God Allah Yahweh Jehovah Tao

[Gmart]

Like I said Botcher, you didn't understand it. That's fine, but don't make the assumption that it doesn't make sense just because you don't understand it.

Ask questions if you like I will help you!

Though I suspect your ego won't let you

 

[danny la rouge]

If you feel that it is purely a world of physics from the big bang to whatever, then you are in the defo not camp

Which is why I posted "Not" initially.

Although, to be fair, I did struggle with the rest of the OP.

 

[butchersapron]

Like I said Botcher, you didn't understand it. That's fine, but don't make the assumption that it doesn't make sense just because you don't understand it.

Ask questions if you like I will help you!

Though I suspect your ego won't let you

Oh i understood it allright. It's just not very clear to me why you needed to surround the question with such incoherent waffle, and then to defend that waffle as a model of clarity - or why the OP didn't really match the poll options.

 

[Gmart]

Incoherent to you maybe I'll help you even more! Take any sentence I wrote and put your own version of 'what did you mean by this:' in front, Bob's your uncle.

Meanwhile I am simply curious about the various views on this subject, but I am keen to avoid anthropomorphising. If a force as described in scripture of any sort were to exist, then it just wouldn't have human qualities. I mean Jesus being the 'son' of God??? Son is a human concept!!

I am much happier with religions which accept that one cannot talk about the ineffable, such as taoism, which states in the first line that one cannot use words to describe such things!!

Also I am interested in how strongly people believe that it doesn't exist! Which in my mind makes them much the same as the religious, ie that they have faith about something which I would state as unknowable.

The difference I make between seeing the purely physical world and reckoning that it is wonderful, and thinking that there is a magical guy out there waving a magical wand is what I was trying to state in the OP.

The world is beautiful, but that is due to physical laws which have existed from the big bang, rather than some bloke with a beard.

 

[butchersapron]

Hence your rather confused vote. You're convinced of the above argument, yet voted that you're not sure. A confused vote to follow a confused OP.

 

[butchersapron]

Take any sentence I wrote and put your own version of 'what did you mean by this:' in front, Bob's your uncle.

More clarity!

 

[Lock&Light]

Like I said Botcher, you didn't understand it. That's fine, but don't make the assumption that it doesn't make sense just because you don't understand it.

Ask questions if you like I will help you!

Though I suspect your ego won't let you

I don't understand it either.

 

[Gmart]

I don't understand it either.

In that case ask a question, but don't do a Botch job and claim that it makes no sense, while refusing to ask!

 

[Lock&Light]

In that case ask a question, but don't do a Botch job and claim that it makes no sense, while refusing to ask!

Why use such a convoluted way to ask if 'God' exists?

 

[Gmart]

Because the word God implies a personality.

 

[Lock&Light]

Because the word God implies a personality.

The beauty of the word 'God' is that it can be used to imply anything.

 

[cesare]

I voted 'possibly exists' on the basis that the 'definitely don't know' option addresses knowledge rather than existence.

 

[Gmart]

I voted 'possibly exists' on the basis that the 'definitely don't know' option addresses knowledge rather than existence.

I hesitated to give the last two as an option, and in hindsight I shouldn't have, because of what you said. I was interested in simple knowledge and the last two options refer to belief and are therefore available to those who don't want to state their knowledge limitation.

As far as the word 'God' goes, I can't help but think of some male with a beard, looking a bit like God from Time Bandits; and I was trying to get away from this anthropomorphisation.

Also why should it be male? Or female? it would obviously be an 'it' surely???

 

[danny la rouge]

I voted 'possibly exists' on the basis that the 'definitely don't know' option addresses knowledge rather than existence.

Go on...?

 

[cesare]

Go on...?

Pretty much what Gm said just above. Do I know whether there is/isn't a force outside the limit of my knowledge - or might there be a force?

 

[cesare]

I hesitated to give the last two as an option, and in hindsight I shouldn't have, because of what you said. I was interested in simple knowledge and the last two options refer to belief and are therefore available to those who don't want to state their knowledge limitation.

As far as the word 'God' goes, I can't help but think of some male with a beard, looking a bit like God from Time Bandits; and I was trying to get away from this anthropomorphisation.

Also why should it be male? Or female? it would obviously be an 'it' surely???

Not necessarily. Depends whether you can conceive of anything outside our constructs of male, female, and neither.

 

[cesare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology

 

[In Bloom]

Not necessarily. Depends whether you can conceive of anything outside our constructs of male, female, and neither.

By definition, if something is neither male nor female, then it fits into the "niether" category.

What else do you suppose God to be? An Azadian apex?

 

[cesare]

OK so if you're on about humanising the force his survey might offend you, or you might assume that i would offend 'him' or 'her' or 'it', but this is a survey about whether such a force exists or not. call it god or allah or yahweh or the tao but it is unable to be described by science and is thus magical.

If you feel that it is purely a world of physics from the big bang to whatever, then you are in the defo not camp, because it is not 'magical' ie unable to be explained by the laws of physics, known or unknown.

I know that the universe is amazing, but that's not what i'm on about. It IS beautiful and full of wonderful people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is magical, could just be that the laws of physics tend towards this.

I hesitated to give the last two as an option, and in hindsight I shouldn't have, because of what you said. I was interested in simple knowledge and the last two options refer to belief and are therefore available to those who don't want to state their knowledge limitation.

As far as the word 'God' goes, I can't help but think of some male with a beard, looking a bit like God from Time Bandits; and I was trying to get away from this anthropomorphisation.

Also why should it be male? Or female? it would obviously be an 'it' surely???

Yeah, you see now this is where I got a bit confused by the OP. Do you see why?

 

[cesare]

By definition, if something is neither male nor female, then it fits into the "niether" category.

What else do you suppose God to be? An Azadian apex?

By which definition? Yours? The sum total of human knowledge's definition?

 

[In Bloom]

By which definition? Yours? The sum total of human knowledge's definition?

"Male, female or neither" describes everything that does or could possibly exist throughout the entire universe, since if something is not male, and it is not female, then it is neither.

 

[danny la rouge]

Pretty much what Gm said just above. Do I know whether there is/isn't a force outside the limit of my knowledge - or might there be a force?

I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. Are you coming over all Anselm-ish, or are you just saying that although you know of no evidence that God exists, that doesn't mean he doesn't? Or are you saying that a possibility of existence is raised by the question, and it is that possibility which you are saying exists?

 

[cesare]

I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. Are you coming over all Anselm-ish, or are you just saying that although you know of no evidence that God exists, that doesn't mean he doesn't? Or are you saying that a possibility of existence is raised by the question, and it is that possibility which you are saying exists?

Belief (or non belief) and evidence (or lack of evidence) is set within the framework of our knowledge (or extrapolated knowledge, within the confines of our current abilities to extrapolate) - such as it is.

Existence is wider than that. There could be things existing that don't impinge on our knowledge.

 

[danny la rouge]

There could be things existing that don't impinge on our knowledge.

So, the second: "non existence of evidence is not evidence of non existence."

 

[In Bloom]

There's no evidence for the existence of God/Allah/Yahweh/whatever, so I don't believe it. It's theoretically possible that such a being exists, but is either unknowable or just completely uninterested in us, if that's the case, it's an irrelevance anyway.

 

[cesare]

So, the second: "non existence of evidence is not evidence of non existence."

As a statement - yes.

But what I was saying is that I voted away from the knowledge based options (from where belief and evidence and the like flow) because I was allowed the choice of existence based ones.

 

[cesare]

There's no evidence for the existence of God/Allah/Yahweh/whatever, so I don't believe it. It's theoretically possible that such a being exists, but is either unknowable or just completely uninterested in us, if that's the case, it's an irrelevance anyway.

So you actively choose not to believe in something that's theoretically possible? Have I understood you correctly?

 

[In Bloom]

So you actively choose not to believe in something that's theoretically possible? Have I understood you correctly?

When I say it's theoretically possible, I mean that I admit that it's impossible to have absolute certainty on something that is by its very nature untestable and immeasurable. I don't seriously entertain the idea, any more than I entertain the idea that fairies exist.

 

[cesare]

When I say it's theoretically possible, I mean that I admit that it's impossible to have absolute certainty on something that is by its very nature untestable and immeasurable. I don't seriously entertain the idea, any more than I entertain the idea that fairies exist.

Well that's up to you, not necessarily disagreeing.

But you did vote incorrectly in the poll

 

[In Bloom]

It was the closest option to what I think. God almost certainly doesn't exist

Pondering irrelevancies like God is a distraction from the real world, anyway