JGL53

I guess I'm just ornery but my opinion is "I know of no good reason to think any god exists so I just assume that one doesn't. The idea just seems like a human creation to me, a rather absurd abstraction, and I give it no more credence than a claim that santa claus literally exists.".

Since the above wasn't one of the choices I didn't vote.

Also:

1. Since anything is theoretically possible (describe something that isn't), everyone could mark the "possible" box, making that choice meaningless.

2. Statements of "x exists" or "x does not exist", as some absolutist statement, are logical fallicies, since no human is infallible.

If you're just wanting to make the strongest possible statement about your non-belief in god, I think my statement above avoids the charge of absolutism.

3. How could one demonstrate the high or low "probability" of a literally existing god? I'm pretty sure that the odds are one in six that when you roll one (honest) die, you will get a four. That's probability theory for you. But where do you start and what method do you use to determine the probability, great or small, of something as abstract as a god? I don't see how that can work.

Jbrisley

That's my god...you can't have him :Cheeky:

McD

Good points, but this poll is set up to get your gut response. There is a gun to your head and you have 3 seconds to answer. Choose now.

This isn't a poll meant to produce Martin vs. Craig style debates, it's a poll to determine your immediate gut response.

JGL53

Fair enough - but none of the six choices you listed passed my personal smell test, and therefore never reached my gut.

McD

I like that! You are a funny guy,

BW: I used to live in Pascagoula MS. I lived there for about 2 years. Strange twon. I got more pussy there than than any place I have lived before or since, yet the population there is about 90% fundy Christian.

His Noodly Appendage

EOG is unfalsifiable, as is the IPU and hyperintelligent telepathic ear dandruff controlling all our brains. As such, nobody can state with certainty that god does not exist. By definition, an omnipotent being can manipulate information to prevent detection by scientific means. Equally, the telepathic ear dandruff could simply be controlling us into not detecting it. Absolutely ANY unfalsifiable proposition COULD be true, and we'll never know for sure. If we're pressed on the issue, we must admit the possibility.

However, as unfalsifiable propositions go, EOG is pretty fucking stupid, and I rate its probability as rather lower than the probability that I'm actually a hallucinating ferret.

So, I can state that I am personally certain that god does not exist - exactly as certain as I am that I posess feet - and I can do this without the slightest contradiction or hypocrisy.

So, to answer honestly, I'd have to tick both 'possibly' and 'definitely not'

BioBeing

You're welcome to him! I still see even such a being as extremely unlikely, and not worthy of real consideration.

JGL53

I must agree with what you are saying here, though I still might disagree with how you are saying it - which is a minor disagreement in comparison, would you not agree?

Sure, no one I know looks down at their feet and says "Hey, to the best of my knowledge, based on my admittedly subjective observation and admittedly fallible senses, I seem to have feet, and thereby reasonably and definitely assume that I have feet - the burden of proof being on those who disagree, plus it seems absurd that I really don't have feet, otherwise, how did I just walk in the room?". No, most people (who actually have feet) if questioned on their opinion of EOTF, would just say "There are my feet. My feet exist. What, are you retarded?"

But with pure philosophical abstract claims (of admittedly invisible and immaterial entities, like gods and demons and angels and such - IF they do in fact exist,), i.e., claims that aren't just apparently true to all sane human observers, qualifying "I believe" phrases are needed to ward off the "closed-minded" and "absolute knowledge" charges - which detracts from the actual debate.

So, in a nutshell - even though all gawd's chillin' need shoes, feet is (are?) a slightly different ball of wax than is "gawd".


- which I observe as proof positive different semantics are called for in discussion of cases of wholly abstract "truth claims".

JGL53

Pascagoula, besides being a bizarre "indigenous people's" name, is a strange town for Mississippi. For one thing it has a fuckload of industry (Ingalls ship-building) - something you don't exactly stumble over every few miles here in the Magnolia state.

As for fucking the fundy women, I've always heard that Pentecostal women are the wildest fucks, but I have no personal experience with such - I find the giant hair, granny dresses and lack of any make-up rather scary. And what would be the best pick-up line - "Hey there, babe, let me buy you a glass of moo juice. Boy, do I HATE dancing -it's EVIL. So - how about that John 3:16 - does that ROCK or what?".

Vortex

Or, "Wanna make joyful noise unto the lord, honey?"