If God did not exist

[Steven_R]

Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?

No.

Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?

Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.

 

[Newby]

Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?

No.

Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?

Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the human mind is the end all/be all of knowledge and comprehension when it's not even close. Because man has studied and not found what you would consider 'proof', then that's enough for you. It's not enough for me, it leaves the potential for many possibilities open. So to dismiss it because you cannot understand it or 'prove' it is naive.

 

[midcan5]

"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty -- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."

"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.

"One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men -- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then -- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys -- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken -- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well -- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"



"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence, then, evil." Epicurus

Ivan's question is here. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky: Chapter 35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/313686-if-god-did-not-exist-39.html#post7964436

 

[daws101]

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..

 

[Newby]

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..

It really wasn't that hard. cause you don't know anything.

 

[daws101]

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..

It really wasn't that hard. cause you don't know anything.

you just made my point for me.....thanks.

 

[koshergrl]

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..

Shocking...you didn't provide a single concrete example.

Imagine that!



Your imagination is strong, grasshopper. Now focus on the now...what is real....focus....focus...

 

[daws101]

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..

Shocking...you didn't provide a single concrete example.

Imagine that!



Your imagination is strong, grasshopper. Now focus on the now...what is real....focus....focus...

guess you don't understand the meaning of ubiquitous

u·biq·ui·tous [ yoo bíkwitəss ]
existing everywhere: present everywhere at once, or seeming to be
Synonyms: omnipresent, universal, pervasive, global, abundant, permeating..
it's like asking me to provide proof of daylight.
It's also your dodge of last resort.

 

[koshergrl]

Lolol...

Guess you don't know the definition of:

"Pothead - English origin
Doped up blatherer who believes he's really smart. Usually wears a hat and sunglasses, and reeks of patchouli."

 

[orogenicman]

I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?

That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made. "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.

Evidence of God is right in front of your face, every day, you observe it and study it and then dismiss the fact that you have no idea how it came to be, or how all of the 'systems' to support it were created or dervied. Ego is a terrible thing at times.

No, in fact, I don't know that the evidence is right in front of my face. What I see are the laws of nature. If you are going to argue from the god of the gaps, you won't get very far, I, afraid. As for how it came to be (I assume you are referring to the universe), the unexplained is not inexplicable. Many people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal. An amateur archeologist declares that because he cannot figure out how the pyramids were built, they must have been constructed by space aliens. Even those who are more reasonable at least think that if the experts cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable. Feats such as the bending of spoons, firewalking, or mental telepathy are often thought to be of a paranormal or mystical natures because most people cannot explain them. When they are explained, most people respond, "Yes, of course" or "That's obvious once you see it." Firewalking is a case in point. People speculate endlessly about supernatural powers over pain and heat, or mysterious brain chemicals that block pain and prevent burning. The simple explanation is that the capacity of light and fluffy coals to contain heat is very low, and the conductivity of heat from the light and fluffy coals to your feet is very poor. As long as you don't stand around on the coals, you will not get burned. (Think of a cake in a 450° oven. The air, the cake, and the pan are all at 450°F, but only the metal pan will burn your hand. Air has a very low heat capacity and also low conductivity, so you can put your hand in the oven long enough to touch the cake and pan. The heat capacity of the cake is a lot higher than air, but since it has low conductivity you can briefly touch it without getting burned. The metal pan has a heat capacity similar to the cake, but high conductivity too. If you touch it, you will get burned.) This is why magicians (and religious fanatics) do not tell their secrets. Most of their tricks are, in principle, relatively simple (although many are extremely difficult to execute) and knowing the secret takes the magic out of the trick.

 

[koshergrl]

Nature obeys God.

So much for the laws of nature.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?

No.

Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?

Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the human mind is the end all/be all of knowledge and comprehension when it's not even close. Because man has studied and not found what you would consider 'proof', then that's enough for you. It's not enough for me, it leaves the potential for many possibilities open. So to dismiss it because you cannot understand it or 'prove' it is naive.

I suppose this is where we are supposed to apologize for being smarter than our pets. Well, that's not going to happen. The quest for knowledge is ongoing, never ending. But just because our knowledge necessarily is limited doesn't mean that we know nothing. Certainly we do know a lot about a lot of things. We may estimate that we know only 5% of the universe, but the 5% we do know, we have a lot of confidence in what we know. We understand the chemical nature of the Earth, for instance, and can plot a periodic table of the elements of which it is composed. From this table, we derive the composition of all other objects in the universe, of life on this planet, search for cures to diseases, and can use it to search for life elsewhere. We couldn't do any of this just 200 years ago. So while we have a lot to learn, do not underestimate the power of what we already know. We stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Our children and their will stand on the shoulders giants as well.

 

[orogenicman]

Nature obeys God.

So much for the laws of nature.

So much for your circular reasoning.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, it works just as well (better, even, since it explains everything) than the vague "Laws of Nature" wussiness. What are the laws of nature?

Just the law that says it is what it is. Talk about circular.

 

[Steven_R]

Science doesn't try to answer "why"; it just seeks to answer "how". The laws that govern the universe are what they are.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, they are what they are, as conceived by God, who made them.

 

[Steven_R]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

Oh, it works just as well (better, even, since it explains everything) than the vague "Laws of Nature" wussiness. What are the laws of nature?

Just the law that says it is what it is. Talk about circular.

Sorry. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[daws101]

Lolol...

Guess you don't know the definition of:

"Pothead - English origin
Doped up blatherer who believes he's really smart. Usually wears a hat and sunglasses, and reeks of patchouli."