[dawg-]

I already replied to your comment below, but this one is interesting too.

> The main issue with most of these philosophical arguments is that they don't prove anything even worth refuting. Almost all of them simply attempt to prove the existence of a deistic God that does not meaningfully interact with the world (beyond creating it or sustaining it).

I don't think any good philosopher would admit to the embarrassment of actually having "proved" something!

Jokes aside, you wouldn't consider "sustaining the world" to be a fairly meaningful ongoing interaction?

> Believing that there was a creator doesn't provide any useful information

Very pragmatic! Assume there is a God - what kind of things would he consider "useful"?

[lalaland1125]

> Very pragmatic! Assume there is a God - what kind of things would he consider "useful"?

I generally define usefulness in terms of helping a person make better decisions to help increase the utility (bringing joy, fulfillment, happiness) of sentient creatures.

How does knowing about the existence of a deistic God help a person make better decisions?

This is my issue with deism. It could be true or false and my life wouldn't change one bit.