Do You Believe There Is...

[BeckyJ]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

 

[Phys251]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

No god. If there is one, I'd like to see evidence. So far I have seen none.

 

[Gozaburo]

I tend to think it is more likely there is some kind of Platonic God or "divine essence" which is outside of space and time and beyond our perception than it is that the universe is pure matter. In philosophical terms there's a lot of epistemic and metaphysical baggage which comes with assuming the universe is pure matter which I don't think your average materialist is going to be able to reconcile.

Even naturalists must admit that on some level we must interact with abstract categories, but are comfortable enough with admitting these abstract categories are mostly human sensual conventions or pragmatic applications of our senses. I'm not sure if this is really a satisfying answer, even if we don't demand a final and conclusive answer on the ontological status of these abstract categories.

Unlike naturalists, I tend to apply the same intellectual rigor to the need for epistemic justification that an empiricist might demand for something like gravity. To the empiricist, it isn't sufficient to observe gravity and go "Well, that's just the way it works.". Similarly, I don't think it's sufficient to look at inductive reasoning and say "Well, it seems to get the job done in pragmatic terms." and leave it at that. For this reason, I've always been more partial to Kant’s transcendental justification, or a Platonic guarantee of rational order. While I have issues with both Kant and Plato, I think they're pushing in the right direction or at least a direction which I feel is more interesting and in line with my own.

 

[mrjurrs]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

No gods, and definitely not one god.

 

[LittleNipper]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

I believe that here exists only one GOD. The Bible does use the term GODHEAD. I believe that GOD has always been in a coexisting unit of three persons who deeply love and care for each other and share in all aspects of Creation and Salvation. They are entirely united in goals, values, and love. They are ONE GOD.

 

[Daisy]

One God and One God only...just another one of many reasons to reject the biased KJV...

Yes, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible uses the term "Godhead" in three specific verses: Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. While the English word "Godhead" itself does not appear in the original Greek scriptures, it was introduced into English translations, notably by John Wycliffe, to translate different Greek words that refer to the nature or divine essence of God.

Origin of the English term

The word "Godhead" was not present in the original biblical texts but was introduced into English Bibles, such as the KJV, to convey the concept of God's nature.

It gained its theological significance from earlier translations and was used to refer to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Google

 

[Demon]

No gods.

 

[Mycroft]

Do You Believe There Is...​

Don't know. Don't care. Don't need one.

And I certainly don't need to join any groups who want to believe, either.

 

[LittleNipper]

One God and One God only...just another one of many reasons to reject the biased KJV...

Yes, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible uses the term "Godhead" in three specific verses: Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. While the English word "Godhead" itself does not appear in the original Greek scriptures, it was introduced into English translations, notably by John Wycliffe, to translate different Greek words that refer to the nature or divine essence of God.

Origin of the English term

The word "Godhead" was not present in the original biblical texts but was introduced into English Bibles, such as the KJV, to convey the concept of God's nature.

It gained its theological significance from earlier translations and was used to refer to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Google

c. 1200, "divine nature, deity, divinity," from god + Middle English -hede (see -head). Along with maidenhead, the sole survival of this form of the suffix. Old English had godhad "divine nature." Parallel form godhood is from early 13c., now chiefly restricted to "state or condition of being a god."

In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God.

In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God.

Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ].”

Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).

The full article can be found here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Godhead.html

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

No god(s). If there was, he would have said "let there be a poll", and it was so.

b) a god of your own making

Like a whole new religion? Oh god no, not another.

 

[Daisy]

c. 1200, "divine nature, deity, divinity," from god + Middle English -hede (see -head). Along with maidenhead, the sole survival of this form of the suffix. Old English had godhad "divine nature." Parallel form godhood is from early 13c., now chiefly restricted to "state or condition of being a god."

In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God.

In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God.

Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ].”

Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).

The full article can be found here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Godhead.html

The word "Godhead" was not present in the original biblical texts

 

[KingLeo]

d) No god or gods of any kind

 

[soylentgreen]

.

Unlike naturalists, I tend to apply the same intellectual rigor to the need for epistemic justification that an empiricist might demand for something like gravity. To the empiricist, it isn't sufficient to observe gravity and go "Well, that's just the way it works.". Similarly, I don't think it's sufficient to look at inductive reasoning and say "Well, it seems to get the job done in pragmatic terms." and leave it at that. For this reason, I've always been more partial to Kant’s transcendental justification, or a Platonic guarantee of rational order. While I have issues with both Kant and Plato, I think they're pushing in the right direction or at least a direction which I feel is more interesting and in line with my own.

Which basically boils down to the fact that there is no clear answer so lets make up an imaginary force to explain it. Which is neither the intellectual or empirical method you only think you're using.

 

[Gozaburo]

Which basically boils down to the fact that there is no clear answer so lets make up an imaginary force to explain it. Which is neither the intellectual or empirical method you only think you're using.

Except I'm not saying "we don't have a coherent epistemic justification for knowledge, therefore *some* God". I'm saying that a materialist worldview claims access to knowledge which it cannot justify. From a pragmatic perspective, I'd say that's *okay*, but it's fundamentally an ignorant position - which respectable and honest intellectuals like Hume conceded.

I propose we approach this subject much like we do any empirical matter. We assess the evidence, form a hypothesis, and move forward with that hypothesis. Engineering marvels were created by breaching the limits of the possible, not being content with the pragmatic utility of the inventions of today.

 

[Loulit01]

There are no gods.

I sometimes wish there was a god. I'd like to meet the son of a bitch and give a nice big piece of my mind. How the hell does he sit around and allow this to happen:

Oklahoma man charged after 11-year-old girl gives birth at home

DNA test tied man to newborn in case prosecutor calls among most serious, as woman is also charged

www.theguardian.com

The least he could do is stop little girls from getting raped.

No, there is no god.

 

[soylentgreen]

Except I'm not saying "we don't have a coherent epistemic justification for knowledge, therefore *some* God". I'm saying that a materialist worldview claims access to knowledge which it cannot justify. From a pragmatic perspective, I'd say that's *okay*, but it's fundamentally an ignorant position - which respectable intellectuals like Hume conceded.

What knowledge would that be? The materialist world view includes the idea that there are things we do not know. The materialist view point is just justifiably sceptical of the speculation without evidence of supernatural forces. Especially the ones that demand moral obedience. It is the idealist who must justify their claim of something beyond the material but instead they try to shift the burden of proof onto the materialist.

I propose we approach this subject much like we do any empirical matter. We assess the evidence, form a hypothesis, and move forward with that hypothesis. Engineering marvels were created by breaching the limits of the possible, not being content with the pragmatic utility of the inventions of today

.Except for the fact that the answer you seek is, so far as any empirical evidence shows, beyond the empirical world and enters into mystical speculation. Although engineering marvels have been created they were all within the laws of physics as known at the time they were created. No one created a hadron collider in the 2nd century ad and we today have several methods of building a pyramid that were not available to the egyptians.

 

[Gozaburo]

What knowledge would that be? The materialist world view includes the idea that there are things we do not know. The materialist view point is just justifiably sceptical of the speculation without evidence of supernatural forces. Especially the ones that demand moral obedience. It is the idealist who must justify their claim of something beyond the material but instead they try to shift the burden of proof onto the materialist.

Any knowledge. And not just access to that knowledge, but sufficient justificatory criteria for why that knowledge is true. Most naturalists and materialists basically have zero concern with justification and handwave it, which I think is a pragmatic admission of ignorance.

Except for the fact that the answer you seek is, so far as any empirical evidence shows, beyond the empirical world and enters into mystical speculation. Although engineering marvels have been created they were all within the laws of physics as known at the time they were created. No one created a hadron collider in the 2nd century ad and we today have several methods of building a pyramid that were not available to the egyptians.

I think it's ignorant to assume all evidences are the same or that all evidences must necessarily be empirical evidences. I pointed out in my first post that even in the scientific tradition, things like induction require assumptions which cannot be empirically deduced. Kant rightly points out that *if* God exists, God can not be accessed through sensual experience because God would necessarily be outside of space and time as a necessarily transcendental entity.

And that's kind of my point. The contemporary "new Atheist" tradition is very, very ignorant and lazy. They have no knowledge of the debate which has been going on since the beginning of the enlightenment and instead delight in rehashing incoherent and ignorant debates where the ask laughably stupid questions like, "what empirical evidence do you have for God!".

 

[Lycanthrope]

My agnosticism is grounded in the fact that mankind's depravity, on levels both petty and monstrous throughout history provides plenty of evidence that an omnipotent, benevolent deity doesn't exist.

I want to believe there is, however. And I've have had expieriences in my life bordering on the the mystical that prevent me from being an atheist.

 

[Cordelier]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

(e)

If there is an eternal and everlasting God, then all of those options are equally valid. Even (d).

No matter how many ways you divide the infinite, you still get the infinite. There are infinite infinities.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I believe in Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Odin, Zeus. Can't remember what the rest of 'em are called, but I believe in 'em as well.

 

[soylentgreen]

Any knowledge. And not just access to that knowledge, but sufficient justificatory criteria for why that knowledge is true. Most naturalists and materialists basically have zero concern with justification and handwave it, which I think is a pragmatic admission of ignorance.

I disagree. Empirical evidence is always examined and given reason for. Other wise it cannot be claimed to be empirical. Where as the theist and idealist have yet to demonstrate any evidence of or even manage to give a good reason for many if their claims.

I think it's ignorant to assume all evidences are the same or that all evidences must necessarily be empirical evidences. I pointed out in my first post that even in the scientific tradition, things like induction require assumptions which cannot be empirically deduced.

Inductive reasoning in science is only used to generate new ideas. It then requires examination by a scientific process to either establish or refute the reasoning. Science is not just imagine something it also includes testing the hypothesis.

Kant rightly points out that *if* God exists, God can not be accessed through sensual experience because God would necessarily be outside of space and time as a necessarily transcendental entity.

If you create a thing that cannot be proven to be true then you cannot also prove it not true. That is convenient reasoning rather than good reasoning.

And that's kind of my point. The contemporary "new Atheist" tradition is very, very ignorant and lazy. They have no knowledge of the debate which has been going on since the beginning of the enlightenment and instead delight in rehashing incoherent and ignorant debates where the ask laughably stupid questions like, "what empirical evidence do you have for God!".

How ridiculous to ask for evidence for a thing that is by its very description is something that lacks any evidence. I think you will find it is those that make the claim of something exists that say there is evidence yet never actually provide such evidence. Atheists only ask for evidence when theists claim it exists. otherwise I as an atheist will point out that theists lack even one good reason for the existence of a supposed god.

 

[Napoleon]

A

 

[Gozaburo]

I disagree. Empirical evidence is always examined and given reason for. Other wise it cannot be claimed to be empirical. Where as the theist and idealist have yet to demonstrate any evidence of or even manage to give a good reason for many if their claims.

I'm speaking more abstractly here. Even empirical evidence includes a priori assumptions about abstract categories. When you throw a ball into the air, you know it will come back down to earth because of gravity. But do you actually *know* that via empirical reasoning, or do you *assume* it out of habit? I.e. how is that you move from "it has always come back down" → "it will come back down this time too."

It's a simple example, but I'm using this to establish that when we assume nature has uniformity, we're making that assumption on a non-empirical basis. If it isn't empirical, then what is it?

Inductive reasoning in science is only used to generate new ideas. It then requires examination by a scientific process to either establish or refute the reasoning. Science is not just imagine something it also includes testing the hypothesis.

Science is built completely on top of inductive reasoning. It's quite literally impossible to create any kind of theory or hypothesis without it.

If you create a thing that cannot be proven to be true then you cannot also prove it not true. That is convenient reasoning rather than good reasoning.

What Kant points out is that it's ignorant to expect God to be deducible through empirical, sensual experience. If an alien came down to earth and began walking on water and producing bread from nothing, how would you know it's an alien and not God? God would necessarily need qualities which are transcendent in nature - outside of space and time - so expecting a being that would be subordinate to space and time is to expect a being that is by definition not-God.

How ridiculous to ask for evidence for a thing that is by its very description is something that lacks any evidence. I think you will find it is those that make the claim of something exists that say there is evidence yet never actually provide such evidence. Atheists only ask for evidence when theists claim it exists. otherwise I as an atheist will point out that theists lack even one good reason for the existence of a supposed god.

I'm pointing out that the contemporary Atheist is a lazy thinker, which you're illustrating for us perfectly. You have a very narrow and ignorant frame for what constitutes "valid evidence" and if we put your worldview under scrutiny, we find that your own worldview doesn't even hold to your sloppy standard of evidence.

If only empirical evidences are valid, then science is impossible because science relies on a priori assumptions which cannot be empirically deduced. If that isn't what you believe, then you need to elaborate on what other forms of evidence are valid because at the moment you have a totally incoherent worldview.

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

There are no gods.

I sometimes wish there was a god. I'd like to meet the son of a bitch and give a nice big piece of my mind.

Let me know if you catch up with him. Would like a word as well.

How the hell does he sit around and allow this to happen:

Oklahoma man charged after 11-year-old girl gives birth at home

DNA test tied man to newborn in case prosecutor calls among most serious, as woman is also charged

www.theguardian.com

The least he could do is stop little girls from getting raped.

Saw that headline yesterday or whenever, and was one of those times I said, "I don't even want to read about."

No, there is no god.

Come on now. God created man in his image for them to go be fruitful and multiply. Gods work.

The answer; SATAN!

I don't get the whole 'live your life witnessing the horrors of mankind, have faith, and secure your place in eternal happiness."

If they created in their image, wouldn't they want them to live in bliss as well?

Why bother with the mortal shell of hell?

None of it makes sense. Oh, that whole 'all was gonna be good until Adam, Eve, and that serpent thing.'

Well that's a shame. Could have just done a factory reset and started over.

 

[Gordy327]

Where do you stand at this point in your life on your belief in a higher power?

Do you believe there is...
a) only one God
b) a god of your own making
c) many gods
d) no gods
e) etc...share in comments.

Also, please don't make fun of other's answer. If you disagree with them, just scroll on.

I have never believed in any gods at any stage in my life. Until there is evidence of god/s, that position is unlikely to change.