Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Kyle Rouge, Aug 14, 2009.
God is defined as the eternal creator of the universe. Where do you stand on the following spectrum?
Oh dear, here comes the flame war. *Takes cover*
hahaha this is a serious ass thread
Haha, the choices seem a little biased...zero even though i cant prove it? Anyways, I'll say no.
That's the sort loaded question Lou Dobbs puts on his polls every night. The question implies that if someone doesn't believe in God, he can't prove that God doesn't exist or that he must prove that God doesn't exist for his belief to be valid. Obviously a difficult task.
Here's an example. For Lou Dobbs, his question is loaded: "The White House, the Democratic Party and their left-wing attack dogs want to marginalize anyone who's speaking out against Obama's massive government expansion. Do you believe the people speaking up at town halls are genuinely outraged or is "manufactured anger" as the Democrats say?"
Left wing attack dogs? Marginalize? Massive government expansion? It's a question with a ton of false or debatable presuppositions. The first sentence is information that serves as a (unchallenged) premise. The second sentence is the question. You can't answer either way without falling for the trap. Whether you answer "Yes" or "No" your answer implies that you believe Obama is trying marginalize ppl who speak out.
Zero. I know there is no God even though I can't prove it.
But can YOU prove that there is a God?
Something had to have created the Universe and parallel dimentions. so who or whatever created this reality maybe the God.
I would think that most non-believers would choose very low probability, so low that it is approaches zero, over the absolute zero option. I would submit that those that appreciate the scientific method would certainly go with this one because to choose the zero option suggests that a conclusion has been drawn without any evidence.
I have expressed in the past that the question of god cannot be known, but I find that this scale puts me in the very low category. I am open to the possibility, but it is a very slim possibility, perhaps approaching zero.
I believe that there is no 'God', but I can't claim to know it. God, that is, the magical sky daddy who created the universe and now watches over us.
In as far as the biblical God is concerned, put me down for zero.
Wow, I guess everything man has ever thought of must exist because they haven't been proven to exist? Ridiculous logic, but then again that's expected out of people who believe fairy tales about someone who can create a universe.
I personally believe that god is a self proclaimed 5.0 tennis player with massive topspin who likes to wear women's undies and has a thing for hot, smelly blondes.
Dont worry everyone, its just a matter of time till we find out the truth.
Hah love how the 0 percent answer says even though I can't prove it. Lame. Hate when OPs load the polls.
100 percent ................
God is not just the creator of the universe. He is not apart from it. The universe exists in him, everything does.
How can you be 100 percent sure of anything?
if everything has to have an origin, why not this god too?
moreover, wich god are we talking about?
Because of the plausible possibility that a creator (any creator) is not restricted by his creation. Who is to say that time itself, hence beginning and end, are not creations?
not restricted by his creation, but created by another creator.
if everything has to be created, the creator has to be created too.
So, when are we going to stop the search, using this logic? and mostly, how and why?
and again: which god?
Again, we know that in THIS existence something cannot come from nothing. Yet there is something. If this universe cannot create, merely change from one form to another, then how is it here? The simplest answer, no matter how impossible, is that it was made. Until there is any proof to the contrary, this universe cannot exist just because it is here. Not one year ago, 1,000 years ago or 16 billion years ago. It is a violation of OUR reality, the reality supposedly created, of which by necessity the Creator cannot be assured to be held in limitation by.
the universe exists without any doubt. So why can't it exist per se?
You consider necessary to conceive a creator/God, but then suppose that the creator/god is able to exist per se, instead. why? Because of traditions?
It seems to me illusory and illogic.
And again: which god are we speaking about?
the one that allows us to eat ham or the other that considers that practice a sin?
the one that allows gays or women to celebrate mass or the others that wants them to be discriminated against?
It seems to me that there's too much confusion in this assumed necessary factor.
I choose to beleive that there is a God but I do not beleive in any religion.
Regardless you beleive in God or Not you have to acknoledge that there is something going on and it doesnt smell right, I mean how can we be so completely and inexplicable alone? How can we be the only alive beings in an infinite universe? It is too much of a coincidence for me not to beleive that there is a cause for it, it is just too much of a coincidence.
Actually I think the OP did a good job in giving a possible vote to everyone in the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove it, so what is the issue with saying "I can't prove it"
Because there is no satisfactory evidence to suggest that the universe has the "ability" to create. In order for it to be in existence then there must be a fulcrum for creation by virtue of it's own inability to be the creation mechanism.
It has nothing to do with traditions or illusion. It is in fact basic logic. If something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits. A lightbulb can not turn itself on so it is logical to conclude that if it is on then it was turned on by someone. Whether this being must abide by the laws of our existence may be true or it may not be. What cannot be done is to assume that it must be so as logic dictates this is no reasonable parameter. Conversely one cannot also assume that it is not bound by the laws.
At this point it doesn't matter. The issue is whether the universe could turn itself on or not. Without an ability to do so, it cannot do so. Therefore, something else must have. Now, is that the Chrisitian God? Does the universe in fact have a mechanism for creating something from nothing? Maybe.....maybe not.
nothing, a part from the fact that I don't have to prove god's non-existence.
I have to prove God's existence instead, because it's something that's everything but a shared experience.
So, if I can't prove god's non-existence, it's unimportant.
But, if I want to annoy others with my god, it's not unimportant that I can't prove its existence
I believe in unicorn. I challenge anyone to prove that it doesn't exist. :mrgreen:
Not quite true actually. It is up to God to prove his existence. We are the receivers of the message, not the message maker.
you set the (logic) rule: "if something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits".
but then you decide that god can be free from this rule. So why can't we decide that the universe exists per se? why is it necessary the first step and not a second or third one?
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't ask: "who tourned god on"?
haha, very easy solution
Who said it doesn't?
Awesome. I also believe in centaur. :mrgreen:
Assigning probabilities to the immeasurable is the worst kind of statistics. It's bad enough that statistics can be so missleading WITH data.... it's sure to be BS WITHOUT data. You can't count unicorns. You can't count fairy's. You can't count Yetti's either, just like you can't count God's.
If the OP wanted to remove traces of bias, the first option should have been "100% even though I can't prove it". It's the lack of symmetry between the 100% and zero answer that is problematic.
Look, compared with many polls on this forum, this one is very reasonable with the choices.
There are some polls I'd like to participate in, but the choices are so limited or biased it is impossible. In this instance I think the OP deserves credit for attempting to give everyone, from one end of the spectrum to the other, a choice they could vote for.
I didn't say God can be free from this rule, I simply said we can't reasonably assume he isn't. There's nothing wrong with asking "who turned God on?" so long as you allow for flipside as neither can as yet be assumed just upon the merits of either side (from a philosophical point and not yet bringing anything else like Scripture etc. into the equation.)
Because this side is that of the side of science and therefore to take that position requires there to be evidence supporting it. It is in fact a positive assertion. Even if the Big Bang is a reoccurring theme in the overall scheme of existence, there is still nothing that shows something came from nothing. Even with the coalesence (sp?) of matter etc. into a big huge gigantic ball of whatever before it expands out again there is no formation of new, just a transition from what was into was is to be, using what was.
i'm by no means an expert, but even i know time did not exist before the big bang.
Speculation or fact? Do we understand time or not understand time fully?
Well, considering time is one of the dimensions of the universe, it makes no sense to say "before the universe". However, if you wish to propose a physics where time isn't one of the dimensions, go right ahead.
fact. at least to the best of mankind's knowledge.
as for the 2nd part...i couldn't tell you...as i said i'm by no means an expert...
Did time really begin with the most recent Big Bang?
A transformation from one thing to another does not make the new thing "created", merely reformed or repatterned if you will. Thus we still cannot dismiss a creator, though we can't say there is.
Seems to me there is symmetry. The first is I am certain and I believe -- I don't need proof. The last is I am certain and I do not believe --- I don't need proof.
To me, this is a well set up poll. I must confess some surprise that anyone would choose the last option. Skeptics tend to look for logic and evidence and are often willing to leave open the potential for new information. I am not surprised by many people selecting the first option. Faith needs no evidence.
I agree. So, which did you choose, if I may be so bold as to ask? My choice was "highly improbable" (with a very small probability of existence). Does that make me an atheist or agnostic? Hmm. Any atheists in the house care to help categorize these choices?
Two big assumptions are being made here. A lot hinges on these and similar false assumptions.
1. Something cannot come out of nothing. Sounds absurd of me to question this. Just as an example, in our dreams, a whole complex world was created in an instant out of ... what ?
2. Concepts like space, time and creation. What if these exist only inside this "creation". Why do we assume or insist that there has to be a "before" (before this started). Or that there has to be a "Start" and a "finish".
You speak of "violation of our reality". What guarantee is there that the laws/principles/realities that we hold so dear to us actually make sense outside our world/creation. Our mind makes everything seem very consistent/logical etc in any state. Even the dream world in your dream seemed very logical and consistent inside the dream. Upon waking a lot of it seemed totally illogical from the perspective of this world/state.
To those of us who are seriously and persistently pursuing this question of reality (*IMO*) it is necessary to drop all assumptions and previous knowledge (which is ultimately based on assumptions/conditioning).
Don't try to pre-create limitations or boundaries, or what reality/creator "should be" in advance.
IMO, don't assume that reality or God can be figured out by the mind, by thinking it out, or discussion. What about going behind the mind ... after all, the mind has the power to create a new world each night, and make it look totally real.
Without trying to push my findings on others, I would still like to say that whatever I have reached, shows that things are so simple that our ways of thinking, our logics, our preconditions, are too complex for it. Which is why I suggest that if you are serious, drop all assumptions and conditioning and limitations, and then investigate.
(btw, nice to see you back, Shirorm :-D )
thanks. Unfortunately, I'm very interested in this kind of topics, because I'm living not so far from the Pope. He is very reactionary and manages to influence politics in my country, so that I don't live in a secular/civil country: many rights are denied and the eventual feeling is frustration.
I wouldn't care about religious beliefs at all, if they didn't manage to influence so many political choices and consequently, even my life by law, despite my atheism
I'm sorry if that came across as an assumption. I'm merely stating what we know right now scientifically speaking. It may very well end up being a false statement but as of yet is has not proven to be hence it's an observation rather than an assumption. Does that make sense?
Fine. What I meant is avoiding basing an inference or conclusion (final or even intermediate) on something that is not proven (be it an observation/assumption etc).
Most people don't care enough about "the truth" to do that. Its comfortable to take previous thought/assumption/observation and continue on it. However, if you truly at all costs wish to know what the so-called reality is (if there is such a thing) or whether there is a God, or who/what created all this, and one does not want to take any chances, one does not wish to compromise, one does not want to delude oneself, or live on someone else's truths, then (IMO) one has to discard all concepts/ideologies/philosophies/faiths/beliefs and start from scratch.
I am sorry to hear this. I too in my personal life am "squeezed" by people who pretend to believe in God on one hand, and atheists on the others.
Today, at this moment in my life, i look at *belief* as the culprit. When we start believing in things, we need to defend those beliefs, often force them on others. We are perturbed if others disagree.
Even atheists (e.g. communists) have killed large numbers of people and destroyed thousands of Buddhist libraries and temples.
I thus choose to stay clear of belief, only to accept what is my clearly apparent to me as the reality. I try not to let beliefs form in me, and question them when they try to.
Upon persistent investigation, there is this thing that is alive, this aliveness that is beyond physical. It cannot be denied, it cannot be labelled or described. Yet it is totally loving and peaceful, no needs no wants no craving. Not being physical in any way, it certainly seems to be a "nothing" and it seems far more real than this physical world.
Which is why I question the logic that "something cannot arise out of nothing."
Being a "nothing" the question of how it started/arose or was created does not seem to make sense.
The above is roughly the basis of what i say.
well, the search for a sense in existance, is in our nature.
And I respect the answers others like. I'd only like to be respected too and not to be forced by law to live according to others opinions/beliefs.
So, I respect your general opinion.
I just don't agree with you about an aspect: the equation between atheists and comunists. It seems to me that soviet comunists weren't mere atheists, because they had a "secular god" instead: comunism. So, they fought religions, only because they represented a competing form of authoritarism/absolutism. It wasn't a fight against mere religious beliefs, but a fight to oust traditional gods, imposing a new (secular) one.
man is so arrogant!
even if something made the universe, it has abolutely nothing to do with mankind...
what? it was biding its time for 13billion years?
did he make dinosaurs so humans could enjoy jurassic park millions of years later?
fact is, even if something created the universe, it has absolutely nothing to do with mankind (or life in general for that matter).
the existence of man is the result of a completely random process...
Separate names with a comma.