The "Theometer"

Here's a simple little way of seeing where our union sits as far as faith goes. How would you rate yourself and why?

I'd say I'm a 2. I'd describe myself as an atheist, but I believe some things are just impossible to know. There are also a lot of unexplainable events and such, and while I'm no god-of-the-gaps-er, I'm not one to totally discount a possibility. On the other hand, I see no evidence that would indicate the existence of a god, nor any reason to believe in one. To sum it up, my stance is "I don't see any reason/evidence for belief, so there probably isn't a god." As far as the afterlife goes, we'll wait and see; more than anything, I just don't care.

I'm at a 1. I'm 100% convinced that gods don't exist. Every definition of a personal god is flawed, as evident by the many religions. Every attempt to redefine god to be a collective body of the universe is a definition of which I deem unnecessary. 

Oh boy, I have this urge to re-post my thread that I posted on OT the other day, but I won't do that to you guys :P

Anyways, none of those options describe my beliefs accurately.  

I'm at a 1. I'm 100% convinced that gods don't exist. Every definition of a personal god is flawed, as evident by the many religions. Every attempt to redefine god to be a collective body of the universe is a definition of which I deem unnecessary. 

Genetic_Code

 Um... I don't understand this reasoning. I hear over and over, from scientists of all cultures and languages, that when the neutrino was first discovered no one was quite sure what they were and how they worked, exactly. But delighted with discovering something new and unknown, these scientists readily accepted the possibility of neutrinos, and attempted to study them and learn about them, rather than assuming that since this can't be explained and defined, it must be a mistake.ChiliDragon

But they knew it was material, seeing as it was present in the material world. That provides a justification for neutrinos being something rather than nothing, and you can then go from there and do some good ole' scientific inquiry. 

Still, it seems to me that what you're saying is that if humans are unable to define something, that means that said something can't exist. As an argument that doesn't make sense to me, so I'd like to see this elaborated on a little bit, if you don't mind? :)ChiliDragon

 Well, I personally think Genetic is being a little to rash. But what I think what he's getting at is that since there isn't a coherent definition of a personal God, a personal God doesn't exist. I don't exactly agree with him on that, although I think that's what he's getting at. 

But they knew it was material, seeing as it was present in the material world. That provides a justification for neutrinos being something rather than nothing, and you can then go from there and do some good ole' scientific inquiry. -Sun_Tzu-

Well, I personally think Genetic is being a little to rash. But what I think what he's getting at is that since there isn't a coherent definition of a personal God, a personal God doesn't exist. I don't exactly agree with him on that, although I think that's what he's getting at.-Sun_Tzu-

True, and I realize the neutrino is not the best example I could think of. I was trying to avoid the "but no one can define love either but we know it exists!"-cliche that has been over-done to death. ;)ChiliDragon

 Love really isn't all that difficult to define either. It can be easily defined as nothing more than an emotional state that is created by thoughts, neurons, hormones, ect. 

 Ah, okay. That makes a bit more sense... I guess my question is, how is something's existence affected by whether it can be defined or not? Seriously not trying to be facetious here. GC and I are on the complete opposite sides of the scale, I'm curious to hear the reasoning.ChiliDragon

Well, only GC is going to be able to adequately answer that, 

True, and I realize the neutrino is not the best example I could think of. I was trying to avoid the "but no one can define love either but we know it exists!"-cliche that has been over-done to death. ;)-Sun_Tzu-

 Love really isn't all that difficult to define either. It can be easily defined as nothing more than an emotional state that is created by thoughts, neurons, hormones, ect. 

Gah I dont know!

I would pick no 4 but whenever I hear god/gods my mind goes to the already existing depictions of god which I find invalid.

In the question: "Is there a god?"

I'd probably answer: "Why not?"

Quite a diplomat right? :P

Not really, though, I just dont exclude any possibilities as I know that speaking from a standpoint of knowledge I know nothing for sure.

Impulsively of course I lean more to theism, meaning that there is some sort of godly power/force etc that exists.

But to sum it up: I-DONT-KNOW. >_>

I voted for No. 2 -- you can be only 100% sure of very few things.

Still, it seems to me that what you're saying is that if humans are unable to define something, that means that said something can't exist. As an argument that doesn't make sense to me, so I'd like to see this elaborated on a little bit, if you don't mind? :)ChiliDragon

Humans have given definitions of god, but because it (god) is unfalsifiable, their account of events must be perfect to be believed. There is no perfect account of god; therefore there is no god.

Humans have given definitions of god, but because it (god) is unfalsifiable, their account of events must be perfect to be believed. There is no perfect account of god; therefore there is no god.

Genetic_Code

Because if there was one, we humans would automatically be able to completely understand and accurately describe her/him/it?ChiliDragon

Even if there was only one account, that wouldn't mean that that account is without error. However, I do think that if there was universal evidence of a god, that was falsifiable, then I would immediately place some skepticism on my atheism. 

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Because if there was one, we humans would automatically be able to completely understand and accurately describe her/him/it?Genetic_Code

Even if there was only one account, that wouldn't mean that that account is without error. However, I do think that if there was universal evidence of a god, that was falsifiable, then I would immediately place some skepticism on my atheism. 

Proud 5! :) [QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

I'm at a 1. I'm 100% convinced that gods don't exist. Every definition of a personal god is flawed, as evident by the many religions. Every attempt to redefine god to be a collective body of the universe is a definition of which I deem unnecessary.

ChiliDragon

How could you be no 5 with your comment in the Doubts topic?

How could you be no 5 with your comment in the Doubts topic?

THUMPTABLE

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]

How could you be no 5 with your comment in the Doubts topic?

ChiliDragon

No worries mate, can i ask how you have become 100% certain that there is a deity?

No worries mate, can i ask how you have become 100% certain that there is a deity?

THUMPTABLE

Once I'd accepted that there are lots of things that we can't understand, supernatural phenomena and beings among them, I think one thing more or less led to another... to the eventually inevitable conclusion that if people of all times, places and cultures, despite their diverse differences, arrived at a belief that there is a deity (or several), then the simple fact that all cultures and eras have agreed on at least that one single thing suggests that there might actually be one. It's the only thing that every culture anywhere from any time on this planet has in common--the idea that there are higher beings with higher powers and abilities. It seems far more likely that there is a reason for this than for it to just be coincidence. Now, of course all cultures and eras disagree on the nature of that deity, how many there are, and how to worship them/it, but frankly, to me the support the idea that he/she/it exists. The deity in question is supposed to be considerable greater and more complex than we are. If my cat can't understand how a cell phone works and what it is, how can I expect humans to fully understand what and who god/God is, given that I'm assuming the difference between this deity and me is nearly infinitely greater than the difference between me and my cat?ChiliDragon

It seems to me that one could easily argue that for the most part these deities were just temporary things to fill gaps in knowledge that are now getting more official answers through science. Questions like "why is there thunder?", or "why do we die?", or "why do people do bad things?", and so on were all met with the similar answer of "well, because of deity X, duh!" As such, I think it could be argued that any higher power used in such a context is more just evidence of the combination of human ignorance and the human desire to have answers where there are none, not evidence of the actual existence of such a deity. Humans don't like being unable to understand something, and when you have no natural explanation, then "some guy out there did it" is the only explanationyou can give.

Now, if everyone on the planet arrived at the belief in a deity that could still exist even if science gave a natural explanation of every single phenomena we know of, then I would agree with you, but at long as these deities are used to answer questions about the universe, I can't say I feel that your conclusion is the one that needs the least number of assumptions.

Now, if everyone on the planet arrived at the belief in a deity that could still exist even if science gave a natural explanation of every single phenomena we know of, then I would agree with you, but at long as these deities are used to answer questions about the universe, I can't say I feel that your conclusion is the one that needs the least number of assumptions.

GabuEx

First off, I don't think it's possible to know anything 100%.  I still chose #5 because the degree I believe God exists is the same degree I believe anything else about reality.

#5

Reformed epistemology FTW!