This is a poll only for self-described agnostics based on this thread.
Don’t know; don’t care.
Figured the middle option covered that.
Yes. I figured letting out any interpretation on merit out of the question. I’m really only interested in how people feel about the likelyhood of god’s existence.
I posted “equally likely”…although I truly do not know what the “likelihood” is of either.
Obviously, since you read the other post, I wish the middle option had been “I don’t see enough evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess in either direction”…but since this is what was offered…that is the way I voted.
Seems like what you need is a poll with two axes. One for whether you believe or not, and one for how certain you are that your beliefs are correct.
Maybe. Though I think the difference is only relevant for the “middle” option: i.e. “I don’t know either way but I believe in god”, “I don’t know either way but I don’t believe in god”. I don’t think the middle option would be all that popular.
I voted 50/50, but it would be more accurate to say that I think a variety of cosmologies are possible but unprovable. I actually think the traditional Judeo/Christian/Moslem God seems pretty unlikely compared to a more broadly conceived, less “petty” universal consciousness (though still not utterly outside the realm of possibility).
I’m intrigued by those who say that gods are just as likely to exist as they are not to exist. Do you feel the same way about wood nymphs?
[Moderator Note]Take it to one of the threads currently running in Great Debates.[/Moderator Note]
That would have been my preference, too. I don’t really have a value judgement on the subject - I simply don’t have enough information to make one. To me, the door is completely open - proof either way is welcome.
I can no more wrap my head around the idea of there being a god who created the universe out of nothingness than I can wrap my head around the idea that the universe just sprang out of nothingness. They seem equally plausible/implausible to me. I don’t believe that we can ever know where this all came from.
And, to quote Nick Cave, “I don’t believe in an interventionist god”. If there is a god, and he created the universe, he didn’t stick around to tweak it afterward. He’s just watching the ultimate reality TV.
What he said. I chose the middle option, but like the others I don’t think it’s worth worrying about. It really depends on your definition of God. If you had asked if I believe in the Christian/Mormon/Islamic/Greek/Roman (any clearly defined) God, I would have chosen “certain it does not exist”. However if your definition of God is the unknowable creator of the universe then, I’m equally open to all ideas.
Depends on one’s definition of “wood nymphs”.
Again-take that over to Great Debates.
The question is not phrased well.
First, you have to define what you consider a “god” to be.
If you asked me if this universe had a creator, I would say “there is no proof, but it’s possible.”
If you asked me if this possible creator had a hand in the creation of the first life, I would respond the same way.
If you asked me if this possible creator gave a damn about this planet in particular or anything on it, I would say that’s highly unlikely.
If you asked me if this possible creator is in ANY way similar to any being described in any human religion, I would say “almost 100% guaranteed not.”
I reject any notion of a personal, interventionist god. I also reject the idea that it is worth worrying about. I tend to think it’s incredible arrogance in the extreme to believe that we are intrinsically special. We are still an experiment in evolution and may well yet go the way of the dinosaurs or those species lost in the other great extinctions.
No doubt then something else may rise and become the dominant species on this planet.
I’m what’s called a “Militant Agnostic.”
Stated simply: I don’t know, and you don’t either.
.
Here’s what God Herself told Ralph Estling:
“On the subject of My Divine Essence, Character, Attributes, Inclinations, Motives, Philosophy, Politics, and modus operandi, especially as regards what are vulgarly referred to as miracles, and even more especially as regards My hypothesized role in Universe Construction where, so it has been alleged, I, in the form of a bipedal primate outwardly resembling an elderly and bearded male Homo sapiens sapiens, created The Universe for the amusement and edification of men, I would like to state that I am rather inclined to take a dim view of all people, of whatever persuasion, voicing opinions on Me, for the simple reason that as I am ineffable and exist beyond all human comprehension in no particular spatio-temporal relation to the physical cosmos, all opinions about Me are meaningless, when not actually insulting, and, what is worse, are tiresomely predictable, especially to one Who knows all things, reflecting as they do only the outlooks and attitudes of these, My unsolicited and intellectually and imaginatively limited interpreters who, if they ever really thought about Me, would be more inclined to keep silent.”
Discuss.
No.
Take it elsewhere.
It’s phrased exactly right, since I’m only interested in the general concept of a deity, and specifying anything further would just skew the results. You’re a self-described agnostic, so how likely do you think is it that some sort of god exists?