Why be deist?

I have been wondering about God’s existence for a while now, and been swapping between deism and atheism. The two opposing ideas, the atheist view that the universe either started for no reason or has always existed and the deist view of a God that exists to start the universe and create laws and constants such as the force of gravity, magnetic attractions etc. About a month ago, I found a firm reason that deism is more believable.

If the universe exists without a creator, then a change must have occurred with no reason at all. The first thing to change in the universe didn’t have a cause. If God exists, the first change occurs because God changed it. Change has a reason. I accept that it is possible for change to occur for no reason, but the most acceptable system should make the least assumptions, especially if that assumption has a world of evidence against it.

You’re right that explanations with fewer assumptions should be preferred. So let me ask you this: what do you think is a bigger assumption — that there was no first change, that there can be change with no reason, or that a being powerful enough to create the universe existed. I’d say that the latter is a massive assumption.

To me, it’s far more likely that we don’t know all there is to know about the universe than it is likely that a super-powerful, universe-creating force exists (or existed).

Posted on March 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm by ideclare · Permalink
In: Evidence

Leave a Reply