How certain is your opinion on God's existence?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Because the broader you are, the more reasonable it can become. Take it as concept, not as specification.
Or the more ridiculous. If you espouse that god simply means 'higher intelligence' then there are approximately 6.6 billion of them as far as you're concerned by the fact that that's how many people are more intelligent than you are.
You still don't quite understand that I wasn't asking you.. do you?
Why the hostility?
Higher intelligence beyond reasonable Human levels with a considerable level of influence over Humanity or the natural world is what I would call a god, and I'm quite sure such things exist. There are trillions of planets in the universe, certainly one of them must have life more intelligent and more capable than we?
No hostility, just facts. Of course if there were to be any hostility present it might be because I have to keep repeating myself telling you that I am not asking you.
Now you're being more specific. See how 'being broad' does not help in the manner that being specific does? In either case, I wasn't asking you.
They'd be aliens. The poll didn't ask whether we believe aliens exist or not.
Ok, I understand you weren't asking ME but I can still provide my opinion, surely? I assumed you would want to see it, as I of course, do want to see everyone else's.
The definition of alien and the definition of gods are not mutually exclusive; we could have alien gods.
The definition of alien and the definition of gods are not mutually exclusive; we could have alien gods.
The "God" thing is something that defies logic/logical thinking. To apply logic to the concept is impossible.
Much like asking a grain of sand what it thinks of the Pompeiu problem and expecting an answer.
The existance of "God" is unknown and unknowable.
If anyone thinks differently, then I would welcome your absolute proof in either direction.
Much like asking a grain of sand what it thinks of the Pompeiu problem and expecting an answer.
The existance of "God" is unknown and unknowable.
If anyone thinks differently, then I would welcome your absolute proof in either direction.
Yes, they are. It's possible more advanced (Not necessarily more intelligent) aliens coming here long ago is the source of religion. If they return, maybe they'd be 1000 times more powerful than us. That doesn't mean they're gods.
glaucon,
What contradiction?
Snakelord,
Who were you asking? And wasn't your question answered in the OP anyway?
NGM,
A couple of points:
- How is it that you claim to know something about an unknowable concept?
- You can't prove anything absolutely.
- A grain of sand can't know anything at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison.
- The existence of God is not unknowable, unless God either does not exist or deliberately chooses to be unknown (ie hides).
What contradiction?
Snakelord,
Who were you asking? And wasn't your question answered in the OP anyway?
NGM,
A couple of points:
- How is it that you claim to know something about an unknowable concept?
- You can't prove anything absolutely.
- A grain of sand can't know anything at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison.
- The existence of God is not unknowable, unless God either does not exist or deliberately chooses to be unknown (ie hides).
Maybe god is insane.
Why not?
Well, I'm interested in your belief as it is with the evidence you have right now.
But I'm puzzled... if you are 100% certain that furred trout don't exist, then aren't you denying any possibility of new and convincing evidence?
Pete: NGM, a couple of points:
- How is it that you claim to know something about an unknowable concept?
I didn't say the concept of "God" isn't knowable. I said the existence of "God" is unknowable. Please don't misquote me.
- You can't prove anything absolutely.
Is that an absolute fact you're expressing or is there a possibility of it not being an absolute?
- A grain of sand can't know anything at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison.
Yes, it is a perfectly meaningful comparison. You choose to not to admit it or you don't understand it.
- The existence of God is not unknowable, unless God either does not exist or deliberately chooses to be unknown (ie hides).
So you've decided that there are only two possible explanations for the existence of "God" to be unknowable. I think you're wrong. I think that explanations go to the nth power of possibilities. Your imposed limit of two explanations is unacceptable. You infer by your limitations of explanations that you understand all the possible explanations that could exist for an omnipotent being to be unknown to something as trivial as the little tiny structures it created, if that indeed is the way it is. (This is where the grain of sand comes into play). A human body is nothing more than a collection of matter that is observed by some other forms of matter as a "living" being. A grain of sand is also a collection of matter. Your human limitations are keeping you from understanding the lack of difference as it could be seen by that omnipotent being or beings if they exist.
- How is it that you claim to know something about an unknowable concept?
I didn't say the concept of "God" isn't knowable. I said the existence of "God" is unknowable. Please don't misquote me.
- You can't prove anything absolutely.
Is that an absolute fact you're expressing or is there a possibility of it not being an absolute?
- A grain of sand can't know anything at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison.
Yes, it is a perfectly meaningful comparison. You choose to not to admit it or you don't understand it.
- The existence of God is not unknowable, unless God either does not exist or deliberately chooses to be unknown (ie hides).
So you've decided that there are only two possible explanations for the existence of "God" to be unknowable. I think you're wrong. I think that explanations go to the nth power of possibilities. Your imposed limit of two explanations is unacceptable. You infer by your limitations of explanations that you understand all the possible explanations that could exist for an omnipotent being to be unknown to something as trivial as the little tiny structures it created, if that indeed is the way it is. (This is where the grain of sand comes into play). A human body is nothing more than a collection of matter that is observed by some other forms of matter as a "living" being. A grain of sand is also a collection of matter. Your human limitations are keeping you from understanding the lack of difference as it could be seen by that omnipotent being or beings if they exist.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: No, people are insane to literally believe in some god they created.
Hey Pete.
Simply put, certainty does no obtain within the realm of opinion.
An opinion is, by definition, a contingent matter, always open to question.
Certainty only and specifically applies properly to matters of fact.
It may sound like a purely semantic quibble, but it is really an epistemological one.