Most religious people tend to range between 2 and 3. I know of very few who would actually be a 1, perhaps some extremists who'd willingly bet their lives that every word in their holy book (usually either the Bible or Qur'an) is true.
I wouldn't say so. I know someone who rates himself as 1, yet sometimes finds messages in the Bible confusing.
Just a few thoughts on the probability of God based on the definitions:
1. God is the universe - 1, I know the universe exists. Maybe 2, in case biocentrism ("consciousness creates the universe") has a chance to be true.
2. The deistic God - This one is very hard to define, but I'll try: A transcendent, causeless fist cause entity. 3-4, maybe. I find the infinite regress (that'd be eternally recycling universe) and the finite regress equiprobable, yet I lean towards three because of my bias and my attraction towards the supernatural. But this is non-falsifiable and discussing it is pretty useless.
3. Theistic God - Let's define it as "A transcendent, causeless, intelligent and omnipotent entity that created the universe." 5, slimmer category than above. Suffers from logical errors, but I give it a chance, as many reasonable people made logical statements about it and it is possible that I am severely misconstructing their views when calling them improbable.
4. A God that is more or less similar to what Christians wish - 6, I am being nice. The possibility of it existing is that the miracles and experiences Christians cite as evidence are in fact supernatural and that the full-filled prophecies were not constructed & affirm at least partial reliability of scripture.
5. The average God of the religions throughout history - 7. Most of these Gods were the direct explanation for natural phenomena and are thus (unlike the others) falsifiable, allowing definite statements.
Conclusion: Looking at that God can be pretty much everything, all the options deserve respect. That was my post fighting the discrimination against certain poll options.
Yes, I bel in God. 100%. I believe he was the first, who created the Big Bang. (I also believe he created evolution and natural selection) Dinosaurs and all that stuff lived and died out and when man came about that's when he interfered and this is around the time that civilized humans appeared which was approx 6000 years, which is how long creationists say the earth is old. Makes perfect sense:D
I was initially going to rate myself a 1, but after reading the definition, it sounds as if choosing number 1 means I could easily show someone proof of God's existence. I may go with 2. I cannot cite indisputable proof that God exists, but I strongly think that recorded/documented occurrences of phenomena such as demonic possessions, apparitions, and other miraculous occurrences relating to the supernatural are arguably good lines of evidence to cite for the possible existence of God. A documented case of demonic possession/exorcism is in itself pretty good evidence for the existence of spirits, but not a higher being like God. For the existence of God, something more spectacular and impressive needs to be recorded or documented. There's also Stigmata, Incorruptible corpses, miraculous healing, and more stuff that I could go on about but I don't have the time to track down every single documented case for those things. But I'm sure everyone here already gets what I'm saying.
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5