I last heard him mention it in the interview you posted a few weeks ago with him & John Lennox, just around here:Kurieuo wrote:I think these are good points, though I never knew Dawkins would accept any semblance of God when pushed (have you got a quote?).
Deism & theism comes in many flavours. I can conceive of a more deistic God which is absolutely substantial to our experience as much as I can concieve of a more Christian God of love and knowledge. I think there is a distinction to be made between a God who lacks love or knowledge and a God who is painted as beyond such distinctions. Both are optional imo when considering either a God who sets things in motion or a God on whom everything depends.Byblos wrote:The reason The Judeo-Christian God IS the ultimate force that can ever be conceived of is because, well, by definition, he is the greatest force that can ever be conceived of. Is that a circular argument? I don't think so. Go back to the necessary and contingent being argument. A necessary being is timeless, changeless, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, lacking absolutely nothing, who is existence, and on whom everything else depends. From Aquinas' first argument of motion this necessary being didn't just spark creation and sat back and watched it develop, He absolutely sustains it every second and of every minute of every hour. Does that sound like a deistic God to you? At a minimum one can claim that a deistic god lacks love, which is the exact antithesis of the God of the Bible, the greatest 'force' that can every be.