Certainly what’d make the most sense to me given how much of the observable world doesn’t work in any other scenario besides one with no creator at all.
Note that I’m not saying I believe it in a spiritual sense, just that if I had to accept that a creator was responsible for the universe, that the above description is what would make the most sense to me given what can be observed in the current world.
Do you happen to know the name of this belief? I’m kinda in the same boat. It’s possible that god exists, but I don’t know that we can ascribe any human moral agency to it.
And I resist at calling it a belief. Makes more sense as a form of philosophy, as a search for knowledge and understanding of what is, through reason, not dogma.
You’re essentially positing the deist possibility, where an all powerful entity created existence and afterwards just left it to its own devices.
Certainly what’d make the most sense to me given how much of the observable world doesn’t work in any other scenario besides one with no creator at all.
Note that I’m not saying I believe it in a spiritual sense, just that if I had to accept that a creator was responsible for the universe, that the above description is what would make the most sense to me given what can be observed in the current world.
I’m not concerned with you belief or lack thereof.
The way you explained yourself, I thought you’d find it interesting to know that such position towards the problematic of belief as a whole as a name.
Spinoza considered that was the only creator reasonable to exist.
Do you happen to know the name of this belief? I’m kinda in the same boat. It’s possible that god exists, but I don’t know that we can ascribe any human moral agency to it.
Deism
And I resist at calling it a belief. Makes more sense as a form of philosophy, as a search for knowledge and understanding of what is, through reason, not dogma.
Oh very interesting. Thanks