At the risk of starting a religious discussion, this [theonionavclub.com] is a great article. The Onion AV Club asked a few dozen celebrities if they believed that God exists. The answers are interesting and sometimes bizarre.

Me? I'm pretty sure He doesn't exist. Which is good for him, because if he does, he's got a lot of crap to answer for.

In next week's srip, Goats readers find out that in fact there is no God when the new character Gordy is introduced.

Seriously though, I think there is a God, however, I don't believe that he is micromanaging everyone's lives like most Christains would have you believe. I think he pretty much set the word up and let us have our way, only occaisionaly intervening when something reaaally gets screwed up.

I don't even get why people believe in God in the first place. It's hardly a conclusion you intuitively come to. There may be things I don't have an explanation for, but where does the jump come from things-that-are-confusing to all-powerful-lord-YHWH?

In Response to superj4y (#2248):

hence my comment.... I don't believe that because it's unexplainable that it's God.

I do believe that a supernatural being setup the framework of the universe. Pi for example, and other complex and specific mathematical relationships in the universe indicate to me that something was plan. If certain constants were ever so minutely different from what they are (Plank's Constant, Avagadro's Number, etc.) then things just wouldn't work.

Thats what makes me believe something did some planning. Like I said, that something isn't playing the Sims with us, but I do think it is aware of us and has made a few (very few) interjections.

I really hate to do it, given that he used to wear a bag on his head in public,

but.

I have to agree with Murray Langston.

And I think Chris Matthews once shared an airplane with Jon.

In Response to Dynedain (#2250):

Now, I may be quite drunk by now, but those constants are the way they are only because we percieve them that way. It is in line with the weak Anthropic Principle. In other words, we percieve things hte way they are because if they were otherwise, then we too would be otherwise and percieve them differently. That is not to say that I disagree with you, but in our common four dimensional space (five if you include fun things that your local senator doesn't want you to take) we "know" some absolutes, but these can be infintely expanded in other fashions (think of the root of -1, for example. It opened up a new branch of mathematics).

Having said that, my favourite constant has got to be zero. Pi, Planck and Avagadro are funky too. But nothing. What a cool concept. The absence of anything. Kinda of pantheistic, in a fashion. That which permeates all is nothing. Nothing is the same in everything. Infinte diversity. Very mathematical (in theory). Fun too. No matter how many monkeys you staple to calculators each new discovery they make means more monkeys. Yes, Pantheism is the way forward. Or the way back. I forget.

However, my glass is empty. Or is it antifull? Either way, the voices say that it is time for beer....

In Response to evilaltor (#2255):

Actualy, 0 is not nothing.

0 indicates a value where there is a possibility for something. Empty set or null indicates nothing. Well, actually empty set doesn't indicate nothing either. (Doesn't that sentence sound red-neck even though it is gramatically correct?)

This is so hard to really explain/understand within the limits of the English language.

Our universe has an edge. Outside of that is nothing, void. Not just a vacuum like in the emptiness of space. Emptiness implies simply lack of presence of contents. Beyond the edge of the universe however, there is no emptiness to fill, since Nth dimensional space doesn't exist. It is impossible to move to the edge of the universe and then exit it, because your 'exit' would simply be an extension of the universe.

0 is like the vacuum in this case. It is a placeholder value to indicate no value where the possibility for value exists. Nothing, null, or void is no value because there is no potential for value.

I find that concept a lot more interesting. Sure, its pointless and illogical when compared to banal things:
Q: How many apples do you have?
A1: None, we are out. (This is 0)
A2: We sell oranges, not apples. (This is void/null)

But when considered mathmaticaly or in things like the edge of the universe example, it can get really interesting.

Its really too bad that English doesn't facilitate discussing this well. I'm betting that most other languages don't either since its a fairly new concept.

I think there is, simply because there is too much order in this world for a rock to have exploded into this universe, and single celled ameobas turning into people that show compassion and use reasoning. Another thought is that if there is no God, then when you die, you just lay in a hole with no concisness for eternity...and if you have no concisness, then how can you keep track of time? That would mean time would pass over you without you knowing it, or being able to keep track of time, which means from the moment you died, you layed there for eternity. And without being able to keep track of time, eternity would pass by in a seconds worth of time, but since it is eternity, there is no end to that second of time, which makes no sense. Anyways, im just rambling, and I'm sure you're all very confused by now...

In Response to the_fetus (#2261):

Also, might I add, that I have no clue what or who this God is... I would classify myself under 'agnosticism', i guess...

In Response to Dynedain (#2257):

Actually null is not nothing either (at least in a database context). Null means simply that we don't know the answer.

For example, I have a database of Goats reader addresses and I don't have yours. This does not imply that you are homeless. Simply that I don't know your address. This is why under ANSI 92 rules Null doesn't equal Null. My unknown address is not the same as your unknown address (we don't live together unless you are my girlfriend ;) and so the null for me != your null.

This is of course one of the holy wars of databases. Allow Nulls or Not.

One thing that pisses me off possibly more than actual proselytising christians is the people saying there is a god but it is some nebulous / multi faceted thing. I mean, for fucks sake, religion is a crutch drilled into you at weak moments in your life.

If you were not brought up in an environment that worshipped that form of god you are clutching. It appears you require a religion for credibility amongst your peers and seems you're missing the point.

Alternatively you have the fear of meaninglessness that caused the creation of religion (amongst the power etc reasons which I guess were more codification of the religion as opposed to actual creation) but want to maintain your credibitility away from a recognised power structure. Again striving for credibility whilst being unable to recognise your fears.

That said, I read a nice little quote regarding god the other day: "God knew we existed as we were movement against a dark background he already knew." I kind of like that. And that is really why I believe god doesn't exist. Anything reassuring is probably a fantasy or interpreted memory.

The universe is a scary place. Life without a guardian figure is hard.

but

I see no reason to believe in any religion that explains the creation of mankind in a manner that would make sense in the world that created that religion. Surely a god would be a step or two ahead of us at whatever point we realised god existed. god made us to worship him? A rather tenuous reason that makes sense in primitive power situation... most religions appear to have this flaw.

In Response to zamphir (#2251):

The only problem with that little theory is that I was 5 at the time of his story. I wasn't able to grow a beard until I was about 8.

In Response to Dynedain (#2250):

"If certain constants were ever so minutely
      different from what they are (Plank's
      Constant, Avagadro's Number, etc.) then things
      just wouldn't work."

Forgive, I don't understand numbers very well, but, if things were that slightly bit different, wouldn't they just work completely differently in a way we cannot comprehend, but which would seem totally normal to us if that's the way it was?

In Response to tor (#2265):

Hence why English is such a poor language for discussing this. Any word you pick has too many other connotations (and denotations) to truly get accross your point.

Null is closer to nothing than 0 is since null is an empty value. But you're right, that null doesn't resolve the issue of abscence of anything since the question is still there (did that make sense?).

In Response to tor (#2266):

Yeah... and those guys with a religion but no definable "God" figure don't even have monks. I mean, what the fuck? If you're not going to have monks, why even bother with religion?

on that note, I think somebody really needs to set up an atheist monastery. Or if "monastery" is copyrighted, they could call it a "monkery", which is more prone to typos but sounds cooler. Not being able to be a monk because I'm not religious is really starting to bug me.

In Response to TheMooseKing (#2276):

If I've learned anything from kung fu movies, it's that you don't necessarily need to be religious to be a monk. In many cases, simply being a real badass will also work.

The other thing I've learned is that the most dangerous thing in the world is a Chinese man with an umbrella.

In Response to jon (#2267):

I just figured you would eventually get around to inventing time travel, and then go back in time to fool people into thinking that there is a God, and Jesus was a Jew.

I mean, just because one of the least productive things you can do with Time Travel is give people in the past the finger, doesn't mean it's the only unproductive use.

In Response to tor (#2266):

> I see no reason to believe in any religion that
> explains the creation of mankind in a manner
> that would make sense in the world that
> created that religion. Surely a god would be a
> step or two ahead of us at whatever point we
> realised god existed. god made us to worship
> him? A rather tenuous reason that makes sense
> in primitive power situation... most religions
> appear to have this flaw.

I don't believe this is true. Most religious people do not have a deep enough understanding of religion to perceive beyond this level, but I can't off the top of my head think of a religion that does not have a deeper understanding for those who wish to seek it out.

In general, most religions accept that God is inherently unknowable, and that some mask is needed to understand him/her/it. Thus, you have Christ, the various old testament prophets and manifestations, the angels, Mohammed, etc. in the judaeo-christian-islamic sphere. All act as a mask to allow communication with god.

In many eastern religions (Buddhism, Hindu) this is far more basic. Many Hindu myths tell of the greater gods assuming aspects to effect the world or accept worship in certain ways. Buddhism is basically a series of techniques for seeing through the masks, including the one you wear, in order to realise that the entire universe is god. Yourself included.

The reason many westerners do not understand this inherent aspect of religion, is that it involves questioning the source material. The bible (or whatever) can no longer be read as a literal history, but as metaphors and symbols to allow deeper understanding on an emotional and spiritual level. This is, for some reason, upsetting, and since it is unnecessary for most western religions, is cheerfully ignored.

To answer Jon's earlier question, I believe that there is something behind the masks. That it is wonderful, and worshipful. I do not believe that it is conscious in any meaningful (to us) sense, and I do not believe it is attempting (or has attempted) to communicate with us. I believe that the masks that best allow us to understand it are physics (the real stuff, not our own, imperfect understanding of same) and listening to Pink Floyd albums very late, very loud, while consuming large quantities of quality single malt.

But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Cheers,
Graham

I don't believe in God, because I think the origin of life and the universe can be explained just fine (for me, anyway) through the big bang and evolution theories. God, by Ockham's Razor, seems unneccesary.

The theory of evolution also solves one of the biggest questions, where did God come from? With evolution, life is explained from the bottom up, whereas the idea of God is top down (if God made us, who made God? Then who made this Supergod? etc).

Many years ago, religion was a good thing, as it unified people, brought them together under one belief system. But now we have established government, legal system, etc, so it shouldn't be needed any more. Has anyone read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov? When forming a new empire, they created a religion to bring warring factors under one government, then ditched it when it had served its purpose.

Plus, the bible was written a few thousand years ago (1000? 2000? I don't know) and so how can they possibly be applied to the world of today, which has changed beyond recognition?

Douglas Adams had a good theory for how the idea of God came about. He suggested that a stone age man thinks about the world he lives in. He has a nice dry cave to live in, plenty of wild animals to hunt for skins and food, and so on. This world suits him so well, it's almost like it was designed for him. But who could design a world? Not him, or any other human, this must be a powerful being, who can do anything he wants. He probably sees everything and knows everything too.

And so the idea was born. But the error was in the way he looked at it. The world wasn't designed for him, he adapted himself to fit the world. This is like a puddle who suddenly becomes conscious (bear with me). This puddle finds himself in a hole, which fits him well. So well, in fact, that the hole might have been designed for it to use. Same idea follows, the puddle fit the hole, not the hole fit the puddle.

This is from "The Salmon Of Doubt", a book of the stuff Adams had unpublished on his computer, I think.

Ah, that's enough I think.

Is there a God, or is there a G-d? The question is what question are you asking?
I think the confusing part of this is that the concept of "God" is so diverse that no two people are answering the same question anyway.

Me, I'm a Jewish Atheist. Don't ask why, but it works. Still, I don't see a G-d or a God. That doesn't mean he, she or it isn't there, it just means I can see he, she, or it.

Yeah, I know, there are lot of things that I can't see but still believe in, but I at least have proof of those things. No amount of years spent in a Rabbinics or Bible classroom is enough proof of a God, G-d, or god.

As for the theory of man inventing a greater power, i think it's depper than that. I think it has to do with death mostly. Where do we go after we die? The funny thing is that I'm coming from the Judaic stand-point which doesn't actually believe in a "Heaven", at least not in the conventional method. We have a world to come, and a garden of eden, and a moshiach, but no heaven.

When I used to work in an Israeli meat factory I had a boss named Moshiach. Everday I would show up late to work, and every day he would send me on a coffee break as soon as I showed up, regardless of how late I was.

That's what I'd call my saviour.

In Response to Dynedain (#2257):

Zero, null, "{}", or whatever other mathematical entities you want to talk about only hold meaning when put in a context. To argue whether zero means nothing without setting context is nonsensical; it's a symbol whose meaning at a given time comes from the mathematical model in which it is being used at that time.

That said:

The idea of "edge of the universe" is often misunderstood and misargued. To talk about some "place" beyond the edge of the universe is to suggest spacial existance outside the universe, which is incorrect. What's outside the universe isn't some sort of space-that's-more-empty-than-the-empty-space-in-th e-universe; there simply is no such spacial location. Applying spacial terms in that way -- suggesting that there's some super-universal void in which the universe's space is embedded -- is just not accurate (using the concept of space as we know it). In terms of space as we know it, vacuum is void. (But, true vacuum is hard to come by.)

Or how about looking at a more down-to-Earth model served by 0? Like a cash flow statement. There, clearly, 0 does mean nothing. The existance of the statement suggests the potential for something, but the zero doesn't represent that potential -- the form does. The zero represents the reality. You can infer that there is an entity whose cash flow is being measured, an economy in which cash can flow, an accountant to measure the cash flow... but the zero doesn't represent that framework. The zero just tells us that within that framework, there is nothing in the way of cash flow.

If we did assign as "the meaning of a concept" everything implied by its presence, then we can never have an idea mean nothing; any idea, given expression, implies the existance of a mind to conceive it.

In Response to Manda (#2269):

I would have to agree with you. If the Universe seems to fit like a glove, it is just as possible that we grew into it as that it was designed around us. The constants in question are fundamental enough that if they were different, the Universe would be nothing we can possibly imagine, but that doesn't mean something else -- a totally different existence with different physics altogether -- might not have grown into it.

In Response to tor (#2266):

Ah, sweeping generalizations.

With respect, tor, just because there are only limited reasons you would believe in an idea doesn't mean that everyone who believes that idea does so for the same reasons. We all like to model each other in our own image.

Some people have poor reasons for their religious beliefs; that does not in and of itself invalidate the idea in which they believe. An idea is not inherantly responsible for the people who believe in it.

Me, I'm pretty much agnostic. I hear atheists claim that there's no evidence so we should believe in no God. I say if there's no evidence, we should reserve judgement. "Burden of proof" arguments simply aren't applicable -- this isn't a trial where a final decision need be made. But that's just my point of view.

Absolutely God exists. Many Gods exist, by whatever name they may be called. Most every religion believs in one, or many gods, and they all exist. It doesn't matter that you or I don't believe in someone elses god, or even in any god, as in my case, but they still exist. The only person any of us has to prove or disprove the existance of a higher power to, is ourselves. Regardless of math, theory, history, or anything else, the only thing that proves existance of anything is the human mind, and it only takes one to come up with the idea. So whether you worship or not, or believe God is our all powerful creator, or just some made up idea, even as an idea, there is existance.

In Response to Manda (#2269):

I must say, that does make perfect sense. I mean, people think, for instance, there are 24 hours in a day, and that some higher person made it that way because people sleep about 8 hours and are awake for about 16...but not many people think that maybe man just adapted to the 24 hour day? Ana Avagadro's number isnt what id consider 'perfect'... 6.022x10^23 isnt exactly the simplest of numbers...

In Response to Dynedain (#2250):

Here's my reason for not believing the argument that (to simplfy and generalize ad absurdium) Plank's Constant proves there must have been a 'creator' or a 'plan', if not a God.

From what I've read of recent thinking on modern physics (and particularly Alan Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe"), it is at least somewhat likely that all the physical constants were not actually decided at t-zero. They evolved (or at least, settled to a steady state) out of the early processes of the formation of the universe as we know it now. Guth doesn't make claims that Plank's Constant itself went through this evolution, merely the expansionary index (I think that's what he calls it).

But I don't see any reason why other 'fundamental' numbers couldn't arise out of the same methods, if not the same process itself.

Of course, I'm not a Patent Clerk. But I do take an interest in these sorts of things.