Atheists & Agnostics: If there is a God...

[Storm]

If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like? What idea do you find most likely, based on your understanding of reality as it is? Why?

Please, no joke answers like the FSM.

ACK, I forgot polytheism for the poll! Is there any way to fix that?

 

[gnomon]

I voted other because for me, the only acceptable concept of God or higher power I can conceive would be that of a singular consciousness that expanded itself into a universe of multiple conscious yet still contained. The singularity no longer has any self awareness yet over some time the multiple conscious would collapse and recombine into a new singularity.

I developed this line of thought years ago based on the available scientific observations of the universe and thought I was very clever. How wrong I was. Apparently such a concept had been conceived by so many different people, and even turned into a short story by Isaac Asimov (somewhat), that I no longer feel special.

It might count as naturalistic pantheism.

edit: I forgot to add. The reason the singularity would "expand" is a purely anthropomorphic one. Who would want to be alone?

 

[Storm]

Very cool, gnomon! Thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like? What idea do you find most likely, based on your understanding of reality as it is? Why?

I see no evidence of miracles or any other evidence of the direct hand of God, good or bad, so I discount the theistic and maltheistic options right away. As for pantheism and panentheism, I guess a non-interfering God could be either, but I saw no particular reason to say that a God must exist everywhere or in everything, so I picked deistic.

 

[Fluffy]

A pantheistic god is not probable, it is certain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Other: radically unimaginable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A pantheistic god is not probable, it is certain.

Polluting the thread with this type of worthless sophistry is unhelpful ...

 

[Fluffy]

Polluting the thread with this type of worthless sophistry is unhelpful ...

Yes I suppose you are right. Thank you.

I think that a theistic one is more likely than a maltheistic one because it seems more likely that God would be benevolent than malevolent (I believe this because I believe that the ontological argument can be constructed in such a way as to demonstrate this but I have posted on this before already).

I think that perhaps a deistic model is most likely since it would explicitly reject the existence of the supernatural, a concept which I find to be incoherent. Perhaps this could be made even more reasonable if mixed with pantheism to a certain degree since this could create a causal connection between our belief in god and reality. This might be a reasonable description of the God that Descartes reaches by the time of his third meditation.

 

[Kungfuzed]

I've leaned somewhat towards pantheism, though I've had no need to anthropomorphize the universe or nature. One scenario that might fit my beliefs is that of an alien race that is a million or more years ahead of us technologically. To us, they may have the characteristics of gods, immortality, omniscience, and omnipotence.

 

[Smoke]

When I last believed in god, I was a panentheist, and so I voted, but pantheism is tempting, too, and I think Jay's "wholly unimaginable" probably trumps them all. Theism, maltheism, polytheism, and deism all seem to me as if they assume a personal god or gods, and personal gods are usually a little too anthropomorphic to seem believable.

 

[eudaimonia]

I don't see any of the options presented as more likely than any other, based upon my understanding of reality as it is, since my understanding is thoroughly naturalistic. They are all equally unlikely/ill-defined/unsupported/impossible to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Fluffy]

Theism, maltheism, polytheism, and deism all seem to me as if they assume a personal god or gods

I thought that deism proposed a rather impersonal god?

 

[Storm]

I don't see any of the options presented as more likely than any other, based upon my understanding of reality as it is, since my understanding is thoroughly naturalistic. They are all equally unlikely/ill-defined/unsupported/impossible to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Can you present another option, then?

 

[Buttercup]

If there is a God, what do you think it's probably like? What idea do you find most likely, based on your understanding of reality as it is? Why?

At this point in time I'll chose Deism. It's fairly obvious if there is a God he is quite impersonal. Other than that, I have no idea what God is like.

 

[Storm]

bumpity bump

 

[eudaimonia]

Can you present another option, then?

There isn't one. For me, anyway.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aasimar]

I had to go with maltheistic. I don't see how a god could create children with holes in their hearts and diseases capable of eating the flesh off of young defenseless children, not to mention the savage cruelty of nature and the inhospitable nature of the universe. Not to be pessimistic, but I can't reconcile supreme power with the world we live in. Of course there is the possibility that a god was limited and could only do so much, and in that case probably a deistic god would fit the bill.

 

[Smoke]

I thought that deism proposed a rather impersonal god?

I meant personal in the sense of being a "person" or having a "personality," not in the sense of interacting closely with people.

 

[Wandered Off]

I meant personal in the sense of being a "person" or having a "personality," not in the sense of interacting closely with people.

Some deists reject that too.

 

[Papersock]

If there is a "god," it's probably not like anything we could imagine.