Atheism and rationality

[bertatberts]

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a god/gods/thing is denied, this can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the god/gods/thing said not to exist

Define for me what you mean by “one single instance”

First you must define what you mean by a god.

because depending upon what you mean by “instance” I think we could reasonably argue the universe existing in the state that it does is a good reason to think there was at least one “instance” where God demonstrated his existence.

No. that's special pleading we have no evidence a god/gods/thing actually exist, so we can't posit them as a cause. We don't even know if the universe requires a cause. To posit a supernatural being having always existed is purely special pleading. Simply because I can claim, that anything (insert name here" " )is the creator, but that does not make it true. Sorry!

The first life form coming into existence on earth could be another.

This is an argument from ignorance. I'd read up about abiogenesis if I were you.

The miracles of Jesus could be a third.

Prove that any of them actually occurred.

[ZackMartin]

Why! Why is a god even needed?

God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.

It is just more special pleading.

How am I engaging in special pleading? How are you not?

There you go, you contradicted yourself again. If god created the universe, then god functions as the explanation for the existence of the universe.

I didn't contradict myself. I believe that the existence of the universe doesn't require any explanation. If that is true, then even if it is true that God created the universe, that doesn't make God the explanation of the universe's existence. Saying that God explains the universe, is saying that the reason we believe in God, is that we need him to explain the existence of other things. I don't agree with that - I don't think God is needed for that purpose, and that is not why I believe in God. But I do believe that God is needed for other purposes, and it is on account of those other purposes that I believe in God.

Ok you objectively prove the claim that a god exists, and once done I'll take back my claim as you call it, for the above.

But what constitutes objective proof?

What! What idiot would say (a) or (c) they are contradictory and extremely foolish. The only thing close to mine is (b). And (d) would only be said by an idiot.

They are not contradictory. (a) X exists, but we don't know that it exists; (b) X exists, and we know X exists; (c) X does not exist, but we don't know that it doesn't exists; (d) X does not exist, and we know that it doesn't exist.

(a) is not contradictory - obviously many things exist but we don't know that they exist. Consider the case of extrasolar planets. For decades, almost all astronomers believed that they existed, but none had been confirmed to exist. Then, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the first few confirmed discoveries of extrasolar planets were made. In the 2000s, the trickle started turning into a flood. Now, we know of the existence of several hundred, and it seems certain that we'll discover thousands upon thousands more in the years to come - pretty well everyone agrees, the universe contains billions of planets. So (a) "X exists, but we don't know that it exists" - that was true of all the discovered extrasolar planets, before we discovered them; and it is true right now of all the extrasolar planets we are yet to discover. So there is nothing contradictory or foolish about (a) - only an extreme subjectivist (and solipsist) would claim that the only things that exist right now are the things that they know about right now.

(c) is not contradictory either. Take for example, "Martian forests". They don't exist. (They certainly don't exist right now, they probably never have, who knows if one day they will.) But, we haven't always known that they didn't exist. In the 19th century, many people thought that Mars might have vegetation on the surface, and since we had not yet developed spacecraft, and since our telescopes are too weak, the possibility could not be ruled out. In the 20th century, we developed the technology to send spacecraft to Mars, and we could confirm the non-existence of Martian forests. So (c) "It doesn't exist, but we don't know that it doesn't exist" used to be true for Martian forests. So there is nothing contradictory or foolish about (c). Nor is there anything foolish about (d) either: that's what Martian forests are today. The non-existence of Martian forests has been constant, but their non-existence has moved from an unknown non-existence (c) to a known non-existence (d) with the development of space probes.

Yes maths can, but it is yet to be done, elsewhere.

Science proves negatives all the time. Like its proof of the non-existence of Martian forests. You might say science can't prove "universal negatives", but what does that mean? You mean that science can't prove that something is false at every point in space, even though it can prove things false at particular points (or in particular subregions.) But how is that relevant to proving or disproving God, when God is not claimed to exist in space? Likewise, science can't prove something false at every point in time, but God is generally viewed as something external to time, or if in time, constant throughout time, so that observation about the powers of science isn't relevant to God either. All this talk about "universal negatives" is really just a non sequitur.

In fact, the case of God is nearer to the case of mathematics than it is to the case of physical objects. Numbers exist, either outside of space and time, or constantly throughout all of space and time. Likewise, God is claimed to exist, either outside of space and time, or constantly throughout all space and time. God is more like a number than like the Loch Ness monster. So the rational standards we apply to God's existence should be closer to those we apply to numbers than those we apply to physical objects.

Well possibly because there is no evidence for said god. And my argument isn't "you can't prove a negative", my argument was "It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence." Big difference.

Why is it nonsensical? It's not nonsensical in mathematics. It's not nonsensical in science. So if you think it is nonsensical with respect to God, is not the burden on you to demonstrate that?

Regards, Zack

[Tassman]

I asked you to experimentally verify your premise: Even an argument which has faultless logic will result in a incorrect conclusion if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified

It was a reasonable request. What’s the matter, can’t you do it?

It was an absurd request. Logic is a methodology – not an entity in its own right as god is claimed to be. It cannot be subjected to verification using an empirical experiment because there is no methodology to formulate a hypothesis or to deduct the consequences of a hypothesis as a testable prediction. And, by the same token, there is no means of establishing a sound case for a premise such as the existence of the supernatural or of gods. Thus, there is NO reason to give intellectual assent to the assertion that gods exist. It is based on a premise that has not or cannot, be verified.

Well your claim here seems absurd since you can’t seem to verify your own premise by the same standard in which your premise demands all premises be verified.

I reached it using reason. You should try it some time.

If you think god’s existence is a valid conclusion explain how you reached such a conclusion when you have no means of establishing the premise of your “reasoned” argument in the first place.

[headheart]

I’ll do better than that. To start I’ll give you three I think are valid.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Argument from Design
The Historical Argument (more specific to Christianity)

Do you have a valid argument(s) for your atheistic position?

I took a similar pathway to that Roy's back in the 90s

1. I prayed to God.
2. God did not reply.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

Solution: I could have prayed for a whole lot longer and with more intensity.

1. Who is Jesus?
2. My studies didn't give me any conclusive evidence about Jesus.
3. Jesus might have been a man but he was more likely a "mere" mythical invention. (or something like that)

Solution: Ask God.

[Roy]

But there apparently are valid arguments for the existence of God.

Then you should be able to produce one. Can you?

I’ll do better than that. To start I’ll give you three I think are valid.

One would be enough - but you can't produce one. You can't even link to one. You can only produce names.

As for the arguments themselves,

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

... is circular (or invalid, depending on which form is used), is based a possibly incorrect premise, and does not mention God.

The Argument from Design

... is not a specific argument, but a vague handwave. There are many different such arguments, ranging from Xenophon through Aquinas and Paley to Behe and Strobel.

The Historical Argument (more specific to Christianity)

... is again not a single argument, but a description applied to many different arguments, of which some rely on the veracty of document of unknown authorship, and others apply equally or better to Islam, Mormonism and Scientology.

If you can produce a valid argument for God, produce one. If you can't, admit it.

Do you have a valid argument(s) for your atheistic position?

Only that the claims made by theists for the properties of their proposed gods are contradictory, often absurd, not backed up by any evidence, and the so-called logical arguments for their gods have holes large anough to fly a space shuttle through. Although it is likely that something must have kicked off the universe, there is no reason to believe any of the various gods various religions have proposed have anything to do with it.


Roy

[headheart]

Only that the claims made by theists for the properties of their proposed gods are contradictory, often absurd, not backed up by any evidence, and the so-called logical arguments for their gods have holes large anough to fly a space shuttle through. Although it is likely that something must have kicked off the universe, there is no reason to believe any of the various gods various religions have proposed have anything to do with it.


Roy

Well that'd only be dealing with Cosmogony and is a very weak argument to begin with. Not even the Physicists know the answer to such a thing though I heard Stephen Hawking giving it a try. (the big question) = http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_haw..._universe.html and earlier Wienberg with Dawkins = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsDr...E6DDDA9CEA82BF (eight parts)
What about working backwards very delicately through all of literature in search of traces of humility?

Peace,
Eric.

[Roy]

What about working backwards very delicately through all of literature in search of traces of humility?

All of literature? That might take some time. Can I at least speed the search by starting with David Copperfield?

Roy

[shunyadragon]

All of literature? That might take some time. Can I at least speed the search by starting with David Copperfield?

Roy

. . . and simply go to Gilgamesh the first known literary work.

[bertatberts]

Why! Why is a god even needed?

God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.

That's like saying, if you ask 1000 15 year olds if they believe Santa Claus exists and 2 say yes, the plausibility is low, but if I step next door to a kindergarten class and 95 out of 100 say yes, now the plausibility of Santa Claus's existence is at least straightforward.
Do you see the absurdity in that?
Remove the supernatural and the supernatural being vanishes in a puff of logic.

It is just more special pleading.

How am I engaging in special pleading? How are you not?

Because you're calling on a supernatural entity, without any evidence of its existence whatsoever, where none is needed. And I make no such claim.
"Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens Hence special pleading.

There you go, you contradicted yourself again. If god created the universe, then god functions as the explanation for the existence of the universe.

I didn't contradict myself. I believe that the existence of the universe doesn't require any explanation. If that is true, then even if it is true that God created the universe, that doesn't make God the explanation of the universe's existence. Saying that God explains the universe, is saying that the reason we believe in God, is that we need him to explain the existence of other things. I don't agree with that - I don't think God is needed for that purpose, and that is not why I believe in God. But I do believe that God is needed for other purposes, and it is on account of those other purposes that I believe in God.

Obvious you're too blinked to see, so I won't push it, I just let you carry on in your ignorance. You people are extremely hard work sometimes.

Ok you objectively prove the claim that a god exists, and once done I'll take back my claim as you call it, for the above.

But what constitutes objective proof?

It is information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research. Which can also be quantified and tested by a 3rd party.
The evidence cannot be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

What! What idiot would say (a) or (c) they are contradictory and extremely foolish. The only thing close to mine is (b). And (d) would only be said by an idiot.

They are not contradictory.------------ --------------(d) with the development of space probes.

Pointless waste of effort.

Yes maths can, but it is yet to be done, elsewhere.

Science proves negatives all the time. ------------ -------------So the rational standards we apply to God's existence should be closer to those we apply to numbers than those we apply to physical objects.

Again pointless waste of effort. There are no rational standards to an imaginary entity.

Well possibly because there is no evidence for said god. And my argument isn't "you can't prove a negative", my argument was "It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence." Big difference.

Why is it nonsensical? It's not nonsensical in mathematics. It's not nonsensical in science. So if you think it is nonsensical with respect to God, is not the burden on you to demonstrate that?

The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be a base (either in substance or in thought) for any assertion, else it must be denied. Assertions, without evidence, cannot be accepted as true. This is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back said, things up is the essence of critical thought. Without critical thought, logic and science fly out the window. Critical thought is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject it is to turn ones back on thinking and embrace the Lunacy.
"If a devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion in the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of "THINKING". The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit to destroying the mind." - Ayn Rand

When you require an answer to the kind of statement, such has "Prove a god/gods doesn't exist" you have a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.

Firstly, people who believe in god/gods do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their claim is implicit: god/gods exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make it is assumed that the statement “god/gods exist” is true. Because they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an claim that a god/gods exists. No such claim is forthcoming by an atheist. The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these things must take place before any discussion about the nature of god/gods can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – due to not having any beliefs about god/gods; they have no reason to do so. The onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in god/gods serves as an assertion that god/gods exist.

Secondly, a person who rejects a god/gods claim does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence must be provided by the party making the claim. The person rejecting the claim needs to provide nothing at all.

Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. However, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think god/gods exist” and Person B says “I don’t think god/gods exist,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a god/gods. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement.
The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that god/gods exists, he does not specify the nature of god/gods that is, is god/gods small, large, blue, green? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that god/gods do not exist, if “god/gods” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of except for the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what the heck I’m talking about.”

Logical statements have to follow certain rules and restrictions. For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested. The existence of god/gods is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that god/gods don’t exist no one even knows what god/gods are supposed to be.

[nightbringer]

Bert, you are a frightening reminder of how powerless a weapon reason can be in combatting ignorance and illusion.

[bertatberts]

Bert, you are a frightening reminder of how powerless a weapon reason can be in combatting ignorance and illusion.

Careful you would have to know what reason is, to be able to use it in a sentence, just putting it in there and hoping that you may understand it one day, wont help. However ignorance and illusion must be commonplace and easy to understand for you.

[nightbringer]

Careful you would have to know what reason is, to be able to use it in a sentence, just putting it in there and hoping that you may understand it one day, wont help. However ignorance and illusion must be commonplace and easy to understand for you.

Not a bad comeback, kiddo.

[ZackMartin]

That's like saying, if you ask 1000 15 year olds if they believe Santa Claus exists and 2 say yes, the plausibility is low, but if I step next door to a kindergarten class and 95 out of 100 say yes, now the plausibility of Santa Claus's existence is at least straightforward.
Do you see the absurdity in that?
Remove the supernatural and the supernatural being vanishes in a puff of logic.

I don't see how your comment has any relation to what I said. I said God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.. My argument is not an argument from majority or an argument from authority, so I'm not sure how your reference to differing numbers of 15 year olds and kindergartners is even remotely relevant.

Because you're calling on a supernatural entity, without any evidence of its existence whatsoever, where none is needed. And I make no such claim.
"Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens Hence special pleading.

Define "special pleading". Here is one definition: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.. Is that the definition you are using, or a different one? If that is the definition you are using, how is that what I am doing? What principle am I applying to others but refusing to apply to myself?

I disagree with the principle that all claims require evidence to be believed. Consider the claim "1+1=2". What is the evidence for that claim? I'm not sure there is any, but we are obviously justified in believing it. Even if mathematicians can produce various proofs of "1+1=2" based on more abstract principles, the fact remains that the vast majority of people are ignorant of these proofs, and yet believe "1+1=2" anyway - and I wouldn't even say this is an argument from authority, since they don't rely on mathematician's expertise to know that "1+1=2" (whereas they do rely on physicist's expertise to know that E=mc^2, by contrast). So I think Hitchens statement "Claims put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is wrong - "1+1=2" is a claim put forward without evidence, yet only a fool would dismiss it.

I think you are committing a common fallacy among atheists (but not unique to them) - the "name a fallacy" fallacy. That is when you respond to your opponent's argument with the brief statement "That's the X fallacy!", and you (1) don't provide or refer to a specific definition of the fallacy (since many of these fallacies will be defined somewhat differently in different sources); (2) don't provide any argument that your opponent's statements actually match that definition; (3) don't provide any argument that the fallacy, by that definition, actually is fallacious. Lists of common fallacies are not a substitute for actually engaging in detail with your opponent's arguments, and nor are they inerrant - just because someone writes out a list of common fallacies, doesn't mean that the list is correct - they could have defined them incorrectly or imprecisely - and maybe some of the items they have claimed as fallacies aren't fallacious at all, or aren't fallacies in all circumstances. Regurgitated talking points are not a substitute for independent thought.

Obvious you're too blinked to see, so I won't push it, I just let you carry on in your ignorance. You people are extremely hard work sometimes.

The reply of one incapable of actually engaging with their opponent's argument.

It is information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research. Which can also be quantified and tested by a 3rd party.
The evidence cannot be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

So you define "objective proof". How do you know that your definition is the right one? Maybe your definition is too narrow? Maybe there are other forms of objective proof, which you refuse to acknowledge? At the very least, I'd say your definition is rather vague and unclear. Please give me an objective proof of the correctness of your definition of "objective proof".

Pointless waste of effort.

Rather than respond to my points, you respond with this. Is that because you don't have a response to my points? Could it be that my argument is correct but you are unwilling to admit that?

Again pointless waste of effort. There are no rational standards to an imaginary entity.

You are guilty of circular argumentation. You assume your conclusion (God does not exist) in your premise. You insist that belief in God is against the standards of rationality, but you refuse to consider the possibility of God's existence while determining what those standards are.

The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be a base (either in substance or in thought) for any assertion, else it must be denied. Assertions, without evidence, cannot be accepted as true. This is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back said, things up is the essence of critical thought. Without critical thought, logic and science fly out the window. Critical thought is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject it is to turn ones back on thinking and embrace the Lunacy.
"If a devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion in the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of "THINKING". The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit to destroying the mind." - Ayn Rand

Where is the evidence that the "rules of science and logic" which you cite are indeed correct? Where is the evidence that my memory is reliable? Not all beliefs require evidence. There are some things which it is perfectly rational to believe, and indeed irrational to disbelieve, and yet no evidence for them is available, indeed none is required.

Remember the Münchhausen trilemma - every search for rational justification can only end in one of three ways - things believed without evidence, infinite regress, or circular argumentation. We have no choice but to believe some things without evidence. The only question is, which things?

When you require an answer to the kind of statement, such has "Prove a god/gods doesn't exist" you have a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.

I don't think I have any fundamental misunderstanding of those topics; if anything, I think you do.

Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. However, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think god/gods exist” and Person B says “I don’t think god/gods exist,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a god/gods. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement.
The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that god/gods exists, he does not specify the nature of god/gods that is, is god/gods small, large, blue, green? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that god/gods do not exist, if “god/gods” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of except for the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what the heck I’m talking about.”

Here is a very minimal definition of "God": "A being which exists external to this universe, and which created it". So your claim that theists don't offer any definition of "God" is false; I just gave one.

Of course, many definitions will add extra properties, but I think that is the bare minimum to capture what most theists mean by "God". (The definition doesn't work for pantheists, but it might work for panentheists.) Common extra properties include omniscience (knowing everything it is logically possible to know), omnipotence (having the maximal possible power, the power to do anything it is logically possible to do), omnibenevolence (being perfectly good), everlastingness (existence within time, without beginning or end) or eternity (existence outside of time altogether), personality (being a mind/person, as opposed to an impersonal thing). Not every theist agrees with all of these, but most would agree with most of them. And then individual theistic religions add more religiously specific claims as well, such as the Christian claim that God is triune and became incarnate as a human being, or the Islamic claim that God has sent a succession of prophets of whom Muhammad is the last.

You ask, "When a person asserts that god/gods exists, he does not specify the nature of god/gods that is, is god/gods small, large, blue, green?". Well, as I've mentioned, most theists will provide a list of properties they believe God has, like those listed in the previous paragraph. Different theists give different lists, but there is a common element. But your suggestions of properties, "small", "large", "blue", "green", are mistaken. Theists generally agree that God is not a physical object, and hence lacks physical properties such as colour or size or location. Asking whether God is blue or green, is as nonsensical as asking whether the number 17 is blue or green. Asking where God is located is as nonsensical as asking where the number 17 is located. Is the number 17 in this galaxy, or in another one? Some "theists" believe that "God" is actually a physical being - e.g. Mormons say God has a body of flesh and bones, Raelians say that God is actually an alien from another planet - but most theists, myself included, would consider this so far from "God" as we understand it to be actually talking about a completely different thing yet calling it by the same name.

This actually raises a good point about definition - two theists don't have to completely agree on the properties of God to still be talking about the same being. Like I said in another thread, two people can have completely different ideas about a person called Fred, even totally wrong ideas about this Fred, and yet still be talking about the same Fred. On the other hand, some properties are essential, if you deny them you are not talking about the same person any more. Two people can disagree about almost everything about Fred, and still be talking about the same person; but if one of them then decides that Fred is actually a flowerpot, then they aren't talking about the same Fred any more. Same with God - theists can disagree about whether God is everlasting (beginningless and endless existence within time) or eternal (existence outside of time), but still be talking about the same being; but if someone said "God is a fish, he is living in the pond in my garden", then they aren't talking about the same thing any more. LDS and Raelians are maybe an example of that. And of course, people will disagree upon exactly which properties are essential to the definition, and which aren't - but that's not unique to God, people have disagreements about the definitions of things in many other fields of endeavour also. The important thing, is not that we prove our definition is right and the others wrong (often an impossible and pointless task), but simply that everyone in the discussion makes clear what definition they use.

Logical statements have to follow certain rules and restrictions. For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested. The existence of god/gods is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical.

OK, so is the statement "For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect" falsifiable? I can't see any way to falsify it. But if it is not falsifiable, then by its own terms, it isn't logical. So why should we accept it? Your position is self-defeating.

Zack

[headheart]

. . . and simply go to Gilgamesh the first known literary work.

I knew I should have altered that to read cave paintings.

[Tassman]

Well that'd only be dealing with Cosmogony and is a very weak argument to begin with. Not even the Physicists know the answer to such a thing though I heard Stephen Hawking giving it a try. (the big question) = http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_haw..._universe.html and earlier Wienberg with Dawkins = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edsDr...E6DDDA9CEA82BF (eight parts)
What about working backwards very delicately through all of literature in search of traces of humility?

Peace,
Eric.

Not yet! But our experience of the scientific method dating back to Copernicus and Galileo is a strong indication that we are more likely to find the answer in physics than in the religions. And Stephen Hawking's scientific investigations “have shed light on the origins of the cosmos, the nature of time and the ultimate fate of universe” even if as yet he hasn’t arrived at the definitive answers.