Do you have statistics on the success rate of entrepreneurs?

That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world. — BlueBanana

None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world. Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway.

Mind you that the deistic god is not the god of the bible. There's not just one concept of deistic gods, but even in the most involved ones, we're not exactly talking about the god that's described in Genesis. We're talking about a god that planted a seed, so to speak, and then let things run their course. Now take your pick for the concept your like, the one that sits back and enjoys the show, or the one that intervenes and guides things, or a variant in between.

And "the thing that first existed" is supposedly the "seed". And what I was saying is that "the thing that first existed" is only ever such to the best of our limited knowledge, thus any such attribution has to be arbitrary.

But now, big business has closed off those options. — MikeL

I think I would point that finger more at the remnants of socialism and whatnot. Bureaucracy, gov interventionism, among other things, is what really gets in the way of small entrepreneurs. They strangulate the market in favor of monopolies.

Not that monopolies are the good guys or anything. Just that in a non strangulated market they wouldn't have such an easy time because small entrepreneurs would have better chances.

None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world. — Sephi

It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false.

It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false. — BlueBanana

Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway. — Sephi

The one thing in common between every single concept of god is that god created everything. Obviously, "everything" includes the world. ;)

What if someone defines god as a being that didn't create the world? Are they correct because "ultimately that's [that god created the world] implied in any concept of god, anyway"? The definitions you gave are that god is a thing that did not create the world, so that is exactly what you're doing.

Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it. — Sephi

the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it. — Sephi

Afraid I have no evidence to back up the claim other than the observation that small businesses are going out of business and big businesses are growing huge.

You don't need a degree in maths to see that with the economies of scale if I can buy 10million apples off you, I can offer to pay you half a cent for each apple and ensure you sell your entire crop. Of course it has to be to me and nobody else. As the grower you could go the other route and sell your apples at 10c each to small businesses and hope to get better profit, but its more stress trying to move that crop.

It's the same with clothing or any other product. I will buy a massive amount from the supplier as cheap as chips, sell it through a massive chain outlet at massive margins that are still cheap,and demand high quality from my supplier. With my astronomical profit I will do it again, only larger this time, or expand into different product categories. What small business can survive in that market?

I watched a show called "The Profit" where someone wanted to open a gym, so he took them to rebel sport and put something like $50,000 worth of product on his credit card. How can small gym owners compete when people like that come onto the scene. Even 24hr swipe card gyms - its not about the guy that always wanted to open his gym, its about a guy who's trying to flip a quick profit.

But now, big business has closed off those options.
— MikeL
I think I would point that finger more at the remnants of socialism and whatnot. Bureaucracy, gov interventionism, among other things, is what really gets in the way of small entrepreneurs. They strangulate the market in favor of monopolies.

Not that monopolies are the good guys or anything. Just that in a non strangulated market they wouldn't have such an easy time because small entrepreneurs would have better chances. — Sephi

You're making my case here Sephi.

I got the impression you were blaming it on big businesses, rather than the strangulation of the market by the state. Well, the difference is not that great at this point, since corporate sharks have had a hand in the state for quite a while anyway. So yea, I probably am still making your case. :)

I'm not sure but I think Karl Popper once said that "God exists" is not a statement because it can neither be proven nor falsified. That's why, in my opinion, any argument about the existence of God is futile.

Hi Navid, we're not arguing God's existence, for the sake of argument we are accepting it and arguing its nature.

You failed to realize, even though I already told you, that I didn't define the deistic god. What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to. Big difference.

And the second quote is just the problem that any Deistic god always seems to have.

What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to. — Sephi

Then that description is a very incorrect one.

The problem doesn't exist because the premise (first quote) is icorrect.

Though I really don't understand the necessity of this argument, to ruminate, circulate or redefine god, I should tell you the story that humankind wanted to survive, so they started to think about death, and consequently dangers: the things which kill us. When we reached the level of causality, the question was what's the cause of an earthquake, rain, volcano and so on? So we came up with many goddesses of which the Abrahamic god is the common denominator.
So far, we've just named the cause as you did: "It is important to put God in at this level if we wish to express our beliefs and be consistent with the current state of scientific theory. For me, I would prefer to think of God as being innate to all matter" and there's no problem with it. At this level, there's no harm to define the existence of something. It becomes dangerous when we try to anthropomorphize it, not like the Greek Gods or the idea of the old man, but when as you said we "hunted for the higher order" which is assuming that god has intention or purpose. So, we thought that since humankind reaches the ultimate cause which is planning and purpose, the nature or god must have a/the purpose too. That's where, in my opinion, we went wrong and this idea has caused more harm than benefit.
This is gonna be a long story that I am telling in my blog. So, to wrap up here, I should say that there's no problem with defining god as the cause of formation of molecules or the whole universe, but this definition is barren because with which we can't predict anything. The difference between the two statement, God changes everything and force changes everything, is the second can be formulated, hence be applied to predict the moment when the Mars Rover would land on Mars.

It becomes dangerous when we try to anthropomorphize it, not like the Greek Gods or the idea of the old man, but when as you said we "hunted for the higher order" which is assuming that god has intention or purpose. So, we thought that since humankind reaches the ultimate cause which is planning and purpose, the nature or god must have a/the purpose too. — Navid

I agree, but I only anthropomorphized humans, which I think we can both agree is OK.

It is human kind that is assuming purpose, in this OP I am only assuming a directional force acting on matter in such away that self-assembly occurs and then is enclosed as another layer starts above it.

The OP suggests that as this force acts on us we become 'aware' of its presence although not its effect. As the force acts on us we begin to build higher order structures. Just like the molecules and cells each in their turn did.