Philosophical question

[TMFT]

This could be a rough one, but let’s try and dig into this.

Let’s say civilization formed knowing what we know now. Heliocentric solar system, age of the earth, dinosaurs, size of the universe, microbes, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics and associated earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis, how hurricanes and tornadoes form, that epilepsy is caused by brain issues and not demonic possession, antibiotics, vaccines, solar eclipses, lightning/thunder are large scale static electricityetc (add your own).

If we knew all of that from the beginning, would there be a broad conception of a god(s) (regardless of which one(s) someone subscribed to)?

The concept is that so many of the early things ascribed to god(s) were natural phenomena we didn’t understand. As the gaps have closed it seems that the concept of god(s) to have substantially changed. But I’m curious what others think.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This could be a rough one, but let’s try and dig into this.

Let’s say civilization formed knowing what we know now. Heliocentric solar system, age of the earth, dinosaurs, size of the universe, microbes, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics and associated earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis, how hurricanes and tornadoes form, that epilepsy is caused by brain issues and not demonic possession, antibiotics, vaccines, solar eclipses, lightning/thunder are large scale static electricityetc (add your own).

If we knew all of that from the beginning, would there be a broad conception of a god(s) (regardless of which one(s) someone subscribed to)?

The concept is that so many of the early things ascribed to god(s) were natural phenomena we didn’t understand. As the gaps have closed it seems that the concept of god(s) to have substantially changed. But I’m curious what others think.

While you described a number of advancements in knowledge, I think everything we “know” is nothing but a drop in the oceans of what we don’t know. What we know now isn’t much different han knowing Newton’s laws of motion.

The Webb telescope amplifies the unknown. Until we can firmly answer the question of why there is something instead if nothing, we have no clue. I can’t rule out the presence of an “intelligence“ far beyond what we know or can imagine.

 

[TMFT]

While you described a number of advancements in knowledge, I think everything we “know” is nothing but a drop in the oceans of what we don’t know. What we know now isn’t much different han knowing Newton’s laws of motion.

The Webb telescope amplifies the unknown. Until we can firmly answer the question of why there is something instead if nothing, we have no clue. I can’t rule out the presence of an “intelligence“ far beyond what we know or can imagine.

I 100% agree that we can’t rule out what is out there (#agnostic),

But do you think people would’ve automatically gone to a faith in a deity when so many of the unexplained things that were originally ascribed to god(s) had natural explanations?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I 100% agree that we can’t rule out what is out there (#agnostic),

But do you think people would’ve automatically gone to a faith in a deity when so many of the unexplained things that were originally ascribed to god(s) had natural explanations?

Yes. Your subtext seems to be that knowledge is finite. I don’t agree. There will always be substantial things we don’t know.

As an aside, I think humans are hardwired to resort to faith in many circumstances. For some, that is religion. For others that is more secular authority, but it’s always there.

 

[TMFT]

Yes. Your subtext seems to be that knowledge is finite. I don’t agree. There will always be substantial things we don’t know.

As an aside, I think humans are hardwired to resort to faith in many circumstances. For some, that is religion. For others that is more secular authority, but it’s always there.

I absolutely do not think knowledge is finite, at least I don’t think we know everything currently.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

As a Christian, the answer to your overall question is yes. Miraculous signs to a bunch of tribes of nomadic sheep farmers would be much different than what might be required today. God did what he needed, then has relied on faith to sustain it across the years.

 

[tooold4]

Turtles all the way down.

The big stuff from the Webb views to the little stuff from the Hadron Collider one thing is certain, we have a bunch to learn. How it effects our gods really should have no bearing, faith being what it is.

I read "The Three Body Problem" by Cixin Liu and he touches on some of what your question covers. Throughout the 3 volume series is a recurring theme of just plain wrong ideas that gain popularity in the populace and the effect they ( popular ideas ) have on the entire earth.

Warning : it is as disturbing as any Stephen King novel.

 

[TMFT]

As a Christian, the answer to your overall question is yes. Miraculous signs to a bunch of tribes of nomadic sheep farmers would be much different than what might be required today. God did what he needed, then has relied on faith to sustain it across the years.

Thank you for sharing.

Ignoring the culture we’ve been born into as a society/culture, what do you think would be your signs that point to a higher power now if you came in tabula rossa?

Again, this is a purely academic/philosophical discussion. I’m not trying to break balls.

 

[TMFT]

Turtles all the way down.

The big stuff from the Webb views to the little stuff from the Hadron Collider one thing is certain, we have a bunch to learn. How it effects our gods really should have no bearing, faith being what it is.

I read "The Three Body Problem" by Cixin Liu and he touches on some of what your question covers. Throughout the 3 volume series a recurring theme of just plain wrong ideas that gain popularity in the populace and and the effect they ( popular ideas ) have on the entire earth.

Warning : it is as disturbing as any Stephan King novel.

What is turtles all the way down?

 

[Bowlmania]

I 100% agree that we can’t rule out what is out there (#agnostic),

But do you think people would’ve automatically gone to a faith in a deity when so many of the unexplained things that were originally ascribed to god(s) had natural explanations?

Yes because (and, for once, I have to agree with CoH) there's still so much that either can't be explained or is very difficult to fathom.

I don't fully understand the origins and complexity of human life. Hell, it's not just human life. I look at my big dog and I'm blown away by his keen senses and athleticism. I can't comprehend the variety and diversity of life on this planet. How does the human heart beat more than 3 billion times over the lifetime of a person who lives to 80? I know the body has electrical impulses that cause the heart to pump, but what keeps all that going, with no need for an external charge? I know there's a scientific explanation, but I can't fully comprehend it. I don't understand the concept of infinity and that there are billions of galaxies.

I'm not sold on an old guy with a flowing white beard who got a boatload of stuff done in six days and then needed a day to chill, but I have no doubt there's a supernatural force behind all this. It wasn't just a big bang. Christianity works well for me and my family as a guide for living. Jesus lived an exemplary life. And I'd really like to see more study of the Shroud of Turin. Even scientists who have concluded it's a medieval fake haven't been able to explain how the image came to appear on the cloth. Fascinating stuff.

 

[tooold4]

I picked it up from some book I read, sorry I can't remember the author or the name of it.
Edit: Terry Pratchett " Discworld"

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TMFT]

Yes because (and, for once, I have to agree with CoH) there's still so much that either can't be explained or is very difficult to fathom.

I don't fully understand the origins and complexity of human life. Hell, it's not just human life. I look at my big dog and I'm blown away by his keen senses and athleticism. I can't comprehend the variety and diversity of life on this planet. How does the human heart beat more than 3 billion times over the lifetime of a person who lives to 80? I know the body has electrical impulses that cause the heart to pump, but what keeps all that going, with no need for an external charge? I know there's a scientific explanation, but I can't fully comprehend it. I don't understand the concept of infinity and that there are billions of galaxies.

I'm not sold on an old guy with a flowing white beard who got a boatload of stuff done in six days and then needed a day to chill, but I have no doubt there's a supernatural force behind all this. It wasn't just a big bang. Christianity works well for me and my family as a guide for living. Jesus lived an exemplary life. And I'd really like to see more study of the Shroud of Turin. Even scientists who have concluded it's a medieval fake haven't been able to explain how the image came to appear on the cloth. Fascinating stuff.

Thanks.

And I’ll go on record that I want my kids to be biblically and religiously literate because of how it’s ingrained in our society. And probably because of my upbringing where reading the Bible was a daily thing.

I’m glad your religious preference works for you and your family, at the very least from a philosophical/moral level. Do you think if you had been born in Vietnam or China that the philosophy of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam would have filled the same role for you? Or is it specific?

 

[IUclover]

Thanks.

And I’ll go on record that I want my kids to be biblically and religiously literate because of how it’s ingrained in our society. And probably because of my upbringing where reading the Bible was a daily thing.

I’m glad your religious preference works for you and your family, at the very least from a philosophical/moral level. Do you think if you had been born in Vietnam or China that the philosophy of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam would have filled the same role for you? Or is it specific?

I plan on having my kid read the Bible and other religious texts so they will be better at Jeopardy.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Thank you for sharing.

Ignoring the culture we’ve been born into as a society/culture, what do you think would be your signs that point to a higher power now if you came in tabula rossa?

Again, this is a purely academic/philosophical discussion. I’m not trying to break balls.

As far as this board is concerned, I doubt if my balls are in any peril.
The issue with miraculous signs today is they would have to be so spectacular, they would preclude the need, or ability to have faith. Thus the timing in human history for heavenly revelations was on point…IMHO.

Regarding the concept of 6 day creation, I reject it. God created natural law and has sort of operated within its confines. Example- what is more miraculous; he waves his hand to part the Sea of Reeds for the Hebrews to escape Egypt, or he created, billions of years prior, the exact timing for the volcano that erupted hundreds of miles away (it has been verified to be in that time period) at the exact time that caused the body of water to draw back due to the shock wave?
Of course, that also speaks to the ol' free will vs. predestination argument.

 

[TMFT]

As far as this board is concerned, I doubt if my balls are in any peril.
The issue with miraculous signs today, they would have to be so spectacular, they would preclude the need, or ability to have faith. Thus the timing in human history for heavenly revelations was on point…IMHO.
Regarding the concept of 6 day creation, I reject it. God created natural law and has sort of operated within. Example- what is more miraculous; he waves his hand to part the Sea of Reeds for the Hebrews to escape Egypt, or he created the exact timing for the volcano that erupted hundreds of miles away (it has been verified to be in that time period) at the exact time that caused the body of water to draw back due to the shock wave…billions of years in the past?

Interesting. I’ve never heard about the earthquake confirmation.

but Googling I found an article about tides.

Certainly one of the more confounding miracles to figure out (thanks Cecil DeMille)

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

This could be a rough one, but let’s try and dig into this.

Let’s say civilization formed knowing what we know now. Heliocentric solar system, age of the earth, dinosaurs, size of the universe, microbes, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics and associated earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis, how hurricanes and tornadoes form, that epilepsy is caused by brain issues and not demonic possession, antibiotics, vaccines, solar eclipses, lightning/thunder are large scale static electricityetc (add your own).

If we knew all of that from the beginning, would there be a broad conception of a god(s) (regardless of which one(s) someone subscribed to)?

The concept is that so many of the early things ascribed to god(s) were natural phenomena we didn’t understand. As the gaps have closed it seems that the concept of god(s) to have substantially changed. But I’m curious what others think.

I don't think it's possible for humans to have known the things you mention prior to a mature civilization.

But, no, gods most likely would not have been so widely believed in had we that knowledge in the past.

But given my first statement, it very well might be that humans needed the concept of gods to form civilization in the first place, which gives rise to our ability to do science, agriculture, etc. I think this second question is more interesting and the answer more vague.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I don't think it's possible for humans to have known the things you mention prior to a mature civilization.

But, no, gods most likely would not have been so widely believed in had we that knowledge in the past.

But given my first statement, it very well might be that humans needed the concept to gods to form civilization in the first place, which gives rise to our ability to do science, agriculture, etc. I think this second question is more interesting and the answer more vague.

Patton Oswalt does a bit on how the invention of religion led to civilization. (Warning: adult language)

 

[TMFT]

Patton Oswalt does a bit on how the invention of religion led to civilization. (Warning: adult language)

View embedded media

Chris Rock also did a bit in the day about how religion created rules for order.

Like kosher don’t eat pork. It’s delicious but it also has a tendency to kill you if not kept safe. So God says don’t eat pork.

 

[Bowlmania]

Thanks.

And I’ll go on record that I want my kids to be biblically and religiously literate because of how it’s ingrained in our society. And probably because of my upbringing where reading the Bible was a daily thing.

I’m glad your religious preference works for you and your family, at the very least from a philosophical/moral level. Do you think if you had been born in Vietnam or China that the philosophy of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam would have filled the same role for you? Or is it specific?

Tough to say. There are some common threads including the Golden Rule which is found in all the world's major religions. Virtue is also a frequent theme. Some of these "religions," though (e.g. Buddhism, Confucianism) are nontheistic and, accordingly, more akin (as you've noted) to a philosophy. I do believe in God. I'm just not sure what God looks like.

 

[UncleMark]

The issue with miraculous signs today is they would have to be so spectacular, they would preclude the need, or ability to have faith.

So we're talking MTIOTF hooking up with Ana de Armas level miracles, right?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I 100% agree that we can’t rule out what is out there (#agnostic),

But do you think people would’ve automatically gone to a faith in a deity when so many of the unexplained things that were originally ascribed to god(s) had natural explanations?

and what are the natural explanations for the natural explanations.

every answer spawns infinite more questions.

 

[TMFT]

and what are the natural explanations for the natural explanations.

ever answer spawns infinite more questions.

Can you give me an example of such a question?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

and what are the natural explanations for the natural explanations.

every answer spawns infinite more questions.

Can you give me an example of such a question?

can you give me an example of any answer, or "natural explanation", that doesn't spawn more questions?

NO, you can't. nor can anyone.

cite any such "answer" or "natural explanation", and i'll give you back more questions said "answer/explanation" spawns.

but hey, make my day and give it a try.

good luck with that. bwg

 

[TMFT]

can you give me an example of any answer, or "natural explanation", that doesn't spawn more questions?

NO, you can't. nor can anyone.

cite any such "answer" or "natural explanation", and i'll give you back more questions said "answer/explanation" spawns.

but hey, make my day and give it a try.

good luck with that. bwg

Solar eclipses are caused by the the relative position of the Earth, moon, and sun.

Any further questions you ask are not going to be about solar eclipses. You can ask why are the bodies that size? Why are they at the distances they are? Why do they exist in the first place? But those are questions of further inquiry that seek to understand more but could be asked irrespective of understanding eclipses.

Beware the God of the Gaps thinking. It puts God in a box. And as we learn more and understand more about the universe that box gets smaller. There are always things not understood or unknown. Ascribing our gaps in knowledge to God is dangerous.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Solar eclipses are caused by the the relative position of the Earth, moon, and sun.

Any further questions you ask are not going to be about solar eclipses. You can ask why are the bodies that size? Why are they at the distances they are? Why do they exist in the first place? But those are questions of further inquiry that seek to understand more but could be asked irrespective of understanding eclipses.

Beware the God of the Gaps thinking. It puts God in a box. And as we learn more and understand more about the universe that box gets smaller. There are always things not understood or unknown. Ascribing our gaps in knowledge to God is dangerous.

the further questions brought up by the cause of solar eclipses, don't have to be restricted to just the narrow scope you restricted them to.

even in earliest times, ancient man probably figured out that a solar eclipse was caused by the moon blocking the view of the sun.

it's all those other questions that one explanation, each explanation, brings up.

it never happened before, so who or what caused that blockage now?

why didn't it stay blocked?

why doesn't that occur every day?

why today, and now?

why do the sun, moon, and stars, move across the sky?

every answer only brings up more questions.

and often what scientists ascribe or attribute things to, is no more logical or precise, than ascribing or attributing them to God.

gravity

heredity

inertia

evolution

instinct

often when we give a name to a phenomena, we pretend doing so explains it.

or explains the subsequent events attributed to said named phenomena or force.

it doesn't, any more than attributing it to God. which who's to say is or isn't correct.

assigning a name, merely acknowledges a phenomena or force, (or our perceiving it being so anyway), it doesn't explain it.

 

[TMFT]

the further questions brought up by the cause of solar eclipses, don't have to be restricted to just the narrow scope you restricted them to.

even in earliest times, ancient man probably figured out that a solar eclipse was caused by the moon blocking the view of the sun.

it's all those other questions that one explanation, each explanation, brings up.

it never happened before, so who or what caused that blockage now?

why didn't it stay blocked?

why doesn't that occur every day?

why today, and now?

why do the sun, moon, and stars, move across the sky?

every answer only brings up more questions.

and often what scientists ascribe or attribute things to, is no more logical or precise, than ascribing or attributing them to God.

gravity

heredity

inertia

evolution

instinct

often when we give a name to a phenomena, we pretend doing so explains it.

or explains the subsequent events attributed to said named phenomena or force.

it doesn't, any more than attributing it to God. which who's to say is or isn't correct.

assigning a name, merely acknowledges a phenomena or force, (or our perceiving it being so anyway), it doesn't explain it.

first off, the follow up questions you asked are basically re-wordings of the questions on my list. Or at least they all get to the same point.

second, how are you sure early man one it was the moon? Although I wholeheartedly agree there were probably at least some in every culture who understood celestial patterns, although I also think they used that knowledge, often as priests, to maintain power over the people because they could predict an eclipse but didn’t tell how they knew. Priests of antiquity also tended to be engineers and scientists who could create contraptions that were designed to take people’s money. The people believed and the priests got paid.

This is why American education is the pits. Gravity, inertia, and heredity (for example) are not secular substitutes for god. They are observable, reproducible facts. They haven’t just been given names, they’ve been given entire frameworks to explain their operation that are light years from “I don’t understand this, so God did it.”

You will never drop a ball and have it not fall to the ground. Ever. Absent a genetic mutation, if you and your spouse have blue eyes, you have a 0% of having a brown eyed baby. The reason we can send man to the moon or the JWST to the L2 Lagrange point is because these physics are settled. The guy at flight control might have wished John Glenn Godspeed, but his butt relied on a nerd with a slide rule to get him up and back.

And I’m not sure about the scientific conception of instinct, it seems subjective. But I would love to hear your thoughts on how there is no logic
to the other items on your list.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

This could be a rough one, but let’s try and dig into this.

Let’s say civilization formed knowing what we know now. Heliocentric solar system, age of the earth, dinosaurs, size of the universe, microbes, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics and associated earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis, how hurricanes and tornadoes form, that epilepsy is caused by brain issues and not demonic possession, antibiotics, vaccines, solar eclipses, lightning/thunder are large scale static electricityetc (add your own).

If we knew all of that from the beginning, would there be a broad conception of a god(s) (regardless of which one(s) someone subscribed to)?

The concept is that so many of the early things ascribed to god(s) were natural phenomena we didn’t understand. As the gaps have closed it seems that the concept of god(s) to have substantially changed. But I’m curious what others think.

Does your theory suppose that everyone knows this? We have something like 45 percent of Americans who can’t name the Vice President, over half can’t name their Senators and less know their Representative. A large number couldn’t tell you what the Civil War was about or who fought in WWI or WWII. Many Americans just aren’t very smart and many more are ignorant. God bless ‘em.

 

[TMFT]

Does your theory suppose that everyone knows this? We have something like 45 percent of Americans who can’t name the Vice President, over half can’t name their Senators and less know their Representative. A large number couldn’t tell you what the Civil War was about or who fought in WWI or WWII. Many Americans just aren’t very smart and many more are ignorant. God bless ‘em.

Lol. It does.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Lol. It does.

Who wants to live in a world where everyone is smart as me . . .

 

[i'vegotwinners]

first off, the follow up questions you asked are basically re-wordings of the questions on my list. Or at least they all get to the same point.

second, how are you sure early man one it was the moon? Although I wholeheartedly agree there were probably at least some in every culture who understood celestial patterns, although I also think they used that knowledge, often as priests, to maintain power over the people because they could predict an eclipse but didn’t tell how they knew. Priests of antiquity also tended to be engineers and scientists who could create contraptions that were designed to take people’s money. The people believed and the priests got paid.

This is why American education is the pits. Gravity, inertia, and heredity (for example) are not secular substitutes for god. They are observable, reproducible facts. They haven’t just been given names, they’ve been given entire frameworks to explain their operation that are light years from “I don’t understand this, so God did it.”

You will never drop a ball and have it not fall to the ground. Ever. Absent a genetic mutation, if you and your spouse have blue eyes, you have a 0% of having a brown eyed baby. The reason we can send man to the moon or the JWST to the L2 Lagrange point is because these physics are settled. The guy at flight control might have wished John Glenn Godspeed, but his butt relied on a nerd with a slide rule to get him up and back.

And I’m not sure about the scientific conception of instinct, it seems subjective. But I would love to hear your thoughts on how there is no logic
to the other items on your list.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

first off, the follow up questions you asked are basically re-wordings of the questions on my list. Or at least they all get to the same point.

second, how are you sure early man one it was the moon? Although I wholeheartedly agree there were probably at least some in every culture who understood celestial patterns, although I also think they used that knowledge, often as priests, to maintain power over the people because they could predict an eclipse but didn’t tell how they knew. Priests of antiquity also tended to be engineers and scientists who could create contraptions that were designed to take people’s money. The people believed and the priests got paid.

This is why American education is the pits. Gravity, inertia, and heredity (for example) are not secular substitutes for god. They are observable, reproducible facts. They haven’t just been given names, they’ve been given entire frameworks to explain their operation that are light years from “I don’t understand this, so God did it.”

You will never drop a ball and have it not fall to the ground. Ever. Absent a genetic mutation, if you and your spouse have blue eyes, you have a 0% of having a brown eyed baby. The reason we can send man to the moon or the JWST to the L2 Lagrange point is because these physics are settled. The guy at flight control might have wished John Glenn Godspeed, but his butt relied on a nerd with a slide rule to get him up and back.

And I’m not sure about the scientific conception of instinct, it seems subjective. But I would love to hear your thoughts on how there is no logic
to the other items on your list.

i only made a statement that every answer just brings up more questions, which i thought was pretty universally accepted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is why American education is the pits. Gravity, inertia, and heredity (for example) are not secular substitutes for god. They are observable, reproducible facts. They haven’t just been given names, they’ve been given entire frameworks to explain their operation that are light years from “I don’t understand this, so God did it.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


this is just observable phenomena, which we have broken down the math to.

but it doesn't explain why gravity, inertia, or heredity, exists in the first place, why it does what it does, or why the math is as it is.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will never drop a ball and have it not fall to the ground. Ever".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[outside shooter]

I would think that humans would have created religion even if the gaps in knowledge were much much smaller.

Religions have been used to explain away the unknown, but that seems less common all of the time.

Religion has been used to control people, particularly the poor and less educated. That motivation remains.

It is used to divide people, us vs. them, we have the eternal life but not those heathens.

But of course many noble religious people use religious concepts for good, caring for others, golden rule. And also to provide order, 10 commandments, other principles to live by. So it’s complicated.

In general though I think of religion as more of a divisive influence on society rather than a positive one. 10 years ago I guess I thought the opposite. Just jaded, I guess, as to where much of Protestant Christianity has gone and how politicized it is in many areas.

 

[NPT]

Who wants to live in a world where everyone is smart as me . . .

That softball is hard to pass up but I will. 🤣

 

[NPT]

i only made a statement that every answer just brings up more questions, which i thought was pretty universally accepted

And that is a fact. They may not be relevant questions but if you have a few people around someone will ask a question. Some will just reword the original question and some will ask plain dumb questions.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

And that is a fact. They may not be relevant questions but if you have a few people around someone will ask a question. Some will just reword the original question and some will ask plain dumb questions.

and some will come back with highly insightful and highly relevant questions.

interesting that you left that part out.

to deny that all "answers" regarding the origins of the universe leads to more questions, is just trolling.

 

[TMFT]

and some will come back with highly insightful and highly relevant questions.

interesting that you left that part out.

to deny that all "answers" regarding the origins of the universe leads to more questions, is just trolling.

That’s moving the goal posts a bit.

The original proposition was that all answers lead to more questions. I disagree with that. There may be somewhat related questions but they don’t necessarily follow the other. Like learning that thunder is a sonic boom produced by lightning strikes vs Thor answers that question. You can ask more questions about what is lightning and how to control electricity, but the thunder question is answered and the other questions about lightning and electricity are independent and could be asked whether you understood thunder or not.

Even your cosmology argument is flawed and appealing to our current ignorance of universal origins. I’m not saying it’s particularly likely that we’ll ever fully understand universal origins, but if you agree that any topic can be fully understood then nothing disqualifies cosmology from being something that could be.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This could be a rough one, but let’s try and dig into this.

Let’s say civilization formed knowing what we know now. Heliocentric solar system, age of the earth, dinosaurs, size of the universe, microbes, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics and associated earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis, how hurricanes and tornadoes form, that epilepsy is caused by brain issues and not demonic possession, antibiotics, vaccines, solar eclipses, lightning/thunder are large scale static electricityetc (add your own).

If we knew all of that from the beginning, would there be a broad conception of a god(s) (regardless of which one(s) someone subscribed to)?

The concept is that so many of the early things ascribed to god(s) were natural phenomena we didn’t understand. As the gaps have closed it seems that the concept of god(s) to have substantially changed. But I’m curious what others think.

It took me a while to come up with a response to this, but here it is:

Humans have qualia. They cannot be satisfactorily explained by mechanical physical processes. As useful as science is, philosophy and theology will always be attractive because of their ability to address qualia. I have no idea what a religion or a God might look like in a society that had All The Answers from the beginning, but I'm fairly certain that such a religion and such a God would still be present.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

That’s moving the goal posts a bit.

The original proposition was that all answers lead to more questions. I disagree with that. There may be somewhat related questions but they don’t necessarily follow the other. Like learning that thunder is a sonic boom produced by lightning strikes vs Thor answers that question. You can ask more questions about what is lightning and how to control electricity, but the thunder question is answered and the other questions about lightning and electricity are independent and could be asked whether you understood thunder or not.

Even your cosmology argument is flawed and appealing to our current ignorance of universal origins. I’m not saying it’s particularly likely that we’ll ever fully understand universal origins, but if you agree that any topic can be fully understood then nothing disqualifies cosmology from being something that could be.

i didn't move the goalpost 1 inch.

and you can disagree all you want, that doesn't make it not so.

and agreeing that "a" topic, or "some topics" can be fully understood, does not equate to agreeing that "all" topics can be fully understood.

or perhaps, the more accurate wording would be, "won't ever" be fully understood.

 

[TMFT]

i didn't move the goalpost 1 inch.

and you can disagree all you want, that doesn't make it not so.

and agreeing that "a" topic, or "some topics" can be fully understood, does not equate to agreeing that "all" topics can be fully understood.

or perhaps, the more accurate wording would be, "won't ever" be fully understood.

Your first comment was “every answer spawns infinite more questions.”

I disagreed

you asked for an example

I said understanding how solar eclipses happen doesn’t necessarily lead to further questions because you could have asked all of the questions about the sun, earth, and moon independent of understanding eclipses.

Then you move to cosmology. Which is certainly not fully understandable with current technology due to time/space constraints.

And if ANYTHING can be fully understood then it disproves your first contention that every answer spawns infinite more questions.