Atheists, would this be a more consistent description of God according to your perceptions?

Suppose that one day in the far, far future, the existence of a divine creator of the universe was shown to be true. I know you're atheists, but just entertain the notion for a moment.


But... even if proof of the creator was provided, that doesn't prove the account of God in monotheistic scripture is accurate. So, what would be an accurate description of God?





Here's my proposal:


Even if there is a creator (lets call it "God"). Maybe he doesn't actively moderate what goes on in the world. Maybe God initiated the Big Bang, but after that, he left the events of the universe take on by itself, all the way up to the evolution of life from the pre-biotic soup. Essentially, he does not care about life the same way we value it. God does not reach out to humans, and chooses to remain hidden and invisible. Instead, he is more of a passive observer, and lets everything happen as it should. Maybe life serves some purpose, but life is not meant to be immortal.





From what you have seen, is this a more accurate description of God?





On a side note: I subscribe to the philosophical perspective of causal determinism, so even if there is a God, he does not need to actively moderate everything, but lets cause and effect take place.|||Sometimes, when I prepare plates for bacterial smears, I wonder how the creatures would think of me, if they could. I have created an entire world for them, laden with food and free from any predators. A kind of paradise that they will dwell in for thousands and thousands of generations. I am interested in what they do, and watch them closely. And someday I will take their world and destroy it utterly, killing everything within. I wonder if they would see me as a god or as a devil. Then I go and make another plate.|||What you're talking about is commonly called "deism".





It certainly sounds more reasonable than the personal, interventionist God described by most Christians, and less directly contradicted by reality; but even the deist god is still completely unsubstantiated by anything resembling evidence.|||I'm not a deist if that is what you are asking.





Deist, atheist, different words, you know.|||Actually, what you're describing is deism. That belief already exists, and to my knowledge, atheists don't accept that viewpoint either (otherwise, they'd be deists).





So *if* God exists, under today's scientific scrutiny, the one that has the best chance of existing is the deistic god. But even then, all arguments supporting a deistic god are fallacious in nature, not differing very much from theism.|||If there is a "God", and I'm not a believer, but if there was one.... then, yes, I think your description is pretty accurate.








But, then again, if I was a deist, I wouldn't be an atheist.|||I wouldn't say so. Since it's all speculative, it's all speculative. I can't call Cinderella more "accurate" than Snow White because they are both made up.|||Your "proposal" describes a deistic-type deity.





The real "God" could be anything that people have already thought up, or something that was never invented yet. Either way, that description could only satisfy the one who believes it, and atheists don't believe in any deities.|||You are describing Deism. If there were a god, (and I don't believe there is) Deism is the only version I could envisage being true.|||Deism is certainly the more rational descriptions of a deity that are out there.





I still don't believe, but it's more rational.|||I would think that God, were he to exist, had created the universe but was not all powerful, nor would he answer to prayers or intervene in our lives. At best he would be a casual observer, watching things unfold.





I also think that were you to meet him, you would find he had a sense of humour, I think you'd have to in order to watch the dumb things people do without completely breaking down.