Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Experiment Where are you at spectrum of theistic probability?

How strong is your belief/disbelief in God/metaphysical/supernatural?


  • Total voters
    29
Napoleon de Geso

Napoleon de Geso

mentally crippled by lonely teen years
-
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Posts
17,855
Its sucks for being too much abrahamic-centered, speaking about God, instead of just supernatural/metaphysical, but Dawkins sucks dick
  1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
  5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
  7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
 
While most people would most certainly take issue with my idea of God's nature, nevertheless, I'll go with the first option.
 
The Bible lies, when Jesus died on the cross, he said IT'S OVER.
 
Its sucks for being too much abrahamic-centered, speaking about God, instead of just supernatural/metaphysical, but Dawkins sucks dick
  1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
  5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
  7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
I will say in what I believe and you will say in what spectrum I'm because I can't figure it out:

I think that neither a god neither a phenomenon like the big bang nor another another form of cyclic process can explain the origin of everything, simple because in order to god to exist he had to have one origin and thus this origin would be the real origin of everything, this concept also applies to the big bang or another form of cyclic phenomenon (the cyclic process also had to be an origin where it started).

It is much easier to realize that at the start of everything there was nothing, the nothingness have no origin as it is nothing, it needs no creator, is the only thing that can be the real origin of the rest that exist by elimination thinking.

So yes this universe have its origin in magic and it have a god which is the nothing which can popo out existence and basically create everything :waitwhat: .

The nothing is brainless tho so is not a person and can just pop things out, in this aspect is similar to Azathoth from Lovecraft.
 
Last edited:
I can't say I strongly believe in god, but I don't really like atheists and I don't have a problem with there being a god.
 
I chose leaning towards atheism because I can't debunk thomas aquinus argument of a first mover. If a deity exists I doubt we would be able to understand or know anything about it
 
even if there is a god, it might as well not exist
 
I will say in what I believe and you will say in what spectrum I'm because I can't figure it out:

I think that neither a god neither a phenomenon like the big bang nor another another form of cyclic process can explain the origin of everything, simple because in order to god to exist he had to have one origin and thus this origin would be the real origin of everything, this concept also applies to the big bang or another form of cyclic phenomenon (the cyclic process also had to be an origin where it started).

It is much easier to realize that at the start of everything there was nothing, the nothingness have no origin as it is nothing, it needs no creator, is the only thing that can be the real origin of the rest that exist by elimination thinking.

So yes this universe have its origin in magic and it have a god which is the nothing which can popo out existence and basically create everything :waitwhat: .
Interesting post, I'll give you my thoughts.

God is everything, but more truly than that he is nothing, non-being, the all consuming void of potentially. He is the absence of matter(yet at the same time is matter), the thing you think about when you try desperately to grasp at the counterintuitive proposition which is the absence of perception, the kind of nothingness so complete that there isn't even an infinite black. Everything is God, but at the same time his true nature is that of undivided perpetuity, beyond measure because he spans the entire breadth of reality. He is the antithesis of matter, time, and ultimately, division.

For something to exist, truly exist, it requires perpetuity. I mean consider it, if all that separates one from existence and nonexistence is time, then with a fast enough perception of it, you would never have existed at all, more or less. Meaning that you don't exist right now, you simply can't, that's without even getting into modern neuroscience. So ironically, as far as I can tell, the true nature of everything is nothingness.

However what I'm much less certain of is why anything came into "existence" at all. I find the demiurge to be an attractive explanation, but I can't help wondering whether or not this is simply a hyperbole for the nature of the material, or of our lives themselves. The futility of illusory pleasures, the state of constantly being unsatisfied, the necessary autocannibalism of life, etc. Whether or not there is a will behind the process, to me, biological life is my own demiurge.
even if there is a god, it might as well not exist
Very accurate.
 
Last edited:
Strong theists are schizophrenic copers.
 

Similar threads

SecularNeo-Khazar
Replies
2
Views
217
lowz1r
lowz1r
LetsGetOut
Replies
10
Views
424
Electus
Electus
J
Replies
6
Views
227
Arabcel99
Arabcel99
ethniccel1
Replies
15
Views
654
Shitskin_Shitlife
S

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top