by exploited » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:31 pm
Wow, Breakage, you really don't get it huh? I honestly don't think I can help you, given that you are just stating what I am saying and refusing to follow it to its logical conclusion. But I'll give it one last shot.
The entire point was exactly what you just said. The glass would still fall off the table, regardless of the theory, or what condition it is in. That is the entire point.
You want to use the limitations of human knowledge as a springboard to meaningless platitudes. You say, God could be proven, I say that is literally impossible. Because there is no evidence that he does exist, and because there can be no evidence, it follows that the whole idea needs to be cut out of any real philosophy.
In the same way, the glass will still fall off the table, regardless of our understanding of gravity. There is a good chance that the theory will be changed in the future; until that time, it is one hundred percent reasonable to say that the glass will fall off the table due to gravity, and not entertain the notion that it is due to invisible, glass-hating space demons not yet detected.
Now once you're at this point, you have to factor in the simple reality that we will never transcend spatio temporal reality. That is absolutely certain. It is impossible. This makes it now different from the theory of gravity, in that not only can it not be changed, but our ability to perceive a God being was non-existent in the first place.
According to your position, it is more reasonable to entertain the possibility of space demons and flying dildos, based on our limitations, than it is to cut them out, based on our limitations. That is mysticism in a nutshell, and completely unworthy of being taken seriously.
