Poll: Do Star Trek fans believe in a Supreme Being?

[RoJoHen]

I believe the universe is far too complex for any one being to have created on his/her/its own.

Plus, even if there is a god who created the universe, I can't help but wonder who created God, and then who created the being that created God, so on and so forth.

It's too big for my head, and it's just not something I concern myself with. As for religion/faith...believe what you want. Just make sure you're believing it for you and not because someone else told you to.

 

[Kenobi]

Anubis said:
Personally, while I embrace everyone's viewpoints as long as they're not harmful to others, I have a hard time understanding how people can believe in or claim to know how the Universe was created or who runs it (if anyone). For all I know it was an accident, intentional, a natural phenomenon, who knows? I don't want to ruffle feathers, I just find it incredibly vain.

But would you find it incredibly vain of, say, a forensic detective to claim a certain person should be held as the prime suspect in an investigation? In a roundabout way, you're arguing that since you have no idea of likelihoods, then it must follow that no one else does, either.

I believe that if you think what you're saying all the way through (and I mean no offense whatsoever by this) there's a healthy dose of vanity in your own idea.

RoJoHen said:
I believe the universe is far too complex for any one being to have created on his/her/its own.

Even with the quality of omnipotence?

Plus, even if there is a god who created the universe, I can't help but wonder who created God, and then who created the being that created God, so on and so forth.

This is a question of a linear perception of time. Cause-effect. In a non-linear perception of time, there is no cause-effect, there's only eternal.

Just make sure you're believing it for you and not because someone else told you to.

Total agreement.

 

[RoJoHen]

^Omnipotence and non-linear time are concepts that I cannot conceive, so I choose not to try. My belief system is centered around things I can understand.

 

[Kenobi]

I do suppose it's impossible to conceive what one can't understand.

 

[RyanKCR]

I don't understand how starships work but I've imagined quite a few so I don't get that point.

 

[RoJoHen]

Indeed. It has just never been necessary or worthwhile for me to believe in a greater power. I won't pretend that the possibility isn't there, but I have no reason to have faith in such a creature.

I believe in the power of the human spirit. I believe in love, friendship, family. I have faith that those who love me will fight for me and support me. I have faith that I can count on those I love to get me through the worst times.

If God has given me the friends and family that I have, I thank him for it. But I also have a very difficult time believing that an omnipotent being would care about any one person, let alone every single individual in the world (and potential other worlds). "God" is too mind-boggling an idea for me. I find it unlikely that God is anything like a being humans have written into their sacred texts. I believe God is impossible for anyone to comprehend.

And if there is a god, hopefully he knows enough about what's going on so I don't have to worry about it!

 

[Kenobi]

St Nicholas said:
I don't understand how starships work but I've imagined quite a few so I don't get that point.

What I said was meant to be taken as rhetorical; nothing more or less. If a person can't understand, then they can't understand.

 

[3D Master]

Kenobi said:
What is it that you would have God do rather than simply standing by and watching, without helping us in any way? You speak as though you feel that God should perform some exceedingly radical action such as sacrificing himself for the salvation of man.

First, what would we need salvation from?

Second, why would an omnipotent god need sacrifice himself or his son or whoever to give man salvation? All he'd have to do is snap his fingers, and less even, and man has salvation?

The only reason I can think of, sending his son to be sacrificed is to guilt trip us into believing. And a god that feels the need to guilt trip us, is either not even a fraction as powerful as he claims to be, or twisted, sick and evil.

Kenobi said:
Even with the quality of omnipotence?

An omnipotent being did not create the universe. The universe is far too harmonious and following mathematical laws for that. An omnipotent being can simply point, and say, "galaxy there" and there's a galaxy there, and then point, and there's a planet, etc. etc. There's no point for a being like that to waste time on making everything look like it has a natural origin and progression, unless it has deliberately done so to test whether we're able to disregard all our common sense and logic and remain on our knees despite all evidence to the contrary of his existence. Which gets us back to that stinking, evil bastard that needs to be fought every step of the way.

Plus, even if there is a god who created the universe, I can't help but wonder who created God, and then who created the being that created God, so on and so forth.

This is a question of a linear perception of time. Cause-effect. In a non-linear perception of time, there is no cause-effect, there's only eternal.

Therefor, no god. Time in the universe itself is non-linear, there is only the eternal continuum. It simply is, was and ever will be. No need to create some imaginary being to fulfill those requirements.

 

[UnknownSample]

The 86% for "none of the above" clearly indicates that more options were called for. I wonder how many votes "How the hell would I know?" would get? That's the obvious choice for me.

 

[RoJoHen]

St Nicholas said:
I don't understand how starships work but I've imagined quite a few so I don't get that point.

I think there is a big difference between understanding a starship and understanding a supreme being that created the universe.

I have imagined starships as well. Hell, anyone who has watched Star Trek has imagined starships. But starships are based on science. We are able to travel in space right now. A starship is simply a more advanced version of actual scientific equipment we use today. We don't have to understand how it works to imagine that it's possible.

That said, I can imagine God. I can close my eyes and pretend that there is a supreme, omnipotent being who is responsible for the creation of everything. But what do I have to base that on? Is it an old man with a big white beard? Is it something from Greek mythology? Is it just a big cloud of energy flying around the cosmos? It is an inconceivable idea.

I am not saying there is no such being. But there is no way for me to have any idea what it is...what it looks like, how it exists, what it is capable of...it's a concept that I cannot grasp.

I cannot have faith in something that I cannot experience or perceive.

 

[Kenobi]

3D Master said:

Don't take this the wrong way, I mean no offense. I know this can be a hot topic for some and I can understand that. But I feel that your mind is clouded by emotion, and I have to tell you that I'm not interested in empty dialogue. It would be best if dialogue between the two of us were restricted to other issues.

 

[3D Master]

Kenobi said:

3D Master said:

Don't take this the wrong way, I mean no offense. I know this can be a hot topic for some and I can understand that. But I feel that your mind is clouded by emotion, and I have to tell you that I'm not interested in empty dialogue. It would be best if dialogue between the two of us were restricted to other issues.

My mind is not clouded by emotion. It's completely clear.

 

[CaptainDonovin]

This is one of those topics that easily could get one in trouble and since I like a dose of trouble now and then...

I went with #2 but I have no proof a Supreme Being exists. I know the Supremes don't exist any longer but that's another topic. I often wonder if there is an all powerful being that is responsible for all of this if they look on us and is saddened by what goes on everyday. I highly doubt he or she would approve on how we humans treat each other.

I call myself a non-practicing Catholic who believes something created the universe and the inhabitants in it, but also believe in evolution and that we all can believe what we do.

 

[UnknownSample]

I'm telling you.... "How would I know?!"--- perfect answer. We don't know.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Do Star Trek fans believe in a Supreme Being?

Personally, no.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm an atheist.

 

[Anubis]

Kenobi said:
would you find it incredibly vain of, say, a forensic detective to claim a certain person should be held as the prime suspect in an investigation? In a roundabout way, you're arguing that since you have no idea of likelihoods, then it must follow that no one else does, either.

I think there's a limitless difference between a forensic investigation and determining the origin, workings, and management of the universe!

I believe that if you think what you're saying all the way through (and I mean no offense whatsoever by this) there's a healthy dose of vanity in your own idea.

I don't see how the notion that a human being like myself, with such a limited perception of existence, claiming to have no idea who created the universe is vain. The notion that all of existence revolves around a deity (or series of dieties) and humanity is incredibly vain, even if it turns out to be true. It may very well be true. Personally, I refuse to be so self important.

Of course, I also find discussions of an individuals religious beliefs to be fairly pointless. It can be educational though. :thumbsup:

 

[JuanBolio]

I absolutely believe in a supreme being.

Me.

 

[Anubis]

JuanBolio said:
I absolutely believe in a supreme being.

Me.

Awesome.

 

[Kenobi]

RoJoHen said:I am not saying there is no such being. But there is no way for me to have any idea what it is...what it looks like, how it exists, what it is capable of...it's a concept that I cannot grasp.

I cannot have faith in something that I cannot experience or perceive.

Understanding of what is directly inconceivable can be gained through analogy. For example, it is impossible for man to directly conceive a four-dimensional object in his mind's eye. However, we can understand the idea of the four-dimensional object through an analogy such as, say, the Flatland analogy. Would you agree, then, that in such a manner man can potentially understand that which he can't directly conceive.

Anubis said:I think there's a limitless difference between a forensic investigation and determining the origin, workings, and management of the universe!

How so? Both are methods of determining likelihoods through interpretation of the evidences to reach a conclusion.

If I say, "I've formulated a conclusion based on the available data" and you say, "That's vain of you to claim a conclusion has been reached" then why would you not consistently make the same statement when anyone makes such a claim, regardless of the subject of their claim?

The notion that all of existence revolves around a deity (or series of dieties) and humanity is incredibly vain, even if it turns out to be true.

How can stating a fact (if it is a fact) be vain? I'm at a loss to understanding how you're reaching your conclusion. If my father builds me a house, and you ask, "For what purpose was this house built?" and I say to you, "My father has built this house for me to dwell in" then I am incredibly vain for stating the fact of the matter?