be the same thing?

After all, a deist idea of GOD in relation to this universe, might as well not exist. Which is precisely the atheist position on the subject of GOD.

Thoughts?

[Divine Insight]

Everybody who believes in the Truthful Religion, please.
Regards

Everyone who believes in a religion believes that their religion is the "Truthful" religion.

So apparently all religious folk are exactly alike.

Just like the Buddhism and Confucianism people, they are our brothers in humanity. Right, please?
Regards

All humans are brothers in humanity. It doesn't matter what they believe.

[paarsurrey1]

Everybody who believes in the Truthful Religion, please.
Regards

Everyone who believes in a religion believes that their religion is the "Truthful" religion.

So apparently all religious folk are exactly alike.

Just like the Buddhism and Confucianism people, they are our brothers in humanity. Right, please?
Regards

All humans are brothers in humanity. It doesn't matter what they believe.

Human problems facing the humanity are the same the world-over, and the truthful solution of them is also the same.
Regards

[Tcg]

In what way is atheism still a better position to assume?

It depends on your subjective evaluation of what should be considered "better".

If you prefer to believe in the existence of a being for which there is no rational evidence, then your preference would lean towards deism.

If you prefer to withhold belief for only those beings for which there is rational evidence, atheism is the clear choice.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Assuming for argument sake that it is possible for the universe to exist without intelligent design...

In what way is atheism still a better position to assume? In what way is atheism more likely to be truer than Deism?

One of the most popular arguments I ever come across for atheism over any type of theism usually goes along the lines of "if I were god, I would want to interact with my creation rather than stay absent like the Deistic god, and since there is no evidence of GOD existing through interaction, atheism is still the preferred position to have, because the deist GOD is absent anyway, so might as well not exist."

So, in what way is atheism more likely truer than Deism?

Or, are the two positions so similar that they are not even in conflict with each other and may as well be the same thing?

After all, a deist idea of GOD in relation to this universe, might as well not exist. Which is precisely the atheist position on the subject of GOD.

Thoughts?

The whole point for God creating the universe has to be so that fully self-aware creatures with moral free will would evolve without knowledge of God's existence. We know nothing from before the Big Bang. From our perspective, time began at that point. There's plenty of "time" for God to interact with those that have passed the test, after they've passed it.

Also, from our perspective, in this universe, in this life, there is no way to tell whether there is a God or not. Ergo there is only one difference between agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism (the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God), and that is hope.

[Tcg]

Ergo there is only one difference between agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism (the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God), and that is hope.

There are an endless variety of reasonable positions on the existence of deities (please note my use of the plural here). Your inability to understand the others, doesn't validate your claim that there are only two.

But onto the "meat", if I may be so bold as to classify it as such, of your odd claim. Given that you didn't bother to specify whether it is Deism or atheism that offers hope, I must simply guess that you are referring to Deism. How does a god that doesn't intervene in the universe in any way provide hope of any kind?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ergo there is only one difference between agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism (the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God), and that is hope.

There are an endless variety of reasonable positions on the existence of deities (please note my use of the plural here). Your inability to understand the others, doesn't validate your claim that there are only two.

What besides those two don't rely 100% on hearsay evidence for every supernatural event or revelation?

But onto the "meat", if I may be so bold as to classify it as such, of your odd claim. Given that you didn't bother to specify whether it is Deism or atheism that offers hope, I must simply guess that you are referring to Deism. How does a god that doesn't intervene in the universe in any way provide hope of any kind?

Good "guess"? How many atheists do you know who believe in a Hereafter? The whole purpose for a Deist God creating the universe is to spawn self-aware creatures with free will, who then must have no evidence of that God in order to maintain that free will, during this test.

[BeHereNow]

Knowledge is a justified true belief.

We (the reader and I) may not agree on the specifics of justified, or true, or even (less so), belief.

Still, each of us have knowledge.

For those of us with knowledge of one, or the other, or both, our knowledge can give us the answer. Our knowledge can tell us which is truthful.

For those who lack convincing knowledge, and must "guess", well, flipping a coin might decide.

[help3434]

]

The whole point for God creating the universe has to be so that fully self-aware creatures with moral free will would evolve without knowledge of God's existence. We know nothing from before the Big Bang. From our perspective, time began at that point. There's plenty of "time" for God to interact with those that have passed the test, after they've passed it.

And it only took billions of years to get there. Why is this deist God disguising his creation to look like a slow, unguided naturalistic process?

[BeHereNow]

]

The whole point for God creating the universe has to be so that fully self-aware creatures with moral free will would evolve without knowledge of God's existence. We know nothing from before the Big Bang. From our perspective, time began at that point. There's plenty of "time" for God to interact with those that have passed the test, after they've passed it.

And it only took billions of years to get there. Why is this deist God disguising his creation to look like a slow, unguided naturalistic process?

Your question assumes several points not in evidence.
The passage of time is relative. Several billion years is the blink of an eye compared to eternity.
You need to listen to your friends the scientists, who will tell you that on the "24 hour clock" of the existence of the universe, all life on earth occurred in the last few seconds. Earthly life forms - of all types - have been a flash in the pan, the blink of eye.

When you do not know the rules, order appears chaotic. What is clearly evident, appears disguised. What is extremely structured appears unguided.

[help3434]

You need to listen to your friends the scientists, who will tell you that on the "24 hour clock" of the existence of the universe, all life on earth occurred in the last few seconds. Earthly life forms - of all types - have been a flash in the pan, the blink of eye.

That is not even close to being true. Scientists estimate the universe to be 13.772 billion years old, and they estimate that life on Earth has existed for 3.5 billion years, which means that on the scale of a 24 hour clock life on Earth has existed for over 6 hours.

When you do not know the rules, order appears chaotic. What is clearly evident, appears disguised. What is extremely structured appears unguided.

Is this supposed to mean something or are you just imitating a Deepack Chopra quote?