Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hakurei Reimu]

I did start this thread so it behooved me to post in it.

I'd demand a refund if I did.

Not my problem if you can't recognize value.

You're mistaken. Issac Newton believed Goddidit and was amply successful. He believed the universe was knowable, amenable to scientific inquiry and explicable in mathematical terms and he was correct.

Show me the "God" term in any one of Newton's equations. What? Can't find one? Then your assertion that "Goddidit" works rings very hollow. I don't give a damn what Newton or anyone else personally believes, I only care about what they can support. Newton only mentioned "God" as a part of his theory of planetary motion to explain why the solar system was stable in the long term by periodically resetting it â€" an explanation that was superceeded by Laplace's perturbation theory showing that the solar system was indeed stable long term without any godly intervention. Einstein personally believed in a deist god. It doesn't change the fact that his scientific work is absent of any term that takes into account his actions or presence. To paraphrase Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, I have no need for that hypothesis.

In your fertile imagination there is simply nothing beyond the reach of naturalistic powers that can cause themselves to exist and then minus plan or intent cause something unlike itself to exist life and mind. You've simply replaced God with the deity Mother Nature who is capable of anything given enough time and chance.

And in your fertile imagination, God can sneak into scientific theories that do not reference him, or take him into consideration when describing mechanisms for how the world works, somehow making himself necessary for them even without their mention of him. It's just about as convincing.

Yes it is. There is another condition you don't mention. Suppose we found ourselves in a universe teeming with life that survives and thrives under a host of conditions and find the universe is so constituted that a wide variety of conditions would cause stars and planets and subsequently life to exist. Your position would not only remain the same you'd be playing a much stronger hand. The fact that isn't true makes no difference. 

Yes, my hand would be stronger, but that doesn't mean that my hand is unfalsifiable. If you were to observe some phenomenon that would absolutely prevent life from forming in a naturalistic manner in our universe where life nonetheless arose â€"that life could not form naturalistically, and yet it nonetheless originated in the universeâ€" then that would be extremely interesting and indicative, and would in fact kill my pure-naturalism philosophy dead.

I have just stated a possible kind of observation that would falsify pure naturalism â€" one that potentially you could discover, but of course since you and your fellows do no research, you have a snowball's chance to find. This is a possible falsification of naturalism that I have stated before in this very thread, and I state it again here.

Naturalism is falsifiable. Period. Your ignoring the fact that I have stated a way to falsify naturalism which you haven't found does not make it go away. Your assertion otherwise is just that, an assertion.

You do know that science of today is committed to naturalistic answers.

Yes. Because non-naturalistic answers don't seem to work, and don't seem to yield any interesting answers. Even Newton's celestial mechanics worked better as a theory of unfeeling forces and inertia than the previous regime of celestial bodies being pushed around by angels or whatnot â€" ie, when the role of God (or his agents) was diminished.

I don't think too many scientists would be interested in attempting to falsify one of the main philosophical premises of science that it must answer naturalistically.

Because they know when to give up on unproductive branches of inquiry. Naturalism works and works well. Come back when you have something interesting and indicative of a God.

I've seen the premise you're referring to on many occasions that there is a long history of explanations that were previously explained by various gods such as the rain god or the god of earthquakes and so forth. Mono-theists rejected such notions long before scientists did they believe as I do that God was responsible for the existence of the universe and the laws of physics that subsequently caused all we observe.

Nonsense. Theists believed that your god created each species specially. That's what the whole creationist vs. evolution argument was all about. Further:

Job 38:4-7: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Whoops, looks like your god-believers did think that the earth was assembled stone-by-stone by his direct almighty hand, and not by gravitational forces that he laid down and let go. No, it took scientists to discover that the earth was formed by the interplay of gravitation accretion from the solar nebula and radiation from the forming sun.

Job 38:25-28: "Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew?"

Whoops, looks like your god-believers did think that god directly conducts and creates rain (and thunderstorms). He is therefore a rain god by any sensible definition of the word, and so your mono-theist friends categorically did not reject the notion of a rain god. No, it took scientists to go up in balloons to sample clouds (figuring out they were water mists) and observing that rain ended at the clouds and put two and two together.

Job 38:22-23: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"

Job 38:24: "What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?"

Job 38:29-30: "From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?"

Job 38:35: "Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, `Here we are'?"

Ah, and now we see your mono-theists did in fact believe in a thunder/lightning god, too. And a snow god and a hail god. And an ice god. The fact that all of these are the same god is irrelevant. They believed that the mono-theistic god was all of these, and as such the notion that a god needed to create all of these was not rejected by your mono-theists.

Job 38:31-32: "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?"

Again, the mono-theistic god directly interviened in creating the constellations and the stars in them. No subcontracting out to the forces of gravity and nuclear fusion for him. And here's the real kicker:

Job 38:39-40: "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?"

Anyone who watches these creatures knows that lions and ravens hunt for their own damn food. No god necessary. Yet here we are, god-believers claiming that god directly intervenes in these activities, and does not simply let them do their thing.

When you claim that the primitive notions of rain and thunder (and presumably earthquake) gods were abandoned by your mono-theists before scientists did, you are lying through your damned teeth. These views were only abandoned when the process of science showed otherwise â€" when the practice of observing nature and teasing out its secrets on its own terms showed otherwise. Even if those scientists were theologians too, it was still science that showed this, not theology, and it was science that kicked god out of his throne in these discoveries, not theology.

This is a clear pattern in the Goddidit vs. Naturedidit debate. The more that God was exiled from our scientific understanding, the more thorough, accurate and useful that understanding became. If an explanation keeps failing, only the insane would continue to try it and expect a different result.

Up to now naturalistic explanations have sufficed or at least what we call naturalistic. However what we call naturalistic appears to be anything that can happen even if such a phenomena would be considered super-naturalistic. Imagine if 50 years ago someone proposed the galaxies and even the universe itself is bound together by a type of matter that can't be seen or detected and then proclaimed there is more of that matter than matter that can be detected. Such a person would be fitted for a straight-jacket and the notion rejected. But that was before black matter was known to exist. Now its classified as natural as if that's a meaningful definition.

Your images of the draconian treatment of scientific dissenters is as fanciful as your god. As Ars Technica explains, Lord Kelvin first made an estimation of the number of "dark bodies" in the galaxy. I don't recall that Lord Kelvin was ever put in a straightjacket and thrown into the loony bin, and furthermore, Kelvin died in 1907, well before the 1950's you bleat about. Again, much earlier than the 50's, Fritz Zwicky estimated in 1933 that dark matter in the galacy would be well in excess of luminous matter. No loony bin for him, either. So there was plenty of discussion of dark matter long before the 60's, when galactic rotation also produced clues of dark matter in galaxies. Nobody went to the funny farm because of it either.

Remember that "dark matter" just meant "matter that didn't emit light (like stars)," which is hardly heretical. Earth doesn't emit much light either compared to our sun, so it would be considered "dark matter" before the discovery that what we nowadays mean by "dark matter" doesn't interact with anything except gravitationally (which excludes earth). Evidence of all claims is still needed, of course, but if the notion has merit, then it's given due consideration.

One last point about the evidence. The long line of naturalistic explanations is supposed to mean the cause of what we observe is naturalistic as well and no designer or creator is necessary.

No, it means that such explanations are unproductive and do not yield probative answers except in cases where "designer" and "creator" refer to humans. Like Stonehenge, the pyramids or the like. Or even bashed-together rocks.

The flaw is in known examples of design by sentient humans those creations can also be explained naturalistically. A laptop can be explained completely by an appeal to naturalistic explanations. No Creator is necessary to explain how it works and functions.

False. There is no naturalistic pathway from raw material to a laptop without passing through human hands. We know that the raw materials and all intermediate materials do not behave in a way to admit naturalistic formation of a laptop without intelligent intervention and a creator: us. Life does. The universe does â€" and before you say otherwise, if God is not required to un-snap his fingers every time a star collapses into a black hole, then a God is not needed to snap his fingers to create the universe. If you don't understand that, ask.

If your premise is correct we should conclude a laptop was caused to exist by naturalistic causes as well since there is a long successful track record of naturalistic explanations in how it functions and works.

False. See above. Laptops differ in key properties that make them not equivalent to life that it is usually compared dishonestly against.

And if the earth was flat the people who thought so would be correct. You might just as well point a finger and say if I'm right....then I'm right.

So the response to my point that you haven't supported your claim that the narrowness of the constants' fine-tuning implies improbability is to... not support it. At all. You don't even ATTEMPT to defend this claim of yours. You don't even ATTEMPT to say, "It is so improbable and here's why:..." Did your eyes glaze over when you saw the word "distribution"? Did you even ATTEMPT to look it up to figure out what I was talking about? Of course you didn't.

Hear that sound? That's the sound of a hollow argument.

I'm lampooning your theory of given enough time and chances virtually anything is possible.

So, you think that the quintillions of chemical reactions taking place every microsecond in every teaspoon of water, happening over the course of the entire ocean of the early earth, with untold trillions of teaspoons, taking place over millions of years of oceanic cooling, and that this was one planet out of untold billions of stars in our galaxy, out of trillions of galalxies in the observable universe alone, that not one out of that enormous ensemble would not have a reasonable chance to spawn a measily 20-30 nucleotide primitive replicator that we think may be the ultimate ancestor of life on earth? Is that life form that rare? How did you determine this? Did you even ATTEMPT to determine this?

I don't think you did. Not only do I think you don't know the first thing about probablity, but if you did anything approaching a competent job of it, you would have realized that the sheer weight of opportunities to create life on any planet in the universe would have absolutely stomped that improbability flat. The only difference would be the irrelevant detail of whether we would be calling our planet "Earth," or "Xuxbub." Sufficiently large numbers will overwhelm any finite improbability and make the outcome probable in some place in the universe. Infinite quantities will absolutely obliterate them. If the multiverse exists, then the formation of life within them is all but certain.

Once again you demonstrate your belief is evidence and argument proof. You allow for enough time and chances for naturalistic forces to accomplish great and wonderful things but not enough time and chance for God to exist. 

How adorable. Someone who refuses to show me any math â€"even a single equation, or figureâ€" to prove any substantial part of his claims (like, showing how improbable your fine tuning actually is) is accusing me of implying that my belief is evidence. You don't have ANY evidence, as me and others have shown. All you have is your belief and your fallacies. All you have are strawmen, for you haven't even attempted to dig down and find out what I actually believe and why I believe it.

All you have is excuses for why you don't have to support your claims, as if my alleged inability to support my claims somehow absolves you from your responsibility to support yours. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. Even if evolution were demolished tomorrow, creationist twits will still have to support their creationist claims with evidence. Even if you prove that any of my pet theories are wrong, you still have to support your god claim with something more substantial than vauge appeals to apparent design.

You may find comfort in that, but to me that is the resounding sound of an empty argument.

[Baruch]

The Devil quotes the Bible anywhere, anytime.  He wrote it ;-)

[Drew_2017]

Show me the "God" term in any one of Newton's equations.

At this point I'll conclude you're being willfully obtuse but I'll play along. Newton's philosophical worldview was theistic. He believed the universe was knowable and explicable in mathematical terms and that formulas could be extracted because he believed the universe and the laws of physics were intentionally designed and caused by a Creator. According to you he was completely mistaken about his belief even though he got the results he expected due to his worldview.

Yes it is. There is another condition you don't mention. Suppose we found ourselves in a universe teeming with life that survives and thrives under a host of conditions and find the universe is so constituted that a wide variety of conditions would cause stars and planets and subsequently life to exist. Your position would not only remain the same you'd be playing a much stronger hand. The fact that isn't true makes no difference. 

Yes, my hand would be stronger, but that doesn't mean that my hand is unfalsifiable

This is as close as I will get for you to admit fine-tuning of the universe is a fact that weakens your position though I expect you to deny in another bloviated response.

If you were to observe some phenomenon that would absolutely prevent life from forming in a naturalistic manner in our universe where life nonetheless arose â€"that life could not form naturalistically, and yet it nonetheless originated in the universeâ€" then that would be extremely interesting and indicative, and would in fact kill my pure-naturalism philosophy dead.

I don't believe you have ever critically examined your own worldview in a moment of personal introspection, not arguing in a forum. What phenomena could we possibly observe that wouldn't be considered naturalistic? Entangled particles billions of miles apart can somehow instantly communicate with its partner faster than the speed of light. But you won't call that a supernatural occurrence...its a misunderstood natural process right? Super-natural phenomena by definition is always super-naturalism of the gaps because if it transits from the gaps into observation its 'natural' by default. There are several observations of quantum mechanics that prior to being observed would be considered supernatural but upon observation they become misunderstood natural phenomena. Fortunately you picked a criteria you can rest assured will never be breached making your position evidence and argument proof.

Yes. Because non-naturalistic answers don't seem to work, and don't seem to yield any interesting answers. Even Newton's celestial mechanics worked better as a theory of unfeeling forces and inertia than the previous regime of celestial bodies being pushed around by angels or whatnot â€" ie, when the role of God (or his agents) was diminished.

Feel free to knock yourself out beating up this straw-man you created. Your belief that extracting formulas and mathematical equations from naturalistic forces is due to your devotion and complete unquestioning acceptance of your world-view. This is what makes so many atheists comical because they detest others who have faith in what they believe yet are oblivious to their own belief system. The fact there are laws of physics, that the universe can be explained by mathematical equations and formulas comports with the belief we owe the existence of the universe to a Creator-Engineer which is in keeping with Newton's world-view. You simply hi-jack the universe is reducible to equations and formulas by assuming its what we should expect from naturalistic forces...

When engineers reverse engineer something intentionally created and designed they have every reason to expect the rules of logic, induction and deduction will apply and that whatever was created can become knowable and reverse engineered. They have reason to believe it should be explicable in mathematical terms because it was designed using mathematics. Isn't that a reasonable philosophical presupposition of something known to have been created intelligently? In what alternate universe could we possibly have the same expectation of forces that weren't designed or engineered and were caused by mindless irrational forces? The answer is none...its simply accepted its the result mindless naturalistic forces because you and others believe the laws of physics themselves are  the result of mindless naturalistic forces. A perfect example of circular reasoning.   

Nonsense. Theists believed that your god created each species specially. That's what the whole creationist vs. evolution argument was all about.

I'm not arguing biblical theism. Why are atheists always so fast to quote the bible? Favorite whipping boy I suspect.

No, it means that such explanations are unproductive and do not yield probative answers except in cases where "designer" and "creator" refer to humans. Like Stonehenge, the pyramids or the like. Or even bashed-together rocks.

What different methods do scientists use when they are explaining the existence of something known to be caused by intelligent design as opposed to phenomenon believed to have been caused by irrational mindless naturalistic forces? I assume for instance the methods scientists use to reverse engineer technology is completely different from the techniques they use to explain stellar phenomena and if they attempted to use the same techniques of hypothesis and experimentation on both phenomenon they'd get the wrong results. They'd know very quickly they were using the wrong technique.

In reality scientists use the same methods of inquiry regardless of whether they think the phenomenon in question was caused intentionally by intelligent beings or naturalistically by mindless forces. Whether a scientist believes he is revealing the mind of God (such as Newton) or believes they are discovering the result of mindless forces makes no difference because they use the same techniques and the same techniques work regardless.

False. There is no naturalistic pathway from raw material to a laptop without passing through human hands.

Of course there is if you believe what you say you believe. How did naturalistic forces cause laptops to exist? Its a rather circuitous route bear with me. In the beginning (if there was a beginning) matter somehow came into existence and was compelled to obey laws of nature. These laws of nature caused matter to clump into stars which with the laws of physics caused new forms of matter to exist as they exploded. They subsequently caused new stars with rocky matter and in the fullness of time coalesced  into planets. Subsequently these same laws of nature (quite by accident) caused life to exist which eventually formed into sentient human life that had the intelligence to further refine the pre-existing laws of nature to produce all kinds of things such as laptops and cars, virtual universes and that's the just so story of how mindless naturalistic forces caused laptops, cars and virtual universes to exist. If however as humans we can create things naturalistic forces can't...then we are super natural god's true?

[Baruch]

"Why are atheists always so fast to quote the bible? Favorite whipping boy I suspect." ... obviously ... most are former Christians

"In reality scientists use the same methods of inquiry regardless of whether they think the phenomenon in question was caused intentionally by intelligent beings or naturalistically by mindless forces. Whether a scientist believes he is revealing the mind of God (such as Newton) or believes they are discovering the result of mindless forces makes no difference because they use the same techniques and the same techniques work regardless." ... proper science is theology free, and ideologically free (see Nazi opposition to Einstein or Lysenko under Stalin).  Proper science can never show ... anything other that impersonal forces.  And this is a useful POV, for engineering for example.  Not so good for bio-ethics.

[Drew_2017]

"Why are atheists always so fast to quote the bible? Favorite whipping boy I suspect." ... obviously ... most are former Christians

"In reality scientists use the same methods of inquiry regardless of whether they think the phenomenon in question was caused intentionally by intelligent beings or naturalistically by mindless forces. Whether a scientist believes he is revealing the mind of God (such as Newton) or believes they are discovering the result of mindless forces makes no difference because they use the same techniques and the same techniques work regardless." ... proper science is theology free, and ideologically free (see Nazi opposition to Einstein or Lysenko under Stalin).  Proper science can never show ... anything other that impersonal forces.  And this is a useful POV, for engineering for example.  Not so good for bio-ethics.

Ideally science is a search for the truth where ever it leads however scientists aren't automatons and they have ideas how things should turn out. Some symposiums have been known to get a bit testy with full blown arguments taking place.

[trdsf]

Show me the "God" term in any one of Newton's equations. What? Can't find one? Then your assertion that "Goddidit" works rings very hollow. I don't give a damn what Newton or anyone else personally believes, I only care about what they can support. Newton only mentioned "God" as a part of his theory of planetary motion to explain why the solar system was stable in the long term by periodically resetting it â€" an explanation that was superceeded by Laplace's perturbation theory showing that the solar system was indeed stable long term without any godly intervention. Einstein personally believed in a deist god. It doesn't change the fact that his scientific work is absent of any term that takes into account his actions or presence. To paraphrase Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, I have no need for that hypothesis.

And of course, the areas where Newton remained solidly supernaturalist -- biblical commentary and theory, alchemy, and the idea of some god reaching in and resetting things -- are all areas for which he is not renowned as an unparalleled genius.  By and large these are all considered flaws in his intellect.

It's also worth noting that his position at Cambridge nominally required having taken holy orders in the Church of England -- but Newton's religious views were unorthodox bordering on heretical at the time, and he refused to take vows, but such was his genius that he was able to take the Lucasian chair anyway.

[SGOS]

Ideally science is a search for the truth where ever it leads however scientists aren't automatons and they have ideas how things should turn out. Some symposiums have been known to get a bit testy with full blown arguments taking place.

I read about an encounter where a journalist interviewed a biologist who devoted his career to the study of moss.  The journalist suggested that the study of moss was not the most interesting subject out there, and the biologist suggested he attend one of their annual conferences where "the debates could get quite lively at times."  Scientists advocate for different points of view, and they do get attached to their own.  This is a human frailty, but it loses out to the philosophy of science which ignores the personality disorders, and sometimes it takes a long time for the dust to settle.

Scientists publish their findings in scientific journals, and then others read them and point out the flaws of methodology.  It must be difficult for the thin skinned, but that's the nature of the process.  You have two choices.  Publish your findings or don't.  If you do, you will be put under a microscope.  It might bruise your ego.  Darwin wasn't accepted with great adoration, and specializing in mosses doesn't give you a free pass. 

Darwin published his findings knowing it was going to piss a lot of people off, and the firestorm is still going on, but not in the scientific community anymore.  Test after test kept bearing out his findings, until science just had to give in and accept that he had blundered onto the right explanation.  And it was a bit of a blunder too.  None of the tools that allowed his predictions to be verified were available at the time.  Darwin was more than anything an uncanny observer, but then good observation skills are never sneered at in science.  It's one of the most critical parts of the process.

[Baruch]

Ideally science is a search for the truth where ever it leads however scientists aren't automatons and they have ideas how things should turn out. Some symposiums have been known to get a bit testy with full blown arguments taking place.

Science has no truth to share.  It is a technique for developing (in a technical area) better questions.  Go to the Magic 8 Ball if you want answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball

[Mike Cl]

Science has no truth to share.  It is a technique for developing (in a technical area) better questions.  Go to the Magic 8 Ball if you want answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball

Disagree--science reveals the only 'truth' that exists.  And revealing those truths will of course, reveal better or even new questions.  Theists go to the 8 Ball for answers and their truth.

[popsthebuilder]

The only really true science is math.

The fact that everything is definable using math leans more favorably towards intelligent design.

Observable chaos would lean more towards chance.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

[fencerider]

If you used Occam's razor to cut a $2.00 Canadian coin in half, do you get 2 $1.00 coins?

Just caught up on the back and forth between Harukei and Drew. I have to agree with Harukei on two points. Drew brought up humans creating virtual universes; back on page 3; as some sort of proof of intelligent design without providing proof. and Drew just said the universe is fine-tuned for life without supporting his statement. If you presuppose that the universe is fine-tuned the info provided nicely supports the conclusion. Its not the only conclusion available if you don't start by presupposing.

Of course you can presuppose that the Adventures of Godhi-dit are true and find out you are wrong. Or at least that the story didn't take place the way you were told it did

[Baruch]

Disagree--science reveals the only 'truth' that exists.  And revealing those truths will of course, reveal better or even new questions.  Theists go to the 8 Ball for answers and their truth.

Don't diss the Ball .. you don't have the balls for it ;-)

So is Newton true, and Einstein a heretic?  Or is there more than one truth, and if so, what the F does truth mean ... oh yea, your truth ... my truth ... which means that religion is just as true as anything else.

[Baruch]

The only really true science is math.

The fact that everything is definable using math leans more unfavorable of intelligent design.

Observable chaos would lean more towards chance.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

G-d does play dice.  Humanity was a bad bet (see Noah).  Galileo, that heretic (to atheism) said ... "God is a mathematician".  But he was channeling Pythagoras, a founder of his own cult (don't eat beans, beans are where human souls are kept prisoner, flatulence is how you are releasing malevolent spirits) ... an early kind of Scientology.  Science, contrary to Plato, isn't "out there" ... but "in here" ... the product of game playing by humans, according to carefully defined rules.  The correspondence between math and physical reality, is a sophisticated form of "that cloud looks like a dragon to me" ... aka curve fitting, not unlike I Ching.

[Baruch]

If you used Occam's razor to cut a $2.00 Canadian coin in half, do you get 2 $1.00 coins?

Just caught up on the back and forth between Harukei and Drew. I have to agree with Harukei on two points. Drew brought up humans creating virtual universes; back on page 3; as some sort of proof of intelligent design without providing proof. and Drew just said the universe is fine-tuned for life without supporting his statement. If you presuppose that the universe is fine-tuned the info provided nicely supports the conclusion. Its not the only conclusion available if you don't start by presupposing.

Of course you can presuppose that the Adventures of Godhi-dit are true and find out you are wrong. Or at least that the story didn't take place the way you were told it did

People tell bed-time stories.  Some of us don't like that.  I leave a Youtube running as I go to sleep .. in the hope of subliminal learning, and to stimulate dreams.  For some skeptics, dreams have no meaning, and for others since consciousness is a waking dream, they say that conscious experience has no meaning either.  Such people would do better to stay asleep longer, maybe they might have a dream to upset their complacency.  I have from time to time.  Life is a mystery, if it isn't to you, then you are asleep.

[Cavebear]

Aside from the enjoyment some posters have for debating for the sake of debating, I think the whole business about a deity of any sort is meaningless.  There is one or there isn't and if there is, IT is so totally beyond our comprehension it doesn't matter.  It's not like comparing ants to humans'; it would be like comparing ants to a deity.  There is no comparison, just as there is no part way to infinity.

That being said, I utterly doubt the existence of any form of a deity.  If there were such a thing, it would be so obvious that none of us would have any doubt. 

Mostly, all the universe seems to work perfectly well without a deity involved.  A middleman (a deity) is neither required nor likely. 

If it seems to you that I am putting this in too general of terms, that's about all we can say.  A universe with a deity would be too obvious; lacking one leaves us with the universe we see.

So, none.