Do you subscribe to creationism or naturalism? How about the theism/atheism scale?
I think God, as described by most religious people, is unable to be proven or disproven. The idea has been driven to the very far corners of our knowledge. It used to be that god was credited for even the most mundane of happenings - now the idea of god is only given to very distant causes like the Big Bang and very distant events in evolutionary biology. So technically, I am an agnostic.
But that describes what I think we can know - I don't think we can know the god that most people describe. But I 100% believe that every god I've seen described in scripture or "holy" writings does not exist, nor have I ever seen or heard of anything that requires a god as an explanation.
>>767878179
there are no gods
fight me
>>767878179
Technically 6 because I'm not "100% certain" of anything, but I'm essentially a 7.
>>767878944
>It used to be that god was credited for even the most mundane of happenings - now the idea of god is only given to very distant causes like the Big Bang and very distant events in evolutionary biology.
That's called the "god of the gaps". Also, nice dubs.
>>767878179
Creationism is just nonsensical in this day and age, it ignores all natural evidence and explanation.
6
We've found natural explanations for everything so far, with no need for any supernatural deity. We used to use god to explain away stuff we didn't understand. But now what's the need for the god explanation? Think of the big questions and the natural explanations
Universe: Big bang
Solar system: Gravitational orbit
Earth: Planetary formation
Life: Abiogenesis
Humanity: Evolution
Etc, all natural phenomenon.
>>767878179
De-facto Atheist here.
I deliberately avoid assigning the Dawkins' Scale numerical classification, as I do not wish to publicise that cunt whose posts I routinely "hide" and/or "filter" out of my field of view.
I doubt there are any theists on /b/
>>767878179
>creationism or naturalism
What's the difference?
>>767878179
Naturalism, and 1 with a caveat. God does not "exist" within our universe as an old man in the sky or any other physical form. Naturalism explains processes within our physical universe based on natural laws, but by definition there must be something supernatural beyond all that is natural, even if it doesn't end up fitting any particular religion's description of a personal deity.
>>767878179
agnostic. i'd also count our universe being a simulation as essentially the same as god existing
>>767880418
that's the opposite of naturalism
>>767880081
what he said
>>767880488
What is?
>>767878179
I believe 100% in a glorious and awesome heaven and gods.
So strong theist for me.
7
>>767880270
> " >creationism or naturalism " ;
> " What's the difference? " ;
There is only one of them whose letters can be used to form the word
> " cretinism " .
>>767880081
it's the god of the gaps concept
>>767880081
but what was before the big bang. where did that come from?
>>767881039
I don't know, but maybe one day we'll find out.
>>767878179
>>767878179
That scale is shit and no one actually uses those words in that way. I'm a 6 tho.
inclined towards 4 or 5, but if a god does exist its a split between a benevolent one or a cruel monster akin to a child with a magnifying glass and we are the ants.
>>767881125
and maybe we never will
>>767878179
7 obviously
what is this 2000 BC
>>767880418
Why is that, by definition, true? I don't see the logical necessity of supernatural being something that exists.
>>767880081
But muh bible
6, we've moved on
>>767881039
Matter that slowly gravitated towards each other until it became so dense and hot it reached critical mass and exploded outwards. One can assume that matter came from the infinite other big bangs that came and went before it.
>>767881039
>>767881125
>>767881537
See this is the problem. There's a difference between a "God of the gaps" where you throw in God to explain a natural process you don't understand, and a philosophical argument for what happened before/outside of spacetime and the natural laws we know and understand. Science can only take us as far as natural laws and uniformitarianism apply.
Insufficient evidence for the existence of any deities and perpetual arguments from ignorance (i.e. look at all this neat stuff, therefore god exists) are the reasons I finally set myself free from any notion of belief in the claim that a god exists. Any gods, for that matter. I’m steeped in the work and research of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and most recently Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra.
I was indoctrinated with Christianity from infancy. I attempted to be a “follower” until roughly 8 years ago, then I discovered logic and reason. I’m an apathetic atheist - while I couldn’t care less whether a god exists, I don’t see any reason to believe a god exists. I am a humanist who believes secular morality can be (and often is) superior to biblical morality, or religion-based morality of any kind. If heaven exists, I don’t want to go there. Thankfully, I know I will not outlive the death of my brain.
testing something
>>767878179
fuck all that i just like to stroke it
>>767881927
>>767881798
Ok, but you're begging the question and assuming what's yet to be proven. What is your basis for assuming that there's something outside the natural universe and something outside of space/time?
Are there any scientific concepts you don't buy?
>>767881927
aaand again
>>767882051
>>767881039
What do you mean "come from"? That's not how the big bang works
>>767880246
I'm a weak theist, of the greek reconstructionist variety. Not that I'm any good at the feasts or the holidays, but the thought of the gods looking down on me gives me a reason to dig deeper when things get bad.
>>767878179
Even “strong atheists” would not be giving an honest answer if they claimed to be sure that there is no god. At best, we’re saying there is insufficient evidence to support the god claim. That’s not the same as claiming that no god exists. How could anybody know? Personally, I don’t care either way, but churches need to stop being tax shelters, religion needs to stop being taught in public schools, and children should be free from indoctrination of any kind.
>>767882304
It's great that you have something that motivates you and gives you the feeling that something has your back, but don't you think you'd do that without the idea of a god? You give yourself not enough credit.
>>767882192
not yet
>>767882197
>>767882057
What is the basis for assuming the big bang occurred out of absolutely nothing? How can we know there are/aren't other universes with the same or different laws? It's no longer a scientific question because causation doesn't even work outside of time. It's a philosophical issue.
>>767880081
Pretty much all of this. People only use it as an emotional crutch now.
Naturalism is a fact, let's be honest.
>>767882483
>>767882559
The current theory (last I heard) in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in a pure vacuum can cause exactly the Big Bang. So it's not an assumption that it happened from nothing - good scientific theories are working with that idea.
There absolutely could be other universes, and they absolutely could have different physical laws. I don't think that means that they're supernatural or outside of space/time, though. And those issues aren't outside of time, nor are they free from the idea of causation - if quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang, that's a clear causal link that doesn't require philosophizing.
>>767878179
how do creationists reconcile all our known scientific facts with their theism idea?
>>767882836
and this is my fetish
Im a naturalist/evolutionist
Humans are mammals, mammals give birth, women are like goddesses, they give life.
>>767882559
And what does it even mean to "exist" outside of time and space? To my ears, that sounds like a concept devoid of any possible meaning. What does it mean to exist in a supernatural fashion? What possible evidence could you have to demonstrate something that, by definition, can't have any evidence?
I say stop debating and just use your own godly abilities to make the world a better place faggot. Even if he did exist he's not throwing us any bones so nut up and do something. Everyone is so worried about labels and what everyone else believes, including themselves, that they lose sight of what matters. Here and now.
>>767882958
>>767882393
It's not like I'm a crusader or some shit. It's just a casual back of my life kind of thing. That, and I like the way the mythology's written. I'm kind of torn between seeing the gods as a philosophical metaphor and seeing them as a living spiritual force in the world, but ideas have a power all their own, and anyway sending up a little thanks every now and then didn't hurt anybody.
I imagine I might, but it's a little bit of a holdover from younger days. My spiritual streak's seen me through a lot, and if all goes well, I'm going to need some protection and some guidance more than ever very soon. Even if it does only come from an idea. The gods favor the brave, after all.
Strong atheist, come at me.
>>767878179
where is the level that I don't know for sure and I don't care?
I'm really an agnostic but tbh I just don't care, why would I care?!
Only idiots and children believe in magical sky faries
>>767882192
I'm not sure why there would be. They tend to be factual.
>>767881703
good pic
>>767880081
This is what happens when you deal in facts and logic, not "faith".
>>767883389
Naw, that's all good. I'm a stone cold atheist, but sometimes I like thinking about the Norse gods and Valhalla. It's good to have archetypal ideals to live by.
>>767883391
most would agree with you
Do we even have any big unanswered questions left?
>>767883282
how is this not child porn. you people are sick
>>767883767
It is child porn. Just legal.
>>767883760
The short answer is yes
>>767883905
Long answer?
>>767883955
At what point does the smallest particle become the largest particle, etc etc.
>>767883905
not any that require a deity
>>767883760
The main two are the ultimate origin of life (although it seems like we're on to something with amino acid experiments) and the exact cause of the Big Bang. Those two are far enough back in time that the exact particulars might never be known, and thus doubt and philosophizing and religious interpretations will always be possible.
>>767883955
The amount of biochemistry we don't know or understand in our bodies is quite large for one
>>767884102
Correct
>>767880081
theists btfo
>>767878179
Don't give a fuck. Either god doesn't exist, or it doesn't have any tangible effect on my life.
>>767883697
I will say that Norse mythology has a way better afterlife, even if you don't die fighting. The Greek underworld is a pretty dingy place if you're not a heroic soul or particularly loved by the gods. If you're under the Norse pantheon, you'll either end up in NG+ with cheats, having your finest hour every day, or on a motherfucking boat. The options are considerably better, but the pantheon never really spoke to me. Everyone wears too many hats, you know?
>>767883760
Always.
>>767882192
The vague deep space stuff
>>767883760
How to unify gravitation and quantum mechanics; which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct (if any); the nature of personal identity; the nature of reality; the nature of consciousness; how to develop optimal ethical systems; how to develop optimal economic systems... there's a bunch. I don't think we're close to finished.
>>767878179
there is no way we have creationists on /b/
>>767884656
/b/ is full of all kinds of normies these days.
>>767880258
why
>>767884656
Try number two?
Seriously, with how /pol/ blew up a couple years ago, there have to be some lurking, at least.
6.
God is an inherently irrational belief.
Agnostic Deist, reporting in.
I've found most atheists are just edgy teenagers who after reading Beyond Good and Evil concluded that rejecting the Christian bible = there is no God.
Deist believe that God exists and is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but does not interfere directly with the created world. We do not believe any the validity of scripture, miracles or divine intervention.
anything beyond hard determinism is just wishful thinking
nothing supernatural is possible
At least we can all agree evolution is a fact
>>767886127
>God exists and is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe
translation:
>I believe something totally unsupported by evidence
>>767878179
>Hmm...He was behind of it.
>>767886486
Yep. I don't reject that it's irrational to do so either.
>>767886127
does that explain anything better than believing in no god?
>>767886527
So why? If you accept that the belief is irrational and without foundation, can you actually say that you believe it? Or is it that you try to believe it?
>>767880081
>But now what's the need for the god explanation?
The powerful need it to control the people.
>>767886704
I just listen to my gut. I once suspected that a girlfriend was cheating on me. I had no proof to support this belief, but my gut was telling me that she was a trifling liar so I dumped the bitch.
My gut tells me that the big bang was created by an extraordinary being. I have no evidence to support this belief, which is why I consider myself agnostic.
>>767886580
Atheism is the absence of a belief in God. Atheism is as much of a belief as bald is a hair color.
>>767881039
>but what was before the big bang.
Nothing.
>where did that come from?
Nothing.
>>767887033
prove it
>>767883767
it's art
>>767887033
does that make sense?
>>767886892
If you consider yourself agnostic, you're an atheist. You cannot believe in God and also be agnostic.
>>767887092
the big bang is a fact, that should sufffice
>>767886965
Yes, I know. My phrasing was meant to be consistent with that. "Believing in no god" means to not have a positive belief in any god. The person I was replying to is a Deist, which seems to me to have no explanatory power at all.
>>767887276
You made the claim that nothing was before the big bang. You also made the claim that the big bang come from nothing.
Provide evidence to support this claim.
>>767887428
Cool
>>767887490
yeah i know
>>767887262
Gnostic = Knowledge
Theist = Belief
The prefix 'A' denotes without.
As a matter of the definition of words, you have 4 options.
Gnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Everyone is one of the 4 above options.
>>767887342
I am the Deist you were replying to.
>>767887428
How do you reconcile all the many scientific facts with natural explanations for events and processes that used to be attributed to "god"
>>767887345
Time is a property of the universe. Therefore, "before the big bang" is a nonsense phrase, because the big bang was the beginning of time as well as space.
>>767882844
But before the big bang there wasn't even a vacuum, there was no spacetime. And other universes definitely would be outside of our spacetime. And if they have different physical laws, then they're supernatural by definition. You seem to conflate supernatural with superstition, talking snakes and the like, but that's not what I'm referring to.
>>767887092
Disprove it.
Just kidding. I‘m not a believer.
Everything that exists in our definition needs time and space. With the Big Bang space and time were created. There was neither space nor before „befor“ the Big Bang.
>>767887723
You're assuming that there is only one universe. If there are multiple universes, it is possible that other universes existed before our universe came into existence.
>>767878179
>Creationism
>>767887665
So... does it have any explanatory power that I'm missing?
>>767887428
so how do you "know"?
>>767887866
I'm agnostic. I have no knowledge to support my belief. I'm not asserting that my belief has any explanatory power.
>>767886127
>Agnostic Deist
Backs away slowly. I've argued with you fuckers before and it's extremely frustrating.
>>767886127
How can someone who's familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein be so irrational as to believe something to be true without proof?
>>767887587
You‘re almost right. But the term "knowledge" is not objective, but highly subjective.
>>767887812
What does it mean for another universe to exist "before" ours? That assumes they're all set in some larger "bubble" that also has a progression of time for one to be before the other. What all this should tell us is that this is no longer a scientific discussion, it's philosophical. We're dealing with supernatural ideas by definition.
>>767878179
Depends on how you define God. If you're talking about a biblical God who created man in his image, is omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient, and can telepathically communicate with us and cares about how we live out lives, I'm about as close to 7 as you can get without claiming absolute knowledge.
If you're talking about some vague concept of a higher power while also assigning it intelligence and agency in creating the universe, I'm more between a 5 and 6.
>>767888207
Never said it wasn't.
A Gnostic Atheist is a positive/strong Atheist. In other words, they KNOW there is no God.
This "knowing" there is no God is subjective, not objective.
>>767887812
No, I'm saying our concept of "before" only has relevance with respect to our universe. Even if there are other universes, we can't map their existence into our timeline. We can't even map our own universe into a single consistent timeline; different observers can see the same events occurring in a different order depending on where the observers are located relative to the events. None of them are "right" or "wrong"; time's just weird.
Within our universe, "before the big bang" has no meaning. Outside our universe, our universe's concept of time doesn't apply, so "before", in the way we mean it, doesn't make sense.
>>767886127
>Ludwig Wittgenstein
>>767880081
agreed
The answer is 3
1
>>767878179
>I don't know if there's a god. The types of horrors in this world and its general indifference to us leads me to believe there is no. However, if there is, the Romans had the right idea. Fuck singing for that twat in heaven, at least in Hell I'd be useful.
>>767878179
Weak theist here and my faith is getting stronger. I think most of the time people take the wrong approach when talking about the existence/non-existence of God. Most believers and also non-believers take everything literally and miss the whole point of religion. Discussions like these soon turn into fights about some minor detail in a book full of metaphors. The evolution vs creation debate is utterly ridiculous in my humble opinion. The question of existence, however, is a perfectly valid one. While God certainly does not exist physically in our plain, He might very well be real. The reason I'm becoming more of a theist lately is not based on emotions but rather philosophical and theological reasoning. Science, which is limited to explore and examine our own physical reality, will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is why I think that relying on "scientific proof" or bigotted opinions in such a matter is pointless. The only valid reasoning one can have for or against the existence of the Lord is purely a philosophical one an thus it all comes down to preference. So, in conclusion: no standpoint in this debate can ever be higher than the other.
How do creationists handle evolution/big bang?
>>767888575
I mean, kinda sure. Like I said, our concept of "before" isn't even well-defined for our own universe; unless events are causally-related (A causes B; therefore A must come before B), they can be perceived in any order by changing where the observer is.
Proposing a multi-universe concept of 'order in time' that also happens to agree with the concept of 'order in time' that we humanoid apes have developed on Earth seems like a big leap to me.
6. Though, the traditional concept of God is ludicrous and completely wrong. If there is a God it doesn't care about anyone or their morality.
>>767890190
>>767890190
poorly
>>767890128
oh, that's not true. Just because a debate is philosophical doesn't mean all arguments for any position are equally good.
>>767890190
They can't, at all.
>>767890190
Christian creationists idolize a book that forbids idolatry.
>>767890327
Not at all indeed. I meant to say that there are perfectly valid and equally acceptable reasonings on both side of this exact philosophical debate.
>>767886127
I wish I had started with Wittgenstein. Doing so would have saved me from wasting years of my life on mental masturbation.
>>767891260
That's closer to something I can agree with; however, being an atheist, I definitely think nonbelief has stronger arguments on its side. I've never heard an argument for the existence of god, of a soul, etc, that I thought had no strong counterargument.
>>767888317
Okay, I’m with you.
