I'm only 12.5% sure that God exists...
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society? What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
-
i encountred this video earlier today . i found it amusing . you might enjoy it also . as for me i have always beeen agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other . hower i now favor the method of Dr. Sheldon Cooper who states as best as i recall "God if you do in fact exist thank you for my wonderful life . if you do not exist never mind ." Funniest Ronald Reagan Moments - Atheist 🤣😁 #shorts #funny - YouTube[^]
BernardIE5317 wrote:
agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of GodIn my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive. -
BernardIE5317 wrote:
as for me i have always beeen agnostic
To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion. I think most atheists confuse God with the flawed personification of God. Which is 100% flawed. But that speaks more to the flaws of man than God. I'll just say this, there are things I've seen that cannot be explained by coincidence. Some may call it the law of attraction or whatever, but it's the same thing. Funny video btw.
Jeremy Falcon
Um, not sure 'co-incidence' can cause anything. Maybe you need to revisit your understanding of co-incidence... :-)
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society? What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
Quote:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ― Stephen Roberts
I've always liked this quote. If I recall it was in someone's signature here a VERY LONG time ago.
-
Um, not sure 'co-incidence' can cause anything. Maybe you need to revisit your understanding of co-incidence... :-)
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
as for me i have always beeen agnostic
To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion. I think most atheists confuse God with the flawed personification of God. Which is 100% flawed. But that speaks more to the flaws of man than God. I'll just say this, there are things I've seen that cannot be explained by coincidence. Some may call it the law of attraction or whatever, but it's the same thing. Funny video btw.
Jeremy Falcon
the only coincidence i've seen is while watching "Dr. Strangelove" i picked up my copy of the book opened it to a random page glanced at a random line on the page and at that precise moment heard on the film precisely the same dialog written upon which my glance fell . as for the "law of attraction" i recall learning something of it a few years ago . i found it intriguing . it would be nice if it were in fact true . it is difficult for example to believe however the low odds of winning the lottery can be overcome by mere positive thoughts . if in fact that is the correct understanding of the "law" . though i recall reading amazing results the details of which i now do not recall . going back to coincidence i have a little story . i purchase the LP of the soundtrack to "Blade Runner" . with the LP in the distinctive bright orange bag of Rose Records w/ logo i then visited another store an art supply store to view their writing instruments . upon approaching the counter w/ said pens the lady behind the counter spoke to me "Is that the new Vangelis album ?" i did not know what a "Vangelis" was . upon returning home i examined the liner notes and discovered the composer was none other ! i attributed this to womanly wisdom . namely she sized me up . perhaps we would have been sympatico . but being the social cripple i never would know . another similar story . at lunch several other fellow workers began discussing electronic music . one of the fellows was attempting to recall the name of a particular such . he could not . he asked me to remember for him . i replied "Tomita" as i happened to have an album of his . he affirmed that is who he was attempting to recall . i do not know how he knew i knew . perhaps he sized me up . we were not particularly sympatico .
-
I guess that makes me an 1/8 theist.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Sander Rossel wrote:
I guess that makes me an 1/8 theist.
What makes up the other 7/8? I consider myself to be a Transient Agnostic Misotheist who isn't quite sure if he's also a Dysthiest. I might be Polythiestic, but I might be Monotheistic. I can't figure that out because I'm Agnostic. If God does exist, he's severely bipolar. One minute, he's flooding the entire Earth to kill everything. The next minute he creates a rainbow as a symbol showing that he will never flood the Earth ever again. That's nice and all, but we all know the next time he kills everything on Earth, he'll use fire. I think He may be a few tacos short of a combination plate.
-
i encountred this video earlier today . i found it amusing . you might enjoy it also . as for me i have always beeen agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other . hower i now favor the method of Dr. Sheldon Cooper who states as best as i recall "God if you do in fact exist thank you for my wonderful life . if you do not exist never mind ." Funniest Ronald Reagan Moments - Atheist 🤣😁 #shorts #funny - YouTube[^]
BernardIE5317 wrote:
i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition. Normal definition of God is being outside the universe. Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of GodIn my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.PIEBALDconsult wrote:
In my opinion, one can be theist and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.
Humanity is full of contradictions. That is actually a standard trop in science fiction where they drive the computer (android, whatever) mad by presenting it with a logical contradiction. Myself I am not sure that any sane human can exist without contradictions.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of GodIn my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.thanks for the clarification . it seems i do not know the proper term for my situation . perhaps it is "idonotknowanddonotcareonewayortheother" .
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition. Normal definition of God is being outside the universe. Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
perhaps the "normal" definitions are not correct . i give it at most one-thousand years for the matter to be settled . by then we will either know or know we can not know .
-
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society? What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition. Normal definition of God is being outside the universe. Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
There can be nothing outside the Universe, hence the term. By definition, the Universe contains everything. If you have a circle, and discover something outside the circle, simply draw a bigger circle, the first circle was in error. Theists may state that religion is the study of the works of God, but if God exists, then science is the study of the works of God.
-
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
"I refuse to prove that I exist." -- God, HHGTTG
-
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
as for me i have always beeen agnostic
To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion. I think most atheists confuse God with the flawed personification of God. Which is 100% flawed. But that speaks more to the flaws of man than God. I'll just say this, there are things I've seen that cannot be explained by coincidence. Some may call it the law of attraction or whatever, but it's the same thing. Funny video btw.
Jeremy Falcon
-
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
many assumptions in your discussion of assumptions .
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
-
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
Let's assume one can't see past the personification of God with questions like that... Assuming neither of us are color blind, how do we know when you see the color green it's in fact the same color I see when I see green? The atheist would say, "oh we have the same color receptors in the eye, blah blah". But, how do we know for sure? In the context of this discussion one might also say, "we don't, so that proves my doubt". But, we trust that we do as system of understanding of existence for a concept none of us barely understand. Saying we understand because we know what green means to _us_ is a shallow misrepresentation of the point and only demonstrates a person cannot think deep enough. That's same with God. If you equate God with the likes of Santa, then you're doing it wrong buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
