The concept of “god” has been around for a long, long time. For most of human history, “God” was seen as an anthropomorphic, physical being who regularly interacted in the affairs of men. He spoke to men, performed miracles, punished the unbelievers, etc. This is the God of the Old and New Testaments, the God of the Koran, and the God of countless other religions which have been consigned to the dustbin of history. This is, I maintain, the God that is still worshipped, in one form or another, by the vast majority of people who claim to worship God today.
Somewhere along the line, however, somebody came up with the idea of God as an immaterial “first cause” that either cannot be known or who “chooses” not to reveal himself to us, and whose existence can therefore, by definition, neither be proven nor disproven. This is commonly referred to as the “deist” concept of God, and it is one which I first encountered in my college philosophy classes. At the time, my impression was that this concept of God was created by otherwise rational thinkers who recognized that the traditional notions of God were ludicrous, but who (because of their upbringing and culture) were unable to completely reject the notion of God altogether. Basically it was a way of denying God without being condemned as atheists.
Anyway, here on the SDMB I note that every time somebody claims to be an atheist and/or to have an argument against the existence of God, somebody else chimes in to say that God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven. When pressed, the “believer” will often admit that they are not talking about the traditional notion of God described in the scriptures that actually form the basis of most religions, but are instead talking about the so-called “deist” God I described above. The self-professed atheists, on the other hand, are often specifically talking about the traditional notion of God, with the assumption that a God whose existence, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven, isn’t worth arguing against in the first place.
It is my belief, therefore, that the whole “deist” God concept is nothing but a straw man, used by people to counter the claims of atheists without actually addressing the points they raise. And I call it a “straw man” not only because this isn’t the concept of “god” that the atheists are talking about in the first place, but also because it’s not a concept of God that anybody actually worships. How does one worship a God who makes no statements, performs no deeds and gives no promises? Is there any point to believing in such a being other than to save face among those who believe in a more traditional notion of God? Or is it simply a way for people who need there to be a ready explanation for everything to sleep better at night, knowing that “God” is the answer to everything that cannot currently be explained by science?
I mean, sure, as an atheist I cannot offer any proof that the “deist” God does not exist, other than a complete lack of evidence that it sdoes exist. But, so what? What, if anything, is gained by believing in such a being in the first place if it’s not the God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other known religion? Why bother if I cannot gain eternal salvation by believing in this God nor risk eternal damnation by not believing?
In short, does anybody actually worship the deist God? Or is it, in fact, just a logical construct with no real application in the world today other than to allow people to say they “believe in God” without having to acknowledge any particular religious beliefs? What value is there in believing in this concept of God in the first place?
Barry