I can proclaim that you haven’t shown me a god yet, though. BTW, one of the sciencey things you seem not to understand is graphing. Unless you already know how much there is to know, you cannot say what percentage we do or do not know. For your graph to exist, you would have to know:
How much a cockroach knows
How much Mankind knows
How much knowledge exists
Can you come up with a figure for any of those three?
edited to add: I daresay that without some prior religious background you would have little to nothing to base your beliefs about your particular god.
That’s a religious concept. There in no reason at all besides religion to believe in gods of any kind, and it’s religion the idea comes from.
And? “God” is an utterly stupid idea that doesn’t even take what we know to see for the stupidity that it is, much less more advanced knowledge. It is one of the most ridiculous, blatantly false ideas ever created.
And “non-physical” doesn’t even have any meaning the way you are using it; if something exists, it’s physical.
The fact that it’s a silly idea created by humans with no evidence for it that contradicts what know about the world does. There are no gods (and I note you insist on using the singular; we all know this is really about the Christian god) any more than there is a Santa Claus.
I cannot come up with an exact number for any of the three but I believe most scientists much more knowledeable than myself would agree that it would be a very steep curve.
I think most scientists understand how a graph works and would consider your proposal to be preposterous. You are claiming to be able to graph two unknown factors and one unknowable factor, and you don’t even give us the unit of measurement to compare them by.
Strawman, we know it is huge and we know we are near the bottom of the scale, illustrating a relative point just for the sake of comprehension does not always require exact figures.
Yet you claim that no one can legitimate have a negative opinion on (your) god without absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is clearly only “necessary” for people who disagree with you.
You are trying to play lawyer here, you also know exactly what measurements I am using. Bottom line is no science exists that deals with God, so science in the name of science should stay out of the God issue. The implications are toward some kind of world dominance based on the few intelligent elite making all the decisions that we now allow God to set a protocal for. Even the strategies for accomplishing this are becomming well established and the sheep too afraid to be rejected follow like lambs going to slaughter.
there is no god [if there was one i would certainly be able to operate the fucking shift key]
archy
p.s. mehitabel says there is a god and she’s . . . A CAT!
Okay. We’ll keep science out of the god issue. Once any science is used, we will keep god out of the science issue.
Since you’re using a computer to propose your god vs. science proposal, should this thread be closed?
Once we figured out that we orbit around the sun, that damn higher power concept should’ve went south. We use science every day, and a “I’m protected by a glowing rod none of you can see” ideology should only be accepted in institutions where only spoons, circles of paper, and padded walls are used.
How bout we have you draw the graph, we know where the bottom is but we don’t know where the top is or where we would fit in. Just based on what you know we don’t know make the top wherever you like and then place man on the graph wherever you like. Where do you place man in relation to the top of the graph based on your estimation. No doubt yours is better than mine because I didn’t even graduate high school. Now be honest when you estimate your graph.
Totally wrong. When science began, it was with the belief that science would support the concept of God. If you read some of the original works by early scientists, you will see God is all over them. In fact, the reason that so many scientists in the 18th and early 19th centuries were ministers was that they were sure that scientific investigation would support their god.
Guess what? They were wrong. Science demonstrated that there was no need for the God hypothesis.
But this is just a diversion. As has already been pointed out to you, any lack of knowledge we have is not in any way support for the existence of any god. The null hypothesis is that no gods exist (since how can we tell what the characteristics of the default god are?) - so to make us believe that there is some god, you are going to have to do a lot better than trying to make us feel humble.
Plus, while we don’t know how much we don’t know, we know a lot more than we did when god belief was more prevalent. And the more we know, the less need we have for god, so that should be a clue for you. MIT makes do quite well with one small chapel for all faiths. That should be another clue.
I don’t know where the top of the graph is, but I know that we are a lot higher on it than they were when the Bible was written. Then they didn’t even know that the Earth circled the sun, now we can look out 10 billion light years. Then they still thought matter was earth, air, fire and water, now we can see atoms and have gone a lot deeper. Then they didn’t even have the zero, now we can do more calculations in a minute than the entire population of earth then could have done in a year.
Why not stop wasting your time here and instead go to your local library and get out some books on the history of the universe, It would do you a lot more good.
Well, this thread happens to be in great debates. That menas more than one point of view is needed to actually have a debate. I am well aware of the advances you talk about plus many more. With all the advances we have made my point is how far up on the scale of all knowing have we actually moved.
The real point is science has no groundwork in the God business as of today. They have no right to implicate that in the name of science God does not exist. The opinion of scientists on that matter is no more viable than a rock singers view on foreign affairs.
Simply understanding how the universe was created and how it and us evolved does nothing but increase my faith in the idea of a higher power. He created hundreds and billions of planets with some of them having the ability to create and support evolving life forms capable of changing as the planet changes. Most of these planets will likley spend billions of years evolving only to fail at some point with no affect on the remaining universe. Out of all these billions maybe one of them will truly evolve onto something really special that actually puts the universe to good use, who the hell knows. Certainly not science or anyone else in this world.
That’s not evidence that God exists. It’s evidence that the universe exists and that ignorance exists.
But you can’t argue “I don’t know; therefore God exists.” Because the argument “I don’t know; therefore God does not exist” is just as valid. So are the arguments “I don’t know; therefore Vishnu exists” and “I don’t know; therefore Zeus exists” and “I don’t know; therefore Ra exists” - an argument that can prove anything proves nothing.