The Order of Rank (Humans)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 27, 2012, 00:22 (4376 days ago) @ xeno6696


> If I say lightning is 
> 
> 1. caused by a difference in potential between positively charged particles and negatively charged particles, is that explanation better than 
> 
> 2. "Zeus throws lightning from Olympus?"
> 
> Now, dhw is right--the ultimate truth is sincerely unknowable. How do we know when we've reached it? My position now--as it has been all along--is that ultimate truth is irrelevant. Only if you become God can you gain it, so that entire avenue is done before it begins. 
> 
>
> 
> So far, I bet everyone is on board with me. So I'll ask again, what is it about statement 1 that is better than statement 2? I have my own thoughts, but I'm interested to hear some responses. Yes, I know that the example is simple, but I'll also challenge that the same logic holds even for explanations that are nowhere near as understood as electricity.--Um, statement one is not better than statement two, nor is statement two better than statement one. They are answers to different questions. Lightning is the what, number one is the WHO and the other is the HOW, and there is nothing mentioned about the WHY. The WHERE is transitional from sky to earth and mainly a dispute about the origin :P Science can ONLY answer WHAT & HOW. Nothing else. Ever. Never Ever. -That is where I get pissy with both science, religion, and even philosophy at times. They try to say that they are experts in each others fields and that they can prove/disprove/falsify each other. Science can NEVER tell us if "God did it" they can only tell us WHAT happened and HOW. Origins are beyond the scope of the scientific realm, and scientist should leave them alone(at least professionally)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.