It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Remains of WWII-era plane downed by Soviet bombers found by divers
The plane was en route from Tallinn to Helsinki when it was downed by Soviet bombers on June 14,...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whats worse still for a believers position is that they rely on ridiculous contradictory books of childish nonsense in an attempt to persuade themselves and others that each and every one of their particular god claims is correct and without flaw.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ridiculous contradictory books of childish nonsense    believers position   creator   attempt  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: People    God   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Occam's razor    humans   corresponding literature   gods  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lot of people    innocent person   people   Renaissance  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
IMO, it is all mythology. I haven't seen one iota of proof, one instance of factual, visible evidence that this "God" exists. We don't know everything but we know a hell of a lot more than we did in "Biblical Times". What used to be blamed on the gods is now explained in believable, observable fact or theory that makes sense.
If it were not for the Bible (or the Koran, etc.), and the people who teach it (them) to children (through adulthood), there would be no gods today. Too many things are now obvious, or, at least, explainable. But, the myth continues. As Mark Twain put it:
"It is full of interest. It has some noble poetry in it and some clever fables, some blood drenched history and some good morals, a wealth of obscenity and upwards of a thousand lies."
This I CAN believe because it makes sense.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, until it IS proven, I choose NOT to believe in this (these) entities that have been the excuse for wars (and sacrifices), for centuries. There is almost as much cruelty attributed to religion(s) as goodness.
Jefferson said: "Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science by rendering them my supreme light." (Smart man).
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Nature is nature, and Science in general, can't explain everything.
An individual can hypothisize, self rationalize, or choose to make assumptions, based on individual opinion, and that individual opinion, is just as good as the next one is.
Again, an individual only knows as much as he/she can "Understand," or refuse to understand, based on how an individuals "mind, via Science," dictates towards his/her, own heart?
I believe, that in the vastness of the space that surrounds our own small planet, we barely know anything, because we're limited primarily by the minute amount of information, that we are surrounded by.
Or the minute, understanding, that some of us voluntarily educate ourselves with?
Like voluntarily believing in God, or not believing in God.
Because, if there is a such thing as a "Proper Science," that is maybe needed, to fully understand God with, we're not there yet.
Because humanity, is too busy being self destructive, and destructive towards one another.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think I can understand that. Nowadays modern Christians don't want to use evidence or whatnot to help prove their own beliefs and whatnot. In reality, they mostly use faith, which in most cases is just believing things without any sort of proof. And a lot of these people's faith is so big that it spills into arrogance. A lot of arguments I hear are mostly a fallacy using arguments from ignorance like "I can't explain this, so it must be God!" or "I believe God exists so it must be the truth!" which teaches their faith as fact when that's not even part of faith's definition. Some use circular arguments, like "How do you know the Bible is true?" "Because it's the word from God." "How do you know that?' "Because it's in the Bible." and it repeats. There are other fallacies I don't remember at the top of my head and I'll name them when I remember soon.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
What I'm getting at, is that none of us currently, were around to witness Jesus in person, and to hear him speak in person.
And even back then, the Priests in his day, went after him, just like the anti religious individuals of today, go after those individuals who choose to believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible.
It's the same difference, between then and now.
And I am of the impression, that those Priests during those days of Jesus, didn't understand him, or didn't want to understand him?
So they crucifying him, only helped to push his word's and messaging, from then, all the way up until this modern day, that we are a part of.
So unless the Science of today, is able to dissect the Bible, from the inside out, and disprove the word of Jesus, and God that way.
The anti religious, and the religious individuals, are going to go back and forth, because the modern man of today, like the Priests back in the days of Jesus, still, do not have, the Proper Science to understand God then?
And that's my position.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious individuals of today    RichardCarter2021   days of Jesus   modern day  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
God is not a "thing" like matter or energy. All "things" require a cause. God does not.
The reason is because all "things" have a beginning, and because of that beginning, a first cause is necessary.
God had no beginning. He simply has always existed. But even that is misleading. God does not exist in time, thus it isn't that God is very, very, old, but that time doesn't really apply to God.
He existed before time and exists outside of time. In fact, time is part of what He created. We make a mistake when we think God is a "thing" like created things.
Everything about God is greater than our human language can graspe. For example,
*Omnipotence doesn't just mean God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in existence is His power. There is no power other than His.
*Omniscience doesn't just mean God knows everything that has been and will be, but that God also knows everything that could have been, but didn't happen. He knows all actualities, but knows all possibilities too.
*Omnipresent doesn't just mean God is everywhere, but that everywhere is in God. Every spacetime loci in existence exists inside of Him!
Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and in contingent on anything)
One of the reasons the bible has been so highly esteemed throughout history is because it contains complex, intelligent, and astute ideas like these.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>Since when was deism and theism the same thing?
Sorry, I didn't even know they had been made the same thing.
So when were they made the same thing? And how does that relate to my post?
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: deism    gt   thing   theism  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your question to ethang5:
"Since when was deism and theism the same thing?"
"Erm, pretty sure that was the question I asked you. Have you actually got an answer instead of parroting me in a round about way?"
"This is true. Some people like to say that man was created in God's image. I contend, however, that God was created in man's image."
@ZeusAres42
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: paste definitions    sources   TKDB   copying  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Each posting tells it's own story.
Who you reference is self explanatory.
It's not hard to decipher.
And I noticed how you left the below alone, while at the same time, what you chose to lament over?
@ZeusAres42.
So, thank you again for another Educational nugget, from your growing archive of commentary.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
The truth is, however, that humans are a very tiny, insignificant part of the Universe.The Universe does not have to work by ideas easy for us to understand, nor does it have had to be created by some living being. And even if the god actually exists, it is unlikely to be anything like human religions imagine it to be, nor does it care about humans much. There are probably trillions other intelligent species in the Universe, and there is no reason for anyone looking at it from above to pay any particular attention to us.
Whenever learning the truth about the world, one has to cast aside their personal preferences and look instead at raw data. The interpretation of data does not have to be very intuitive or understandable, it only has to match that data and produce testable predictions. Anthropocentrism should be thrown away, and we should become cold robots analysing the raw data, if we are to learn anything at all.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: idea of god    insignificant part of the Universe.The Universe   particular attention   intelligent species  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>Erm, pretty sure that was the question I asked you.
Was that in dispute?
>Have you actually got an answer instead of parroting me in a round about way?
You couldn't tell that I do not think theism and deism are the same thing? OK here....
>Since when was deism and theism the same thing?
Deism and theism are not he same thing, I doubt highly that they at any time became the same thing. So I cannot tell you when they became the same thing, as I do not believe they ever became the same thing. Do you?
Does that answer make you less unhappy?
I still have no clue why you asked or what it has to do with my post.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.18  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ethang5    thing   theism   answer  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: tangent style    mature adult discussion   silly High school   topic  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and not contingent on anything)
There is no logical reason to believe God had to be created or that God was "created" by man.
That is like a bunch of animated shirts claiming there is no tailor because the tailor looks too much like them.
Where comes the silly assumption that tailor made shirts would NOT look like the tailor?
If God had a beginning, He would have a creator. He has no beginning, and thus, no creation date, or creator.
Infinite regress works only for created things bound in time.
God is timeless and uncreated.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"You're right; that wasn't hard to decipher at all;
I could spot that from a mile off.
Have you got some work less derivative at all instead?
And something that continues in a tangent style rather than allowing us to go off-topic?
Until then, I'm not interested."
@ZeusAres42
And, thank you again, for another Educational nugget, from your growing archive of commentary.
And the below, addresses the theme of the forum.
"What created God?"
To believe in God, or to not believe in God, is completely voluntary.
Nature is nature, and Science in general, can't explain everything.
An individual can hypothisize, self rationalize, or choose to make assumptions, based on individual opinion, and that individual opinion, is just as good as the next one is.
Again, an individual only knows as much as he/she can "Understand," or refuse to understand, based on how an individuals "mind, via Science," dictates towards his/her, own heart?
I believe, that in the vastness of the space that surrounds our own small planet, we barely know anything, because we're limited primarily by the minute amount of information, that we are surrounded by.
Or the minute, understanding, that some of us voluntarily educate ourselves with?
Like voluntarily believing in God, or not believing in God.
Because, if there is a such thing as a "Proper Science," that is maybe needed, to fully understand God with, we're not there yet.
Because humanity, is too busy being self destructive, and destructive towards one another.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
For @ZeusAres42:
https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/theist-deist-atheist-agnostic
"Brewer's: Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic
A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.
A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.
The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.
The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding."
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Supernatural" means: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
If God is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...then none of our naturalistic laws or expectations can be applied to God and therefor the question "What created God" is equally ridiculous as asking "What is the difference in elevation between Jupiter and Earth"? The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise.
Science cannot be used to explain God anymore than Geology can be used to explain Quantum Physics.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
In a way yes. Created things come in two categories, the physical and the spiritual. Men are physical and angels are spirit, though both are created things.
And both must obey the spiritual or physical laws of their realms. Both need a creator. God is different, and completely unique as there is only one instance of Him in existence. God is a singularity.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: physical laws of their realms    angels   Men   thing  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
>You forgot indefinable as well as also having Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability).
So? A god who was testable by created men would not be the God of the bible.
The concept of Unfalsifiability doesn't make any sense when applied to a singularity.
God just IS. And our puny languages and thoughts can never define or comprehend Him. That is how it should be, if God is who and how He says He is.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God of the bible.The concept    puny languages   god   men  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
>If God is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...then none of our naturalistic laws or expectations can be applied to God and therefor the question "What created God" is equally ridiculous as asking "What is the difference in elevation between Jupiter and Earth"? The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise.
Thank you kind Sir! That was a most excellent post!
Theists do not necessarily want the atheist to believe as they do, but it is great when the atheist understands the argument of the theist even if he disbelieves it.
The question is irrational, but it is difficult to get the atheist to see why it is. Thanks.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Allow me to add that Angels and demons are the same beings, demons just reject God. Similar to theists and atheists.
Note that energy and matter are the same too. Just in different states.
It is interesting to do logical exercises with the person of God and see how internally logically consistent the Christian concept of God is, and how much it matches what we see in reality.
Anyway. That was a good question.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hmm. Did you perhaps mean something other than Unfalsifiable and/or singularity here? Unfalsifiable as already pointed out means that something cannot be proved either right or wrong, existent or non-existent, etc. Feel free to defer to other authorities sources if you're doubting me and/or having trouble understanding what these terms mean. You might also be interested to note that a quote from Vaulk in his response was also in par with that of unfalsifiablity "The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise." - Vaulk. You might also find this helpful: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability
I myself am open more to the possibility of a Deistic Deity than that of a Theistic one and therefore I have an alternative version of you're saying here and that is the following:
If there is a Deity that set everything in motion it would not be anything like that which is depicted by any human being. There is a possibility that a Deity did put everything into motion but this kind of Deity of would be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, define, or describe it.
What I have noticed with several Atheists and Theists alike is that they often end up talking about a Deity in anthropomorphic terms. The trouble is when one starts to anthropomorphize God they're actually no longer talking about a Deity any more; in fact, they're simply talking about what could be classed as an immortal human being with super powers; as an adult this is something I find extremely hard to accept.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not religious, but I don't think it's fair, or accurate, or even genuine to argue any religion was created to "control people with fear". Judaism was created as a revolutionary belief system to help the Jews create a cultural identity, which in turn would hopefully help them be freed from slavery and foreign oppression. "Controlling people" was not the purpose.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You and I agree much more than you seem to think we do.
>There is no way of addressing this point as there is no way of knowing if a Deity did create humans and/or if that Deity is the same God of the Bible.
True. One of the most difficult things to accept as a intelligent curious person is that some things will never be known.
>You can of course believe in a Deity and also believe that Deity is the same God of the Bible, or choose not to believe; either way is fine. Nonetheless, this still doesn't change that the idea of God is an unfalsifiable one;
This point doesn't advance your argument or hinder mine. For example, the idea that you see the same color red as I do is also unfalsifiable. So what? Your problem may be in what you think unfalsifiability means to the idea of God.
>...it is an idea that has been orchestrated (either intentionally or unintentionally) so that it cannot be falsified.
Or it could just be the truth, and the truth is sometimes unfalsifiable.
>In fact, your statement above actually epitomizes the unfalsifiability of the idea of God even more. Please note however, that unfalsifiable is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it being used to disprove the existence of God here as that would be contradictory to the term unfalsifiable.
Then one wonders for what reason you're advancing it. Surely you have a reason beyond simply saying so?
The concept of Unfalsifiability doesn't make any sense when applied to a singularity.
>Hmm. Did you perhaps mean something other than Unfalsifiable and/or singularity here?
No. I meant exactly what I said. Do you believe that the concept of Unfalsifiability can be applied to a singularity? How so?
>Unfalsifiable as already pointed out means that something cannot be proved either right or wrong, existent or non-existent, etc.
- By men on their own. But if God, on His own initiative, confirmed His existence, then an unfalsifiable idea can be proven.
>Feel free to defer to other authorities sources if you're doubting me and/or having trouble understanding what these terms mean.
Lol. OK.
>You might also be interested to note that a quote from Vaulk in his response was also in par with that of unfalsifiablity "The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise." - Vaulk.
That is not talking about Unfalsifiability at all. Vaulk is noting the incorrectness of the question, not the Unfalsifiability of the idea.
>You might also find this helpful: I myself am open more to the possibility of a Deistic Deity than that of a Theistic one and therefore I have an alternative version of you're saying here and that is the following:
>If there is a Deity that set everything in motion it would not be anything like that which is depicted by any human being.
I agree. And this is exactly what Christians believe, and what the bible sets out. But unlike me, you have no logically consistent reason for this belief other than you simply like it.
>There is a possibility that a Deity did put everything into motion but this kind of Deity of would be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, define, or describe it.
Again, this is exactly what Christianity teaches. Though again, your reason for believing it is simply because it seem correct to you. You can believe a true thing for a false reason.
>What I have noticed with several Atheists and Theists alike is that they often end up talking about a Deity in anthropomorphic terms.
This is generally hard to avoid, but rarely does it corrupt the intention of the theist or the atheist. It just helps both parties to better understand the esoteric concept of God.
>The trouble is when one starts to anthropomorphize God they're actually no longer talking about a Deity any more; in fact, they're simply talking about what could be classed as an immortal human being with super powers; as an adult this is something I find extremely hard to accept.
You should be aware that your perception that they are no longer talking about a deity is only that, -your perception. It is not necessarily correct.
Anthropomorphizing God can be incorrectly done sure, but it is also often just a linguistic tool. For example, we know God has no gender, but we refer to God as "Him".
I was once a deist, but I soon saw that nothing in Christianity contradicted deism, and in fact Christianity explained many of the conundrums presented by deism.
I just had to get past the "pop christian" beliefs of my culture that everyone thought were correct.
Good post.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable. Or stated otherwise, the simplest solution is most likely the right one.
True though that we cannot "conclude", but we can discard...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: fictional character    fairy tale   man   God  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra