Why God? - Light's view.

[Whitney]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.

I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known

Really? everything?  So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are?  There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?

I said TRY....I didn't say what was actually achievable

[Asmodean]

Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....

...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?

It's not.  But, I don't see any of those disciplines leading to some all-encompassing theory to describe any individual either.   I think a lot of truth about one's self is a personal discovery, not something that can every be fully described by some simple theory or book.

If you want to understand something about astronomy, such as the process of creation of this universe, you will need an understanding of physics, and therefore mathematics.

If you want to understand why a person is who and what (s)he is, you will need an understanding of medicine, therein genetics and psychology.

You don't need an all-encompassing theory based on a single school of science - you can use compound theories, with foundations in several scientific disciplines to explain something that crosses them as accurately as possible.

[Light]

If you want to understand why a person is who and what (s)he is, you will need an understanding of medicine, therein genetics and psychology.

Ok.  Or, you could just ask them about themselves.  That works too a lot of times.....

[Asmodean]

Ok.  Or, you could just ask them about themselves.  That works too a lot of times.....

Yes. Then they will usually tell you something along the lines of:

"I am the sum of my parts", where parts are genetics, life experiences and the like.

OR they can start spouting some drivel about how some obscure deity made them that way... Bullshit, of course.

[Light]

Ok.  Or, you could just ask them about themselves.  That works too a lot of times.....

Yes. Then they will usually tell you something along the lines of:

"I am the sum of my parts", where parts are genetics, life experiences and the like.

OR they can start spouting some drivel about how some obscure deity made them that way... Bullshit, of course.

You're looking too deep into my comment.  I'm talking about simple questions, like, 'what's your favorite hobby'.  So then you know something about them.  Doesn't necessarily have to be looking for an absolute truth. 

[Asmodean]

You're looking too deep into my comment.  I'm talking about simple questions, like, 'what's your favorite hobby'.  So then you know something about them.  Doesn't necessarily have to be looking for an absolute truth. 

Oh, that! Well, when you ask a question where the accuracy of the answer given is of little to no consequence and/or interest to you, you can just consider trusting that the answer provided is accurate. Of course, everyone lies, so once in a while that Star Wars fan you meet in a cafe and later sleep with will turn out to hate Star Wars.

[Light]

hehe.  I don't where this convo is going anymore.

[Gawen]

hehe.  I don't where this convo is going anymore.

Well, let's see. Where did it start...

You said you know a lot of things. Then alluded to not being able to know everything. And from not knowing everything, a realization to you, prompts you to...contradict yourself by saying:

This realization alone points me to the belief that there must of been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, call it God.

Agreed though...practicing skepticism can be beneficial.

So far, I have not seen the benefit of your skepticism.

[xSilverPhinx]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.     

This is a manipulative tactic. Acknowledge ignorance (everybody can be said to be ignorant in some things, some people more than others), and then accept a non testable, non measurable idea that is god created everything. That's just wrong. One phrase that I've used more than once when talking to a theist is that I will base my beliefs on what I know, not on what I don't.

Sorry, but that fails. The right way is the other way round, show why people should believe in a god based on something more substantial. Pushing ignorance is a way to get people to succumb to peer pressure and authority, because then you're more likely to acknowledge false authorities and trust what they say, even if you don't see it yourself.

You probably aren't being intentionally manipulative, but just thought I'd throw that out there, hopefully causing you to reflect on your approach a bit more.

[The Magic Pudding]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

You acknowledge the limits of knowledge but still demand answers.
You don't have to make something up yourself, there are plenty of made up answers, just grab one off the shelf.  These answers may feel right, they were made up by people with the same fears and needs for solace, that's why they feel right.  If many people are willing to accept the existence of a protective god it does nothing to prove god, it just illustrates a characteristic of human nature.

[Tank]

Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point.   It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.    

You acknowledge the limits of knowledge but still demand answers.
{snip}

And Light is quite happy to make up wild arse assertions about what happens beyond his own stated limits of knowledge! The very definition of hypocrisy. If one acknowledges there is a limit to knowledge the only rational/reasonable/possible world view is that of a defacto atheist (6 on the Dawkins scale).