Pick the answer you agree with...

I'm going to have to abstain from voting, since there's no option for "There is no way to know"

ha still not convinced i see

qft times infinity

I suppose I must ask, by god, do you mean the christian god? or do you mean the conception of a "god" in general?

There is no way to know, as there is no proof which leads to one way or the other.

Damn anti-agnostic poll.

The problem lies in the fact that humans exist inside a (for arguments sake) 4 dimensional world. We are forced to comprehend things in terms of time and the 3 physical dimensions. If a god were to have created "everything" it is neccesarily true that god is therfore not part of those 4 dimensions (ignore for a second facts like jesus being born human, etc.) Because a god would exist outside of space and time it is safe to say that proving the existance of god would require being outside space and time as well. At the moment that is not a possibility and thus we must rely on weaker proofs for the existance of a god.

If people say that god exists it then becomes their job to prove it. It is incorrect to argue that because an agnostic or aethiest can't prove that god doesn't exist that means a god must exist.

DISCLAIMER: the following is not an attempt to prove or disprove the existance of god.

It seems weird to me that human beings have the ability to form rational thoughts. No other animal shows signs of pondering a higher being so much as humans. Religion has always been a part of human culture. The gods change, the methods change, but it seems that as far back as antrhopologists can track there are signs of group worshiping. It seems like early humans were possibly scared or lacked confidence in themselves and created stories of higher beings. Also it is natural to think how everything started, and no doubt early humans wanted an explantion for such things.

Conclusion: It seems logical to believe that something outside of our realm of obvservations and existance could (and probably should) exist. However believing in one religion over another seems foolish because other than the assumption that any god is responsible for the creation of "everything" (although not recursively god'self) it is pure speculation to claim we have knowledge of motivations when we can't even say that the concept of motivation exists when we are outside of space and time and "everything" we know.

Agree totally. A while ago I also arrived at the conclusion that there is no way to know who or what is out there, or how we came to be. This is what I see as the most logical stance on the "God question." Notice that strong atheism (the assertion that there is no god) is another thing I find to be illogical along with theism.

The problem that many believers have with this is that for them the existence of whatever god they worship is part of their reality. Their god is a very real, true, known, and felt part of not only their being but of reality itself. So when challenged on the existence of this god, some believers will say "Who are you to say that [this very real being] is not real?" as if existence is an inherent trait of this god, and then challenge others to prove their god doesn't exist.

However if this god doesn't exist outside one's mind, then it is obviously directly or indirectly (say, from cultural influence) a creation of one's own imagination. How can someone prove part of your imagination isn't there? If this god does exist outside one's mind, there is still no irrefutable proof to its existence, so why bother arguing?

Hence why I am what is called a "weak atheist," or a person that does not subscribe to belief in a god or gods. However I do not claim that there are none, and I feel that this notion of ignorance is in fact most logical.

There need to be more poll options. I'm of the pursuasion that thinks it's likely something created this world, but not necessarily the God of any traditional religion.



This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I dislike the scientific/evolution theory because I think it's bullshit, I'm not totally convinced at how someone could think that an entire universe, and life on earth could come out of an accident. Sure science might explain how some thing in nature could have come to be, but it doesn't prove how blank space came to be. Since that's not exactly a material substance. On the other hand, I dislike religious/creationism theories since there isn't really much proof there either. The main part that bothers me is that most major religions and their "holy books" are left over from ancient periods where people believed lots of other nonsense which has been disproved this day in age. That and praying to said christian/islamic/any other god seems to render as much result as praying to my microwave/car/brick wall, doesn't seem to give much creedence to his possible existence. That said, I quite dislike religion.

Define your something. Because honestly you are simply making the argument that time has not always existed, and that might jsut be a given seeing as time doesn't really exist at all.

Sorry, I was editing my post while you wrote this. I can't really define my "something", how would I even be able to?

So essentially man has been dumped on this planet with no idea how he got here, the purpose of it all, etc. Obviously since this is a troubling issue he has formulated theories as to how he got here. And that's all they really are, theories. There's no concrete evidence proving much of anything. It was a man who formulated the theory of evolution, and it was men who wrote on those scrolls that became the bible. Obviously one could claim that there is no God because no one alive has seen him, and he (if he exists) has done nothing to show his existence to us (my reasoning about god has always been 1. He doesn't exist, or 2. He does exist and he's an asshole) and on the other hand, someone could claim that the planet itself, and it's complexity is proof enough for the existence of a god.

Of course at times I have bouts where I feel as though none of this is actually really, I know for a fact that I as a being exist because even if I the man do not exist, I exist as the thought or creation of someone elses world or imagination, since I am cognitive. I don't see the point of thinking about it too much though. One day I'll die and I'll get to find out for myself. If nothing happens when I die, then it won't matter since I won't know the difference. But if something does happen after death, I'll get to experience it and find out. Since death is the only thing humans really know as a definite, then that knowledge is something I know for a fact I'll experience. Even if the experience is non-existence.

Well said. A few points (not really arguments) but concerning men writing the bible. While this is true, religions get aorund that one by claiming divine intervention and thus would argue that God wrote the bible through humans (which if he created them/us would be very feasible I would think).

Second, saying god doesn't show any proof of god's existance is kind of a moot point. Religions would argue that patterns in nature (fibanoci anyone, look up occurence in nature it is a wicked huge coincedence) are evidence and not to mention "miracles" which can easily be described as random chance are still interesting to ponder.

Also, your last paragraph is a little muddy. In order to throw around terms like existance it would be best to define them. I mean, sure we have phsyical bodies, and if that is existance, than it is quite easy to say that god doesn't exist because it is not possible for all physical objects to be created by a physical object (you get an infinte loop of god trying to great god'self). So a good definition of exists needs to be formed.

I voted for no god, but am more of the persuasion of "I see no proof of god's existence, thus I see no reason to believe in him." I will grant a believe that there are many things that can make on believe in a higher power, but when I see those things, I see just plain old physics and randomness.

My favorite example of this was a high school science teacher trying to tell me differently.
"Look at a single cell, something so basic, and yet so complex, and you must see god"
but I see it as
"Look at a cell, something so complex, yet so basic, why would god be needed for this."

As long as people have the discussion where they question their current belief system, I am okay with whatever answer they come out with. I just think they need to really think about it.