Originally Posted by Nicato
The Deistic god of which you speak--God as a first uncaused cause--might be a possibility. But as it is only one an infinite number of equally plausible possibilities, I don't find it reasonable to actively believe in it.
I'm not speaking of a deistic god per se. I'm speaking of the basic creative concept of any higher power. And, there are not an "infinite number of equally plausible possibilities." This only occurs when you start arbitrarily defining traits of this higher power. I think it's only natural than humans would want to personify God. But it's erroneous to think that this is between Jesus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's between the concept of a creative god and a self-perpetuating universe.
Further, most people do not believe in that god. Billions of people believe in a personal god that gives a fuck about us; one that answers prayers and keeps tabs on our Earthly affairs; one that is omnipotent and omniscient and morally perfect. That god is flatly incompatible with the relative anarchy of the world.
What you're really defining are traits of the Christian God, and your use of certain terms seems to have implicit assumptions that Christians might not agree with. But a personal god need not be incompatible with the world the way it is. Or do you think that no devout Christian has ever pondered those questions?
EDIT: I thought this was good reading about David Hume:
The argument from design infers that we can infer a single designer from our experience of the world. Though Hume agrees that we have experiences of the world as an artifact, he claims that we cannot make any probable inference from this fact to quality, power, or number of the artisans. Second, Hume argues that miracles are not only often unreliable grounds as evidence for belief, but in fact are apriori impossible. A miracle by definition is a transgression of a law of nature, and yet by their very nature these laws admit of no exceptions. Thus we cannot even call it a law of nature that has been violated. He concludes that reason and experience fail to establish divine infinity, God's moral attributes, or any specification of the ongoing relationship between the Deity and man. But rather than concluding that his stance towards religious beliefs was one of atheism or even a mere Deism, Hume argued that he was a genuine Theist. He believed that we have a genuine natural sentiment by which we long for heaven. The one who is aware of the inability of reason to affirm these truths in fact is the person who can grasp revealed truth with the greatest avidity.
Good stuff about Kant (the original) too.