Another quick poll.

If you are not a Christian, but follow some other religion, please substitute the religious text you consider most sacred (e.g. the Qur'an) for the words "The Bible" in answering the poll.

Hmm. None apply for me.:( "Probably" not created by God doesn't swing it.

I go for the vedic version

Yeah, why isn't there a "No belief and no idea!" option?

"Probably not"?
"Some doubt"?

I'm with Genji in that these don't really swing it.

Or is this poll ONLY for people who believe in God? :eek:

Probably not created by God. Because, in my case, God probably doesn't exist in the first case.

Or is this poll ONLY for people who believe in God?

Even if you don't, the last one still applies...

Since it cannot be proven that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, the last option is the one for "atheists." To say that the God of the Bible cannot exist is irrational.

Since it cannot be proven that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, the last option is the one for "atheists." To say that the God of the Bible cannot exist is irrational.

Since it cannot be proven that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist, the last option is the one for "theists." To say that the Celestial Teapot cannot exist is irrational.

Celestial Teapot, is that the deity de jour in Britain?

It is a deity de jour, for sure.

Probably not created by God. Because, in my case, God probably doesn't exist in the first case.

Even if you don't, the last one still applies...I can't say "probably not" because I really have no idea - no one can.
It is totally and utterly outside the scope of any assessment of probability.

We can NOT know.

Therefore to say "probably" one way or another is disingenuous to the actual position I hold.

I certainly don't "believe" god created it - but then I don't "believe" that god didn't.

No evidence either way - so no probability can be given.

How do we know that the Universe really does exist. Does it exist because it can be seen and touched, so does that mean that those things that we can not see and touch do not exist? How do we really know that the universe was here before we were here. Do I have proof that it existed before I existed. All the proof is only what I can mentally accept, I have no physical proof that it was really here, so did it exist?

I can't say "probably not" because I really have no idea - no one can.
It is totally and utterly outside the scope of any assessment of probability.

We can NOT know.

Therefore to say "probably" one way or another is disingenuous to the actual position I hold.

I certainly don't "believe" god created it - but then I don't "believe" that god didn't.

No evidence either way - so no probability can be given.

No probability is important when we have only partial knowledge. And that we do. Considering how the idea of God could have originated in the first place, and considering whether we have any evidence for such a thing, we can say very well that God probably does not exist, the same way that we can say that (as someone pointed out very very long ago right here in SF) flying pink unicorns probably don't exist.

This is a great poll. It is great because if you talk to 100 different Christians about the advanced and deeper aspects of their religion, you will get 100 different answers. In fact, many Christians are almost like zombies, believing whatever their priest or minister tells them. They are also very simple people who only know the raw basics of their religon (and some probably don't even know that.)

No probability is important when we have only partial knowledge. And that we do. Considering how the idea of God could have originated in the first place, and considering whether we have any evidence for such a thing, we can say very well that God probably does not exist, the same way that we can say that (as someone pointed out very very long ago right here in SF) that flying pink unicorns probably don't exist.

No, there may be evidence that current religions are falsely based, but that really does not offer any evidence toward the existence or nonexistence of a god. Even if every religion in existence is based on lies, that does not mean that there is or is not a god. It merely means that the ideas that people hold are based on lies. The beliefs that some religions hold may very well be true (assuming they don't directly contradict scientific knowledge) regardless of whether they have merit. Frankly, it is impossible to offer evidence either in support of or against the existence of a god because the god that may or may not exist could very well be an unquantifiable object.

It is because there is no evidence for God that we say there's little probability for the existence of God. Not because we have evidence against it. And this isn't based on any religion. This is based on a general idea of God, the most basic one, which is something along the lines of a conscious being who maybe, omiscient and omnipotent, or not... and similar things. This is a practical standpoint.

Just because there is no evidence in support of something, as long as there is no evidence against it it is possible. Two theories. There is a god, and there isn't a god. Neither of them have any evidence to support them and neither have any evidence to contradict them, so how is it logical to choose one over the other?

There is no God. There is universe and we are part of it. Universe was created by another universe which was created by another universe...the sequence is infinity-1 cyclical, with a start that is also an end.

Universe was created by another universe which was created by another universe...the sequence is infinity-1 cyclical, with a start that is also an end.

What?

What?

Humans are main chain link between universes...they create another universe within their own...that universe creates another universe...and so on...the sequence of such creations is infinity - 1 ...meaning there is an end and a beginning...and that such creation is cyclic...however the end is also a beginning

Since it cannot be proven that the Celestial Teapot doesn't exist, the last option is the one for "theists." To say that the Celestial Teapot cannot exist is irrational.

unlike the celestial teapot, there are claims of the direct perception of god (saintly persons) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

There are claims of direct perception of aliens abducting hapless rednecks in Alabama. Why should one value claims of those that claim to be special enough to "perceive" that which others cannot? If they're unable evidence their claims, shouldn't they be left to the ranks of the delusional?

In between agnostic, and who cares here.

For comparison:

A Gallup poll in 1996 of Americans found:

46% of Americans believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story of Creation from the Bible.
40% of Americans believe that God has guided evolution over millions of years, and that the Bible Creation story is symbolic rather than literally true.
14% of Americans have some other view.

In between agnostic, and who cares here.

everyone both cares and noone cares at the same time.

There are claims of direct perception of aliens abducting hapless rednecks in Alabama. Why should one value claims of those that claim to be special enough to "perceive" that which others cannot? If they're unable evidence their claims, shouldn't they be left to the ranks of the delusional?
the difference is that saintly people don't just just make claims of direct perception - they make claims of processes as well, hence its not unusual to find a range of normative descriptions in scripture

Yet their claims of "processes" don't hold up. Not a single one. If I'm wrong, cite a reference here.

Yet their claims of "processes" don't hold up. Not a single one. If I'm wrong, cite a reference here.
you've never encountered a normative description in scripture?

Citation?

Citation?

practically any scripture you care to mention - I trust you are familiar with at least one, even if it is only in name

Care to cite a passage to one? No need to quote the whole bit of mythology, just the chapter/verse/line.

Care to cite a passage to one? No need to quote the whole bit of mythology, just the chapter/verse/line.
still drawing a blank, huh?

No probability is important when we have only partial knowledge. And that we do. Considering how the idea of God could have originated in the first place, and considering whether we have any evidence for such a thing, we can say very well that God probably does not exist, the same way that we can say that (as someone pointed out very very long ago right here in SF) that flying pink unicorns probably don't exist.We can say that about certain ideas of god - the Biblical version, for example.
But the "creator-of-the-universe" god - the Deistic variety that can no longer interfere with their creation?
What knoweldge can we have of that one?

There is no option for:

The universe was created by a natural entity/species

and

The universe was not created.

unlike the celestial teapot, there are claims of the direct perception of god (saintly persons) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

OK, riddle me this, I sometimes get an overwhelming urge to drink tea, I have one right now, and must go immediately, put the kettle on, and get brewing. What is this is if it not divine guidance from the 'Great Celestial Teapot' itself?

People feel things inside themselves, and attribute them to external influences. God or Teapot, it's all the same. Internal, personal, and has no external reality.

There is no option for:

The universe was created by a natural entity/species

and

The universe was not created.Or:

The universe exists - that's all we know.

what bugs me about this poll is that the last choice says "....probably..."

well were is the choice that says"....definitely was not created" ?

unlike the celestial teapot, there are claims of the direct perception of god (saintly persons) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

Unlike your god , there are claims of the direct perception of the celestial teapot (lunatics) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

Truly amazing how easy it is to replace a few words and still have equally valid statements.

The balls in your court.

Where's the option for the universe probably wasn't created at all?

Where's the option for the universe probably wasn't created at all?

so what is this? a dream?

I don't believe the universe had a begining.

I don't believe the universe had a begining.

Where's the option for the universe probably wasn't created at all?

The last option! Where does it say anywhere in the last option that the Universe had a beginning? The question isn't whether it had a beginning or not, but whether God had any part in its creation. So as far as this thread is concerned, what you're looking for is the last option. That's what I understand.

OK, riddle me this, I sometimes get an overwhelming urge to drink tea, I have one right now, and must go immediately, put the kettle on, and get brewing. What is this is if it not divine guidance from the 'Great Celestial Teapot' itself?

People feel things inside themselves, and attribute them to external influences. God or Teapot, it's all the same. Internal, personal, and has no external reality.
then you would be hard pressed to determine how your tea drinking is anything but the urge of yoru mind, and where the question of direct perception of a celestial teapot comes into being
(but I agree, its not uncommon to encounter a believer who confuses their mind for god - that's why it is recommended that one consults scripture rather than one's mind)

Unlike your god , there are claims of the direct perception of the celestial teapot (lunatics) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

if they are lunatics, the processes they advocate will probably be vastly arrayed (unlike religion, which draws on similar principles of atonement, austerity, service to god etc) and incapable of drawing a uniformed response by following their "processes"

The last option! Where does it say anywhere in the last option that the Universe had a beginning? The question isn't whether it had a beginning or not, but whether God had any part in its creation. So as far as this thread is concerned, what you're looking for is the last option. That's what I understand.

To say that God didn't have a part in the creation of the universe is still admiting that it was created, right?

There is no option for:

The universe was created by a natural entity/species

and

The universe was not created.

Those are covered by the last option.

A quick question to those who do not believe the universe had a beginning... if the universe had no beginning, what do you believe? It's just been here forever?

A quick question to those who do not believe the universe had a beginning... if the universe had no beginning, what do you believe? It's just been here forever?

its cyclical. Beginning is also an end.

if they are theists, the processes they advocate will probably be vastly arrayed (unlike belief in the celestial teapot, which draws on similar principles of milkyness, honey, service to tea, etc) and incapable of drawing a uniformed response by following their "processes"

See how easy? Same-same. Keep trying.

A quick question to those who do not believe the universe had a beginning... if the universe had no beginning, what do you believe? It's just been here forever?

Of course, coservation.

See how easy? Same-same. Keep trying.

you failed to give processes and instead opted for qualities

you failed to give processes and instead opted for qualities

you failed to give processes and instead opted for double-speak.

Again?

Of course, coservation.

So energy has always existed?
The universe goes through a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and has been since the beginning of time (whatever that is)?

So energy has always existed?
The universe goes through a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and has been since the beginning of time (whatever that is)?

I'd imagine, except there is no begining of time. That's what seems likely.

I'd imagine, except there is no begining of time. That's what seems likely.

The bubble theory...is cool with that assumption.