Deism v. Atheism

[Majin Gojira]

I already copped to the fact that I will not fully dissect his arguments again beyond the one I already posted in a half form for the simple reason of admitted personal bias. I read his arguments and I really didn't like them to the point where I largely shut them out of my memory and I'm stating my amazement of his use here when other arguments I've ready from him (his dismissible of observational techniques, which form some of the basis for his 'proof' of the existence of god) were so easily dismantled.

It's not that I am 'arrogant' nor am I 'ignorant' of his arguments. It's just that I've been down that road, was forced to regurgitate BS college papers on the guy after effectively dismantling one of his foundational arguments--which left an extremely foul taste for his works after wards.

In short, I have a personal bias against the guy.

[Zed]

I should note that Kant was a fairly traditional philosopher in his earlier writings. It's only with the Critiques that he became innovative (and thereby shaped all modern philosophy, from Marx over Wittgenstein to Popper). In these stages, he no longer provided a 'proof' of God - he believed there were moral reasons for believing in God, but he surely did not believe that one could ever provide a rational argument for his existence.

[Dooey Jo]

[...] trying to make me prove a negative.

Can people please stop using this line? Where do they learn it anyway? That place needs to be bulldozed.

What constitutes a "negative" is a matter of phrasing an argument and if the "burden of proof" automatically was on the positive side, it would be easy for theists to win the debate by simply rephrasing the atheist position to be the positive one, e.g. "god doesn't exist" => "all things in the universe are non-gods".

"What? You're the one making a positive claim about everything in the universe, you prove it" they could say, and what would the philosophically challenged smugtheist do then? Convert?

[Metahive]

What constitutes a "negative" is a matter of phrasing an argument and if the "burden of proof" automatically was on the positive side, it would be easy for theists to win the debate by simply rephrasing the atheist position to be the positive one, e.g. "god doesn't exist" => "all things in the universe are non-gods".

Well, it would certainly on par with the debating skills usually displayed by religious apologists, complete with a strawman of the atheistic position, or how do you get from "There's no evidence for the existence of God" to "Everything in the universe is not God" without torturing semantics and logic?

[Dooey Jo]

What constitutes a "negative" is a matter of phrasing an argument and if the "burden of proof" automatically was on the positive side, it would be easy for theists to win the debate by simply rephrasing the atheist position to be the positive one, e.g. "god doesn't exist" => "all things in the universe are non-gods".

Well, it would certainly on par with the debating skills usually displayed by religious apologists, complete with a strawman of the atheistic position, or how do you get from "There's no evidence for the existence of God" to "Everything in the universe is not God" without torturing semantics and logic?

Way to miss the point. You realize it goes both ways, ie. they could rephrase their own position to be the negative one and thus by internet debating standards would lose the burden of proof?

[Patrick Degan]

What constitutes a "negative" is a matter of phrasing an argument and if the "burden of proof" automatically was on the positive side, it would be easy for theists to win the debate by simply rephrasing the atheist position to be the positive one, e.g. "god doesn't exist" => "all things in the universe are non-gods".

Well, it would certainly on par with the debating skills usually displayed by religious apologists, complete with a strawman of the atheistic position, or how do you get from "There's no evidence for the existence of God" to "Everything in the universe is not God" without torturing semantics and logic?

Way to miss the point. You realize it goes both ways, ie. they could rephrase their own position to be the negative one and thus by internet debating standards would lose the burden of proof?

As for Theists trying philosophical judo on atheists, it wouldn't work. Shifting the atheist position to the positive one (which is the position it already assumes) allows the atheist to lay out just how the laws of physics can explain the universe quite nicely and without recourse to the God hypothesis. So in the end, theists would gain nothing in the debate by trying in their clumsy way to turn the tables. Their position is the logically weak one to begin with. And no atheist worth his salt in a debate would ever make the mistake of adopting a negative argument to force the theist to prove the existence of God and thus cede the fallacy. And "proving a negative" is not deemed a fallacy simply by internet debating standards but by any debating standard on any forum.

[Dooey Jo]

As for Theists trying philosophical judo on atheists, it wouldn't work. Shifting the atheist position to the positive one (which is the position it already assumes)

It's not a shift, it's a reformulation of the same position. This is the whole point.

And no atheist worth his salt in a debate would ever make the mistake of adopting a negative argument to force the theist to prove the existence of God and thus cede the fallacy.

Obviously I'm not addressing atheists worth their salt, as they would understand this.

And "proving a negative" is not deemed a fallacy simply by internet debating standards but by any debating standard on any forum.

It is it deemed a "fallacy" only by those who don't know what a fallacy is. Please show how "proving a negative" means a conclusion does not follow from given premises. But before you try, consider that if ask you to prove that you don't have an automobile in your fridge, it would hardly be fallacious, and should in fact be trivial for you to do so.

[Patrick Degan]

As for Theists trying philosophical judo on atheists, it wouldn't work. Shifting the atheist position to the positive one (which is the position it already assumes)

It's not a shift, it's a reformulation of the same position. This is the whole point.

Same difference. What's your point?

And no atheist worth his salt in a debate would ever make the mistake of adopting a negative argument to force the theist to prove the existence of God and thus cede the fallacy.

Obviously I'm not addressing atheists worth their salt, as they would understand this.

Cute. Now try actually demonstrating the validity of the point you think you're making.

And "proving a negative" is not deemed a fallacy simply by internet debating standards but by any debating standard on any forum.

It is it deemed a "fallacy" only by those who don't know what a fallacy is.

Really:

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Nizkor Project. Demonstrate how the definition is not valid, please.

Please show how "proving a negative" means a conclusion does not follow from given premises. But before you try, consider that if ask you to prove that you don't have an automobile in your fridge, it would hardly be fallacious, and should in fact be trivial for you to do so.

Your "fridge in the automobile" example doesn't even compare to the issue before the bar here, or do you actually presume equivalence between demonstrating how a refrigerator-like object can't fit into an ordinary passenger car and claims for the alleged existence of an entity for which no credible evidence has ever been produced and which is unnecessary to explain the natural world? The refrigerator example is not an extraordinary claim but merely a ridiculous one and easily defeated. God is the extraordinary claim, thus its advocates are the ones required to produce the proof.

[Dooey Jo]

Cute. Now try actually demonstrating the validity of the point you think you're making.

Does your fridge fit a car? No? Then you can prove without a doubt that you don't have one in there.
Thus, it is possible to prove negative statements.
Thus, when people say "why should I do something, I have the default position because you can't prove a negative", they are wrong, as the premise "you can't prove a negative" was shown to be false.
By the above argument, my point is valid.
(Though why I would have to spell this out for you, I do not know.)

Nizkor Project. Demonstrate how the definition is not valid, please.

No, I just need to point out that it is not analogous to "can't prove a negative", but is in fact the appeal to ignorance, as it says right there.

Your "fridge in the automobile" example doesn't even compare to the issue before the bar here, or do you actually presume equivalence between demonstrating how a refrigerator-like object can't fit into an ordinary passenger car and claims for the alleged existence of an entity for which no credible evidence has ever been produced and which is unnecessary to explain the natural world?

That was merely a simple example. Slightly harder would be for you to prove that you don't have any rainbow coloured socks in your drawer. That is also quite possible. You can keep going with ever harder examples, but it turns out that it is in theory very possible to prove that a well-defined god does not exist. It may just be difficult. Or it may be easy, in case the god is illogical, or have necessary effects that are not present.

The refrigerator example is not an extraordinary claim but merely a ridiculous one and easily defeated. God is the extraordinary claim, thus its advocates are the ones required to produce the proof.

And then you have evolved into not saying they have the burden of proof because you have the high ground negative position, but because they are making an, in this case, extraordinary claim. Congratulations.

[Patrick Degan]

Cute. Now try actually demonstrating the validity of the point you think you're making.

Does your fridge fit a car? No? Then you can prove without a doubt that you don't have one in there.
Thus, it is possible to prove negative statements.
Thus, when people say "why should I do something, I have the default position because you can't prove a negative", they are wrong, as the premise "you can't prove a negative" was shown to be false.
By the above argument, my point is valid.
(Though why I would have to spell this out for you, I do not know.)

No, your argument is not valid because the analogy to the God argument is totally inapplicable. Refrigerators and cars exist, they can be examined, and from there, it is a simple matter of comparative measurement to establish the fact of the matter. No such examination is possible for the God hypothesis: there is no testable evidence, no means to validate the premises, and all arguments for the existence of God rest upon assertion and the negative-proof defence. That is why it constitutes a Burden of Proof Fallacy. I really should not have to spell this out to you.

Nizkor Project. Demonstrate how the definition is not valid, please.

No, I just need to point out that it is not analogous to "can't prove a negative", but is in fact the appeal to ignorance, as it says right there.

No, you need to point out how the very example which demonstrates a negative-proof defence renders the definition invalid. You have not done so. In fact, since the article is presenting the example as part of the definition of Burden of Proof Fallacy and also allows it as part of the definition for Appeal to Ignorance, your objection amounts to mere hair-splitting.

Your "fridge in the automobile" example doesn't even compare to the issue before the bar here, or do you actually presume equivalence between demonstrating how a refrigerator-like object can't fit into an ordinary passenger car and claims for the alleged existence of an entity for which no credible evidence has ever been produced and which is unnecessary to explain the natural world?

That was merely a simple example. Slightly harder would be for you to prove that you don't have any rainbow coloured socks in your drawer. That is also quite possible. You can keep going with ever harder examples, but it turns out that it is in theory very possible to prove that a well-defined god does not exist. It may just be difficult. Or it may be easy, in case the god is illogical, or have necessary effects that are not present.

Again: no examination is possible for the God hypothesis. There is no testable evidence, no means to validate the premises, and all arguments for the existence of God rest upon assertion and the negative-proof defence. That is why it constitutes a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

The refrigerator example is not an extraordinary claim but merely a ridiculous one and easily defeated. God is the extraordinary claim, thus its advocates are the ones required to produce the proof.

And then you have evolved into not saying they have the burden of proof because you have the high ground negative position, but because they are making an, in this case, extraordinary claim. Congratulations.

No, the atheist position is the default logical position on grounds of parsimony. The ones making the extraordinary claim have the burden of proving its validity. They are the ones attempting to add an unnecessary and unprovable extra term to the equation of existence. The atheist's demand is not "you can't prove God exists" but is "go ahead: prove that God exists, present your evidence".

[Steel]

Let us suppose you have any statement, A.

There is the negation of A, NOT(A). NOT(A) is in turn another statement.

A is logically equivalent to NOT(NOT(A)). This is a tautology.

Establishing A as true is identical to establishing NOT NOT A. The proof of any statement is ALWAYS equivalent to "proof of a negative".

Example

A: all cows are herbivores.

How shall we prove this? Via NOTNOT A.

NOT A: there exists a carnivorous* cow

Call NOT A the statement B, and note that B is a perfectly 'positive' statement.

And therefore to show A we shall establsh NOT B.



*omnivorous, whatever

[Channel72]

Again: no examination is possible for the God hypothesis. There is no testable evidence, no means to validate the premises, and all arguments for the existence of God rest upon assertion and the negative-proof defence. That is why it constitutes a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

It seems then, that you should be arguing that theism is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, rather than arguing that the theist position is a demand that atheists prove a negative.

[Dooey Jo]

No, your argument is not valid because the analogy to the God argument is totally inapplicable.

Even if that were true (and it's not, because not all gods are unfalsifiable, and it's debatable to what degree something unfalsifiable can even be considered well-defined or meaningful), my point is that the claim "you cannot prove a negative" is wrong; that people should stop saying that, and that what constitutes a "negative" is a matter of language. It's only the third or fourth time I write this now.

No, you need to point out how the very example which demonstrates a negative-proof defence renders the definition invalid. You have not done so. In fact, since the article is presenting the example as part of the definition of Burden of Proof Fallacy and also allows it as part of the definition for Appeal to Ignorance, your objection amounts to mere hair-splitting.

It's not hair-splitting to point out that I'm not talking about the appeal to ignorance fallacy, nor am I trying to show that an appeal to ignorance is not a fallacy.

No, the atheist position is the default logical position on grounds of parsimony. The ones making the extraordinary claim have the burden of proving its validity. They are the ones attempting to add an unnecessary and unprovable extra term to the equation of existence. The atheist's demand is not "you can't prove God exists" but is "go ahead: prove that God exists, present your evidence".

That depends wholly on the atheist. The ones making any claim have the burden of proof, even people stating theirs in terms of negative assertions. The default logical position is to reject it or at least consider it indeterminate. Someone barging in to a theist forum, starting a thread saying "lol you can't prove god exists" implying that their god therefore doesn't exist, is actually making that claim, and in fact also committing an appeal to ignorance. Imagine that.

[Zed]

No, your argument is not valid because the analogy to the God argument is totally inapplicable.

Even if that were true (and it's not, because not all gods are unfalsifiable, and it's debatable to what degree something unfalsifiable can even be considered well-defined or meaningful), my point is that the claim "you cannot prove a negative" is wrong; that people should stop saying that, and that what constitutes a "negative" is a matter of language. It's only the third or fourth time I write this now.

The problem with your reasoning, exemplified by Steel's earlier claim "A is logically equivalent to NOT(NOT(A))" is that it is not relevant to the issue at hand. It's certainly true that A and ~~A are logically equivalent; it's also true that "proving a negative" isn't always impossible. The problem lies in the fact that nobody seems to be making any reference to predicate logic, basic though it may be. Once you introduce the universal quantifier ∀ and the existential quantifier ∃, the problem is easily resolved.

When people claim that one cannot prove a negative in reference to God's existence, they claim that one cannot prove a negative existential statement, which is taken to mean the negation of an existentially quantified predicate: ~∃xPx . This is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of x's to check. As an example, consider "there is no x for which x is a fairy" - in other words: fairies do not exist. It is theoretically and practically impossible to determine of all x's - all objects in the world - whether or not they are a fairy, as some fairies might exist in some dark caves on Mars hidden from all human perception.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to prove the affirmation of an existentially quantified predicate: ∃xPx. This is very simple, because one merely needs to find a single object that falls under the predicate P. For example, consider "there is an x for which x is a chair" - in other word: at least one chair exists in the world. It is very simple to prove a claim of this type, as all I need to do is find a single chair, and I'm done.

A similar assymmetry is found with universal quantifiers, as they can be translated from existential statements. ∃xPx <=> ~∀x~Px and ∀xPx <=> ~∃x~Px. As every negative existential statement corresponds to an affirmative universal statement, and vice versa, it's true that there is a slight problem with the terminology of "proving a negative", but one cannot deny the assymmetry of these types of sentences: one can only be falsified, while the other can only be verified.



Edit: for the record, as to the notion that something unfalsifiable is ill-defined or meaningless, as you seem to suggest, was not even something that Popper contemplated, who was the foremost proponent of the notion of falsifiability. There's quite a good reason for that: I think sentences like "X does not exist" are rather meaningful.

[Steel]

...

As an aside, I don't think its ever really worthwhile breaking out the symbolic logic on the internet. While you (or I) may find it more convenient, I don't think it really helps anything. Firstly, the majority of people won't know what it means. Secondly even once you've explained the meaning of the symbols I've never actually seen anyone convinced by the symbolic portion of the argument until it has been unpacked and presented as plain writing at least once, so it took much more time than writing it out longhand to begin with. Finally, perhaps most importantly, my phone at least wont render special characters, so a series of boxes conveys no information at all to some readers.

You could at least elaborate that 'upside down A' is 'for All', 'backwards E' is 'there Exists', 'xPx' means 'x such that x has property P' and '<=>' is 'if and only if'. At this stage a lay person can at least begin to decipher your explanation.

[Zed]

The mathematics curriculum in my country teaches about existential and universal qualifiers when children are ages 13-14. I supposed it wouldn't be terribly different in other countries. I used it because I thought it's more clear in symbolic language, but I added examples to render their meaning more clear if necessary.

[Feil]

The negative proof issue is pretty well wrapped up over the past few posts, I think. So I feel comfortable jumping back a page and a half to a prior question.

What is this "complexity" you were all talking about? Physical information? Mass-energy? Free entropy? Does it have a defined meaning at all? Is complexity conserved? How can you tell if one thing is more complex than another? Is it quantized? Can complexity self-generate? Self-annihilate? Exist in an indeterminate state? Does it have a wavefunction which collapses on observation?

Why shouldn't complexity tend to infinity? Or zero? Why stop at zero - let's entertain the possibility of negative, imaginary, and complex (hah!) complexities. Maybe complexity is conserved across creators (or cyclic successor universes, or bubbling multiverses), and thus it doesn't tend to anything, being at its one and only allowed value. Do you even know what the property you're arguing about whether or not something has more or less of is?

[Dooey Jo]

When people claim that one cannot prove a negative in reference to God's existence, they claim that one cannot prove a negative existential statement, which is taken to mean the negation of an existentially quantified predicate: ~∃xPx . This is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of x's to check. As an example, consider "there is no x for which x is a fairy" - in other words: fairies do not exist. It is theoretically and practically impossible to determine of all x's - all objects in the world - whether or not they are a fairy, as some fairies might exist in some dark caves on Mars hidden from all human perception.

This is incorrect. Firstly, if it is shown that your definition of "x", a fairy in this case, is contradictory or otherwise impossible, that definition of x cannot possibly exist, and there is no need for you to search everywhere for it. Need I remind anyone of everyone's favourite past-time; asking whether god can create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it? If you'd like it in more formal terms: "For all x - no x is a square circle." Further, your definition of x may require the sky to be purple, and to falsify x we need only note that the sky is not purple. Not all x are created equal, as I'm sure you are aware. More important to my point is that such qualities apply whether they are negative or not. If there's only one chair and it's very small and somewhere on the other side of the galaxy, it's going to be pretty difficult to prove its existence. If all fairies have no observable effects, you won't even be able to spot one to prove their existence.

But secondly, that is not even what people are claiming. Do you really think most people have any idea what you're talking about here? People say "nuh-uh can't prove a negative" in regards to all kinds of crap, not just in theological debates, but also where it is even more wrong. Just go and read a few debates in the "Other Sci-fi" forum, I'm sure you'll spot several such claims. Or just note how Degan defended the notion by bringing up parsimony for some reason. Is it supposed to be "you can't prove a parsimonious position"? WTF! The problem of terminology isn't "slight", it's dead wrong. You even agreed it's wrong so why are you trying to defend it? Just admit to yourself that it's wrong, don't say it anymore, and move on.

Edit: for the record, as to the notion that something unfalsifiable is ill-defined or meaningless, as you seem to suggest, was not even something that Popper contemplated, who was the foremost proponent of the notion of falsifiability. There's quite a good reason for that: I think sentences like "X does not exist" are rather meaningful.

Such statements are not inherently unfalsifiable. The canonical example of "no black swans" was falsified. Furthermore I said it was debatable, not that it was my opinion. Popper isn't the only philosopher with opinions in regard to meaningfulness; just ask the positivists.

[Zed]

When people claim that one cannot prove a negative in reference to God's existence, they claim that one cannot prove a negative existential statement, which is taken to mean the negation of an existentially quantified predicate: ~∃xPx . This is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of x's to check. As an example, consider "there is no x for which x is a fairy" - in other words: fairies do not exist. It is theoretically and practically impossible to determine of all x's - all objects in the world - whether or not they are a fairy, as some fairies might exist in some dark caves on Mars hidden from all human perception.

This is incorrect. Firstly, if it is shown that your definition of "x", a fairy in this case, is contradictory or otherwise impossible, that definition of x cannot possibly exist, and there is no need for you to search everywhere for it. Need I remind anyone of everyone's favourite past-time; asking whether god can create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it? If you'd like it in more formal terms: "For all x - no x is a square circle." Further, your definition of x may require the sky to be purple, and to falsify x we need only note that the sky is not purple. Not all x are created equal, as I'm sure you are aware.

Contradictions don't get to exist; this is obvious to all but Graham Priest and other dialetheists. It may be an interesting comment, but it's not very relevant to the distinction between positive and negative existential statements.

More important to my point is that such qualities apply whether they are negative or not. If there's only one chair and it's very small and somewhere on the other side of the galaxy, it's going to be pretty difficult to prove its existence. If all fairies have no observable effects, you won't even be able to spot one to prove their existence.

The point isn't the fact that it's practically difficult to prove the existence of a single very small chair in outer space. The point is that if we find this single chair, it is definitely established that a chair exists. On the other hand, if you claim that no fairy exists, this will never be definitely established but always provisional, based on current indications.

Edit: for the record, as to the notion that something unfalsifiable is ill-defined or meaningless, as you seem to suggest, was not even something that Popper contemplated, who was the foremost proponent of the notion of falsifiability. There's quite a good reason for that: I think sentences like "X does not exist" are rather meaningful.

Such statements are not inherently unfalsifiable. The canonical example of "no black swans" was falsified. Furthermore I said it was debatable, not that it was my opinion. Popper isn't the only philosopher with opinions in regard to meaningfulness; just ask the positivists.

I'm sorry, I was confused. Sentences of the form "Black swans do not exist" (~∃xSx&Bx) and "In all things of the universe, all of them are not a combination of swan and black" (∀x~(Sx&Bx)) are falsifable, but not verifiable, while sentences of the form "black swans exist" (∃x(Sx&Bx)) and "It is not true of all things of the universe, that none of them are a combination of swan and black" (~∀x~(Sx&Bx)) are verifiable, but not falsifiable. As such, I should've said that sentences of the form "X exists" aren't falsifiable but still meaningful.

[Modax]

Sorry for the necro. I am hoping this is still fair game because it is on the first page and just under a month old.

Is deism logical? No. Is it Parsimonious? No. Is it likely? Hell no.

But the truth is, taken on its own, pure vanilla Deism is fully compatible with all scientific knowledge. No, there is not a single piece of scientific knowledge that forbids there to be a magical personal force outside the universe that starts everything up, because that is not how science operates.

In a world with hundreds of millions of religious fundamentalists, I think atheists ought to give deists some sort of credit for not counting themselves among all those who explicitly believe in things that directly contradict undisputed scientific facts. Ideally, that would not be any sort of merit on its own, but we do not live in an ideal world. If the majority of population were atheists, deists would be the irrational minority. But as things stand, atheists and deists are two minorities, and deists easily have more in common with atheists than with fundamentalists.

However, if there is evidence that people who describe themselves as "deists" are significantly more likely than "atheists" to believe in crap like extraterrestrial UFOs and psychic powers, than that is something concrete in favour of Atheism, and I will gladly retract my statements in the above paragraphs. But my experience with people whose beliefs seem to fall into the "deism" category is that they are not loony-tunes, but thoughtful people who have decided that for them, an uncreated creator makes more sense and is less counterintuitive than an eternal universe, or a self-creating universe.

[Metahive]

In a world with hundreds of millions of religious fundamentalists, I think atheists ought to give deists some sort of credit for not counting themselves among all those who explicitly believe in things that directly contradict undisputed scientific facts.

How could an atheist who is proposing a reasoned, scientific approach to inquiring reality make special exemptions for a hypothesis whose only difference from the mainstream religious delusions is an extra helping of obscurantism and vagueness while being about as unreasoned, illogical and irrational? That would be nought but naked hypocrisy. It's the same as people proposing to give the ultra-nebulous "philosophical" god a pass just because he has no clear, identifiable set of attributes other than "existence=1". God-belief doesn't become any more reasonable or respectable just because the believer hides it behind a wall of unfalsifiable assertions. That's just being intellectually dishonest with oneself.

But my experience with people whose beliefs seem to fall into the "deism" category is that they are not loony-tunes, but thoughtful people who have decided that for them, an uncreated creator makes more sense and is less counterintuitive than an eternal universe, or a self-creating universe.

If they're really thoughtful, they should be compelled to extend that thoughtfulness to the nonsense that is religion, including deism, not be pat on the head for being an "acceptable" kind of believer. That is demeaning to both believer and unbeliever.