Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Surely you are mistaken.I would have thought Thai Visa was the perfect forum to get answers on the great philosophical questions of the universe and our very existence.After all who better to provide illumination on these age old issues than a bunch of middle aged/elderly ex-blue collar retirees?

Congrats, it's not easy to compress so much bias in such a little space.????

[3NUMBAS]

he has the shirt to prove it

[VincentRJ]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The same misunderstanding over and over.

I tell you again, and next time I'll do a drawing ????

I love good science, and I try to avoid nonsense (although it can be funny, like the theory of the magic ball coming out from nowhere 13,8 millions of years ago)????

Well, if you love good science, please explain what your alternative theory is, based upon good science. An Intelligent Designer, perhaps, or some sort of God who came out from nowhere? ????

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, if you love good science, please explain what your alternative theory is, based upon good science. An Intelligent Designer, perhaps, or some sort of God who came out from nowhere? ????

It's like to ask an ant how to build an airplane.

Like the ant, i cannot answer. 

Not even the great masters like Buddha or Jesus could answer.

If there is a God, it's everything, it's infinite and eternal, thus non born.

[Sunmaster]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Congrats, it's not easy to compress so much bias in such a little space.????

Is "bias" a code word for "BS"?

[Hummin]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

It's like to ask an ant how to build an airplane.

Like the ant, i cannot answer. 

Not even the great masters like Buddha or Jesus could answer.

If there is a God, it's everything, it's infinite and eternal, thus non born.

Still Jesus had an answer, and people belive everything written about Jesus is true, and nothing than the truth.

 

Humans are like that, and it is our weakness that some think they are superior to others, and they are smarter than others because they think they have the right to do so.

 

Illusions and manipulations all over the place, but, the truth is, The big bang theory doesn't harm anyone, and there is no physical war yet because of it, as far I know!

[Hummin]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

Is "bias" a code word for "BS"?

Bull pie Master of sun, bull pie

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll address the point I've highlighted in your above comment. I also care whether or not any claim makes sense. The whole of scientific enquiry is based upon 'making sense of things'. However, scientists are also humans with flaws and biases and sometimes assume a degree of certainty about a theory which doesn't warrant such certainty without the true methodology of science having been applied.

 

Many issues remain uncertain, which places them in the category of 'hypothesis', because it's often not possible to apply the full 'methodology of science', due to the long time scales involved for results to be observed, and also due to the complexity of the situation with so many interacting forces, many of which might be unknown.

 

When discussing such issues which have a degree of uncertainty, there is also the problem of the exaggerated and distorted reporting of the science by journalists.

 

For example, I've seen it repeated many times in this thread that The Big Bang 'hypothesis/theory' is nonsense because something cannot be created from nothing. Therefore, there must be something, such as a Creator God, or Intelligent Designer.

 

However, the Big Bang hypothesis/theory does not state that the universe was created from nothing. I'll quote again from the Phys.org news article I linked to earlier.
"The Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity."

 

Infinite density and intense heat is not nothing. It might be difficult for some people to imagine how the entire universe could be compressed into such a small particle as a singularity, but a good analogy would be to hold a large block of polystyrene foam in one hand, and compare the weight with a very small block of lead held in the other hand, then imagine if those difference in 'weight per volume' were extrapolated trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times.

 

"As far as the search for the answer to the origins of life my contention, which I cannot overemphasise, is this:  that in their search science is necessarily relying on many assumptions to be true; and which I deem to be false.  Perhaps foremost is the assumption that physical reality is the one and only reality in all of existence.
Your cherished scientific method is wholly dependent on a reality which is physical in nature.  If it is true that other realities exist and that not all are physical then in those realms which are not physically based the scientific method would be quite meaningless.  This should be quite logical."

 

Addressing another of your points that I've highlighted above, 'what do you mean by a physical reality'?
Do you agree with the following definition of a physical property?

 

"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."

 

Isn't it obvious that no-one can be aware of anything that cannot be measured in some manner or to some degree, whether they are a scientist or not? Science not only specialises in a great precision of measurement, but also the measurement of 'things' that are invisible and undetectable to anyone without the appropriate scientific instrument.

 

Do you believe that a Guru, whilst sitting down meditating on a universal consciousness, is aware of the multitude of radio waves, and other electro-magnetic waves of various frequencies, that are passing through his body?

 

I've not seen any research that shows any human can feel or detect Radio Waves, X-rays, or Gamma Rays that are passing through his body and head, yet we are expected to believe that certain Gurus can detect a universal consciousness beyond the capabilities of current science. ????

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against anyone hypothesising that there might exist some sort of universal consciousness, as a result of personal feelings experienced whilst meditating, or even as a result of intellectual speculation. However, such claims can be no more than a hypothesis, or a belief, or a Quale, until they are verified using the 'methodology of science'.

 

For the sake of clarity, I'll also point out that Science is of the general opinion that the photons that make up the electromagnetic spectrum, have no mass and no weight. They are therefore not 'matter'. But those non-material photons are essential for all life as we know it. Even if some creatures appear to thrive in total darkness, the food they eat needs photons to grow. This process is called 'photosynthesis'. In other words, life is dependent on non-material sources. ????

I'd like to see you honestly address my contention that you do believe in "chance" and "accidents."  First you tried to pull the "let's redefine the terms."  That didn't fly.  Your next attempt was to pass it off as a common and innocent misuse of terminology.  That didn't pass muster either.  So you now just ignore it entirely in the hope that I won't pursue it any longer and let it fade away.  No such chance (excuse the pun).

 

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I can't quote Mark Twain enough.

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

That statement is only a half truth. If Mark Twain had my wisdom  ???? he would have said:

 

"What get's us into trouble is not only what we don't know. It's also what we know for sure that just ain't so."

 

An example of what we don't know that could get us into trouble, would be the approval of a new housing estate in a beautiful, remote area near a river. The people who authorize the construction do not do any research on past weather events in the area, and the buyers of the homes assume that the area is safe, otherwise the authorities would not have approved the housing constructions.

 

Unfortunately, the historical evidence shows that the area has been subjected to extreme flooding every 20 or 30 years, on average. 10 years after the houses have been sold, and the occupants have settled down and filled their rooms with expensive furniture, computers, TVs, family photos, and so on, the next major flood arrives and destroys everything, as well as taking a few lives. ????
 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That statement is only a half truth. If Mark Twain had my wisdom  ???? he would have said:

 

"What get's us into trouble is not only what we don't know. It's also what we know for sure that just ain't so."

 

An example of what we don't know that could get us into trouble, would be the approval of a new housing estate in a beautiful, remote area near a river. The people who authorize the construction do not do any research on past weather events in the area, and the buyers of the homes assume that the area is safe, otherwise the authorities would not have approved the housing constructions.

 

Unfortunately, the historical evidence shows that the area has been subjected to extreme flooding every 20 or 30 years, on average. 10 years after the houses have been sold, and the occupants have settled down and filled their rooms with expensive furniture, computers, TVs, family photos, and so on, the next major flood arrives and destroys everything, as well as taking a few lives. ????

I'll buy your edited version of Twain's quote as being more technically correct.  I think Twain wrote it as such to put the emphasis on the second part of his observation.

I think we're all capable of thinking of examples for either part of the statement.  That's easy enough.  But what about answering the point I was making with that Twain quote?

  

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

Think about the implications of that statement.  The vast extent of the implications.  Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so."  How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true?  Do you believe that it's only a matter of acquiring more knowledge?  Do you believe that Twain's astute observation does not apply to you?  Do you truly believe there is no chance that you subscribe to faulty ideas?  Do you sincerely believe that science has cornered the market on "truth?"  That sans science it's an impossibility that truth can ascertained?

<snip>

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

Surely you are mistaken.I would have thought Thai Visa was the perfect forum to get answers on the great philosophical questions of the universe and our very existence.After all who better to provide illumination on these age old issues than a bunch of middle aged/elderly ex-blue collar retirees?

Blanket generalisations never work well.  Neither does speaking for others.

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Freedom to me is a bit like accidents and luck - it is a subjective experience or feeling. I don't label what I am after. I  keep life simple and do what needs to be done and take it easy and see what's next.

It was a simple multiple choice question.  It can't be that difficult to pick the one you believe in.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd like to see you honestly address my contention that you do believe in "chance" and "accidents."  First you tried to pull the "let's redefine the terms."  That didn't fly.  Your next attempt was to pass it off as a common and innocent misuse of terminology.  That didn't pass muster either.  So you now just ignore it entirely in the hope that I won't pursue it any longer and let it fade away.  No such chance (excuse the pun).
 

Of course I believe that accidents and unpredictable events occur. I also believe in rationality, common sense, logic, the process of cause and effect, good behaviour, compassion, and so on and on.

 

Whatever you believe in has to be clearly defined in order to have a rational discussion. I've just searched for some dictionary definitions of 'chance', on the internet. The following 4 definitions are the most common. I've highlighted the crucial words in each definition that supports my understanding of the concept of 'chance'.

 

(1) a possibility of something happening.
(2) the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause.
(3) something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
(4) the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

 

In summary, I use the word chance to describe any event when the causes are unpredictable, unobservable, indiscernable and/or incalculable.

 

If we had the ability to continuously monitor all activities in our environment, at the atomic, molecular and photonic level, (which is impossible) then probably nothing would occur by chance. I say 'probably', because in Quantum Mechanics even the act of observation itself might cause some unpredictable behaviour of photons.
 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll buy your edited version of Twain's quote as being more technically correct.  I think Twain wrote it as such to put the emphasis on the second part of his observation.

I think we're all capable of thinking of examples for either part of the statement.  That's easy enough.  But what about answering the point I was making with that Twain quote?

  

"Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so."  How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true? "

 

As I've tried to explain, I believe in the 'Methodology of Science' which begins with a Hypothesis and can gradually develop into a Theory, if and when calculations and sound experiments, which must also allow a falsification process, eventually support the Hypothesis.

 

Both Hypotheses and Theories can be shown to be wrong as new evidence and data become available, so it's quite possible I might be wrong about many issues. However, I tend not to change my mind until I become aware of new evidence that meets my own standards, based on my own interpretation of the 'Methodology of Science'.

 

Regarding 'how much I know', I accept that I know very, very, very little, compared to the whole of human knowledge, and the whole of human knowledge is very, very little compared to what remains to be known.

Okay? ????
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It was a simple multiple choice question.  It can't be that difficult to pick the one you believe in.

My opinion

Freedom of choice is there but limited by our capacity to think, our life experience, and what it takes to get through the day.

What we can actually do and what we are likely to do.

I could do anything right now. No god to stop me. But I don't do stuff - why. 

 

Freedom of choice by Devo has the lines:

Freedom of choice is what we got

Freedom from choice is what we want

I think the feeling of too much freedom can be difficult and upsetting. 20 choices of Muesli and soap powder at the supermarket. Starting a day of work right now rather than sitting on a beach in Thailand. For peace of mind many, if not all of us, limit our freedom so we don't think too much - we put blinkers on ourself, like for a horse,  so we can stay somewhat focused.

It's the same with politics - I see it in your Trump posts and you see it in the democrat posts. A self imposed internal bias and limitation. 

There is what we are too that explains that bias.

 

Freedom to take action is limited by our bodies and circumstance e.g. physical attributes, ability, appearance, financial situation. Some can be altered some cannot.   

 

In the longer term our freedom and ability to think becomes limited.  Our place in society, perception of our self that develops over time, having been hurt in relationships etc - they have an effect on us, make our shoulders slump or sit back confidently, our heart be a bit tired or full of spark, how 'open' our face is, and over time in reality this limits our likely decisions and options. Limits our ability to communicate and limits our actual thoughts and feelings. Hard to overcome this. 

So freedom becomes limited to avoid pain and maximise pleasure available to us. Different for different people.

So we have absolute freedom in terms of thoughts but not actions. But even our thoughts and feelings become limited as we close off some parts and open up others so the sense of freedom becomes distorted.  

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Freedom of Choice (2009 Remaster) - YouTube

 

[mauGR1]

13 hours ago, Hummin said:

Illusions and manipulations all over the place, but, the truth is, The big bang theory doesn't harm anyone, and there is no physical war yet because of it, as far I know

I disagree.

I'll try to explain why.

The assumption that everything is random, that life has no purpose, is not a deterrent for evil, but quite the opposite. 

The assumption that there's no purpose, implies that moral behavior is useless. 

On the contrary, the absence of moral behavior is likely to create conflicts not among nations, as in the past, but among individuals.

Did you notice that everyone is getting more and more isolated, and it's difficult to find someone to talk to, let alone to make new friends?

The war "all against all" has been predicted, and from what i see, i think it will get worse before it gets better. 

Of course, this rampant individualism is part of a bigger plan, so everything is fine. 

Understanding the separation to understand unity.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I disagree.

I'll try to explain why.

The assumption that everything is random, that life has no purpose, is not a deterrent for evil, but quite the opposite. 

The assumption that there's no purpose, implies that moral behavior is useless. 

On the contrary, the absence of moral behavior is likely to create conflicts not among nations, as in the past, but among individuals.

 

Where do you get the assumption that some people think that everything is random? As I've tried to explain before, randomness, chance, and accidents do occur. They are a part of human reality. It would be foolish to deny that. 

 

However, if everything were to happen randomly it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to survive. Our civilzations progress and develop through a process of reducing randomness by understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the forces involved in any outcome.

 

However, many processes are so complex, involving so many interacting forces, it's impossible to have complete control or make an accurate prediction, and the best we can do is calculate a 'percentage chance' of a particular event occurring. An example would be the weather forecast.

 

Another example would be the tossing of a coin and predicting whether is would land heads-up, or tails-up. We can calculate the chance of heads or tails is 50% either way because we understand there are only two possible outcomes. If we were to create a situation where we could control every force that is applied to the coin, from its initial flipping to the turbulence of the air as the coin smashes through billions of molecules, then we could predict with certainty whether the coin would land heads-up or tails-up, with each flip.

 

As regards 'purpose', I can appreciate that some individuals might 'feel' there is no purpose in life, because they are depressed, and suffering, and think they have insurmountable problems. However, human activity in general is full of a multitude of purposes at various levels.

 

If one is referring to the fundamental purpose of all life, then the obvious answer is 'reproduction'. The quality of 'reproduction' is what distinguishes life from inanimate matter. 'Moral behaviour' is an attempt to reduce the suffering and conflict which results from the competitive actions which are instincively involved in the general purpose of reproduction. 

 

Got it? ????

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Where do you get the assumption that some people think that everything is random? As I've tried to explain before, randomness, chance, and accidents do occur. They are a part of human reality. It would be foolish to deny that. 

 

However, if everything were to happen randomly it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to survive. Our civilzations progress and develop through a process of reducing randomness by understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the forces involved in any outcome.

 

However, many processes are so complex, involving so many interacting forces, it's impossible to have complete control or make an accurate prediction, and the best we can do is calculate a 'percentage chance' of a particular event occurring. An example would be the weather forecast.

 

Another example would be the tossing of a coin and predicting whether is would land heads-up, or tails-up. We can calculate the chance of heads or tails is 50% either way because we understand there are only two possible outcomes. If we were to create a situation where we could control every force that is applied to the coin, from its initial flipping to the turbulence of the air as the coin smashes through billions of molecules, then we could predict with certainty whether the coin would land heads-up or tails-up, with each flip.

 

As regards 'purpose', I can appreciate that some individuals might 'feel' there is no purpose in life, because they are depressed, and suffering, and think they have insurmountable problems. However, human activity in general is full of a multitude of purposes at various levels.

 

If one is referring to the fundamental purpose of all life, then the obvious answer is 'reproduction'. The quality of 'reproduction' is what distinguishes life from inanimate matter. 'Moral behaviour' is an attempt to reduce the suffering and conflict which results from the competitive actions which are instincively involved in the general purpose of reproduction. 

 

Got it? ????

I don't disagree with what you say, from a purely materialistic point of view it makes sense.

However, it will be difficult for you to explain how conflicting spiritual forces like 'survival ' and 'cohabitation ' and the various combinations between those 2 may arise from a big bang or a small ball of compressed energy. 

You see a clock, and it's clear to you that some guy, assembling materials and knowledge has built it, but then you see a solar system, which is at least as amazing as a clock, on a much bigger scale.. it makes sense to me that the clock, the human and the solar system etc are all "products" of some intelligent design, which some call God. 

Now imagine that one day the sun explodes, and the humankind as we know it, gets completely extinct, do you think that the intelligent design of countless solar systems, many potentially fit to host life in different forms, would disappear?

And if you could, one day, admit that there's indeed some design in the universe and all those laws of physics, would you swear that there cannot be a consciousness behind it ?

[Tippaporn]

I'm eager to reply but, unfortunately, as chance would have it  I'm a bit under the weather.  As Arnold is famous for saying. "I'll be back."

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm eager to reply but, unfortunately, as chance would have it  I'm a bit under the weather.  As Arnold is famous for saying. "I'll be back."

Hope the weather will be fine soon, see you mate ????

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I don't disagree with what you say, from a purely materialistic point of view it makes sense.

However, it will be difficult for you to explain how conflicting spiritual forces like 'survival ' and 'cohabitation ' and the various combinations between those 2 may arise from a big bang or a small ball of compressed energy. 

Of course it's difficult. The fundamental principle is that every effect has a cause, but it's never just one cause that's involved. There's a continuous flow of interacting causes and effects, and the further back in time you go, to analyse the cause of a particular event, the more related causes you discover.

 

Consider a simple example of a car accident. An inquiry concludes that the driver fell asleep at the wheel. That's the cause of the accident. But why did the driver fall asleep? An inquiry concludes that he went to bed late the previous night, did not sleep well, and had to get up early. 

 

But why did he go to bed late, and have to get up early, and why did he not sleep well? An inquiry concludes that he'd had a late-night party, with quite a lot of drinking, which affected his sleeping, and he had to get up early to attend a work project he had signed up to.

 

But why did he have a late-night party, and why did he sgn up to a work project that began so early in the day? An inquiry concludes that he was celebrating the day he got married to his wife, and the contract he signed up to was a well-paid job and he needed the money.

 

But why did he marry the lady who is now his wife? Do you get the drift? If we keep going back in time to discover all the causes, we'll get to the point of asking why the driver, who fell asleep at the wheel, was born. An inquiry might reveal that he was born 'accidentally' because his father was wearing an inadequate condom that didn't do its job. If the condom had not been faulty, the driver would not have been born and the accident would not have occurred.

 

If we go back further, we could then ask, 'What were the causes of the faulty condom?' Perhaps a factory worker had not done his job properly and a batch of leaking condoms was sent to the market. But why did the factory worker not do hid job properly, and why were the defects in the condom not discovered? And so on, and so on.

 

Is it not plausible that the origins of life could have first appeared in a very complex and changing environment, sometimes called a soupy sea, with trillions of various molecules and chemicals bumping into each other during a period of millions of years?
 

[mauGR1]

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Is it not plausible that the origins of life could have first appeared in a very complex and changing environment, sometimes called a soupy sea, with trillions of various molecules and chemicals bumping into each other during a period of millions of years?

Nope, the "soupy sea" with "molecules bumping.. etc" it's already some sort of life.

But if you say that life originated from life, i would have to agree ???? 

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I disagree.

I'll try to explain why.

The assumption that everything is random, that life has no purpose, is not a deterrent for evil, but quite the opposite. 

The assumption that there's no purpose, implies that moral behavior is useless. 

On the contrary, the absence of moral behavior is likely to create conflicts not among nations, as in the past, but among individuals.

Did you notice that everyone is getting more and more isolated, and it's difficult to find someone to talk to, let alone to make new friends?

The war "all against all" has been predicted, and from what i see, i think it will get worse before it gets better. 

Of course, this rampant individualism is part of a bigger plan, so everything is fine. 

Understanding the separation to understand unity.

Sounds like one of those community building videogames, where we always is challenged by evil and competitive other players. There is laws and rules in these games, but also a game with multiple choices and multiple reactions,  ut it is a pattern with underlaying norms and rules and consequences. 
 

Could our consensus be our owner the gamer? 
 

Back to reality, right here right now! Thats what we know.

 

 Something created it by random chance or by a intelligent creator, and both can be true, thats the fact. 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Sounds like one of those community building videogames, where we always is challenged by evil and competitive other players. There is laws and rules in these games, but also a game with multiple choices and multiple reactions,  ut it is a pattern with underlaying norms and rules and consequences. 
 

Could our consensus be our owner the gamer? 
 

Back to reality, right here right now! Thats what we know.

 

 Something created it by random chance or by a intelligent creator, and both can be true, thats the fact. 

If you want to call God other names, it's ok for me. 

"Random chance " is a choice, and i respect that.

Yet, if you do something good and clever, and i say that it happened by random chance, when you put a lot of work into it, you would not really like it, would you ?

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If you want to call God other names, it's ok for me. 

"Random chance " is a choice, and i respect that.

Yet, if you do something good and clever, and i say that it happened by random chance, when you put a lot of work into it, you would not really like it, would you ?

I would say hard work pays off in reality in most cases, be it individuals, families, tribes, societies, countries, allies and finely hopefully the world and universe forces ???? Some call it socialism. Sharing is caring.

 

But we know there is always a chance for a different outcome than we wish for. 
 

Every choice we make, and every action we take have different outcome for good and bad.

 

I believe we have reached our top of our evolution, and now turn in to materialistic egoists, and become individuals with self destructive minds with good help of social media, and thats the doom day for humanity, and why we will never see aliens. Its in our dna, like a time bomb, everything will finely collaps, and restart

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I believe we have reached our top of our evolution, and now turn in to materialistic egoists, and become individuals with self destructive minds with good help of social media, and thats the doom day for humanity, and why we will never see aliens. Its in our dna, like a time bomb, everything will finely collaps, and restart

Interesting.
I think we already are materialistic egoists (and have been for quite some time) because humanity as a whole is slowly coming out of its "wild teenage years" and is taking its first steps into adulthood. Still a long way to go and very far from having reached the top of evolution.

[Ralf001]

Am a Pastafarian.

Flying Spaghetti Monster is my god.

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Interesting.
I think we already are materialistic egoists (and have been for quite some time) because humanity as a whole is slowly coming out of its "wild teenage years" and is taking its first steps into adulthood. Still a long way to go and very far from having reached the top of evolution.

I belive socialism is essential during times where evolving environment is complicated and  difficult. It is only the last century I believe the majority of population have tasted more individual/personal freedom with more opportunities that was solely benefits of the higher controlling society.

 

Finely the hard ground workers got their taste but in my eyes have failed the trust given, and we are turning back to darker ages. 

 

Monkey tribes who care for each other and share their wealth between them and have a strong dominant leader is stronger and are more likely to survive complicated times than tribes who do not have the same social genes 

[moogradod]

5 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Am a Pastafarian.

Flying Spaghetti Monster is my god.

Barilla ? No. 1 or 5 ? You see, the questions never stop. For me it is: I do not believe in a Creator God. It is even relatively easy to prove that such entity cannot exist, but I dont mind if some people (there seem to be a lot) believe differently. The most important thing is that their belief is beneficial in some way.