Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[Seth]

You forgot the most important answer: "I don't know."

[PsychoSerenity]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

[JimC]

You forgot the most important answer: "I don't know."

The "sitting on a fence" option covers that nicely...

Nice way to get splinters in one's privates, BTW...

[Hermit]

Shouldn't the 5th option be "a little less than 50%"?

Ah, yes. My mistake. I'll ask a mod to edit it.

Jim, would you please edit the poll?

[klr]

Shouldn't the 5th option be "a little less than 50%"?

Ah, yes. My mistake. I'll ask a mod to edit it.

Jim, would you please edit the poll?

Now done, Jim or no Jim.

[JimC]

Shouldn't the 5th option be "a little less than 50%"?

Ah, yes. My mistake. I'll ask a mod to edit it.

Jim, would you please edit the poll?

Now done, Jim or no Jim.

Schrodinger's Jim?

[klr]

Shouldn't the 5th option be "a little less than 50%"?

Ah, yes. My mistake. I'll ask a mod to edit it.

Jim, would you please edit the poll?

Now done, Jim or no Jim.

Schrodinger's Jim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug#Related_terms

... and yes, I've encountered schrödinbugs in my time. As in "how did it ever work up to now?"

Almost as baffling as this God chappie.

[Seth]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

But the essential question is whether or not the definition creates the thing or the thing exists but not necessarily in the defined form.

That's not meaningless wibble, it's a fundamental understanding of logic that rational persons ought to have before bloviating on anything at all. Or said in another way, does the possibility that the definition or description of a thing is incorrect cause the thing to cease to exist or is it evidence of the non-existence of the thing?

The answer to that is "no."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

But the essential question is whether or not the definition creates the thing or the thing exists but not necessarily in the defined form.

That's not meaningless wibble, it's a fundamental understanding of logic that rational persons ought to have before bloviating on anything at all. Or said in another way, does the possibility that the definition or description of a thing is incorrect cause the thing to cease to exist or is it evidence of the non-existence of the thing?

The answer to that is "no."

So is the answer to, "Would you like coleslaw with that?" It also has the benefit of being easier to understand and much much easier to care about.

[Seth]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

But the essential question is whether or not the definition creates the thing or the thing exists but not necessarily in the defined form.

That's not meaningless wibble, it's a fundamental understanding of logic that rational persons ought to have before bloviating on anything at all. Or said in another way, does the possibility that the definition or description of a thing is incorrect cause the thing to cease to exist or is it evidence of the non-existence of the thing?

The answer to that is "no."

So is the answer to, "Would you like coleslaw with that?" It also has the benefit of being easier to understand and much much easier to care about.

It's not my fault you all keep on citing the Atheist's Fallacy time after time after time. You could just say "I don't know" and be secure that you have made an unassailable factual argument.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

But the essential question is whether or not the definition creates the thing or the thing exists but not necessarily in the defined form.

That's not meaningless wibble, it's a fundamental understanding of logic that rational persons ought to have before bloviating on anything at all. Or said in another way, does the possibility that the definition or description of a thing is incorrect cause the thing to cease to exist or is it evidence of the non-existence of the thing?

The answer to that is "no."

So is the answer to, "Would you like coleslaw with that?" It also has the benefit of being easier to understand and much much easier to care about.

It's not my fault you all keep on citing the Atheist's Fallacy time after time after time. You could just say "I don't know" and be secure that you have made an unassailable factual argument.

We all? I voted cheese!

I don't know. I don't know ANYTHING. But I find that making working assumptions is necessary to make sense of and function in this world. One of those working hypotheses is that there is no god - so far, that works just fine. The world has a lot less inconsistencies if you assume it is true (as compared to the years I spent trying to fit there actually being such a bizarre being). As with all of my assumptions, of course, it is subject to immediate revision should better evidence present. So far, none has.

[Hermit]

It's not my fault you all keep on citing the Atheist's Fallacy time after time after time.

Four out of 18 votes (so far) is "you all"? Really, Seth, there's no need for you to intentionally firm up the already well founded opinions I have about most of your assertions, theories and discussion techniques.

[MiM]

Shouldn't the 5th option be "a little less than 50%"?

Ah, yes. My mistake. I'll ask a mod to edit it.

Jim, would you please edit the poll?

Now done, Jim or no Jim.

Schrodinger's Jim?

So Cat is what the C stands for I thought only dogs where indistinguishable on the internet.

[Animavore]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

It's worse than that. God doesn't even have a working definition. What is a god supposed to actually be? Saying, "God is transcendant," doesn't really tell you what it is. Neither does, "God is love." Saying, "God is omniscient and omnibenevolent" is a description of his qualities. "God is the prime mover, the ultimate creator", that's just a job description. Any dictionary you look into none of them actually define what God is. Just his qualities and super-powers.

Some relgious people say, "You'll know him when you find him", but how will you know? If you see me searching the ground in the forest and ask me what I'm doing and I told you I was looking for a watch my mother gave me, I already know what I'm searching for. I already know I'll know it when I find it because I already know what it is. This isn't the case when people are searching for God so I'm not sure how they know it when they find it. What if they just think that what they've found is God, but is really just a self-misdiagnosis of hyperventilating or seizure or even just a simple lovey feeling totally produced internally by the brain?

And with that I can't even put a tick in any of the boxes or answer the question in any meaningful way.

[rainbow]

We all? I voted cheese!

Proof that cheeses exist.