It's not easy to puzzle out what you are driving at, @JR45 , since you have chosen not to explain yourself so far. Still, I'm willing to hazard a guess at parts of what you might mean so here goes. The universe contains billions of billions of galaxies, stars, planets, comets, and other stuff, whilst the Earth is a tiny speck of dust. The notion that the science of humankind actually does today know everything in the universe is preposterous to the point of lunacy. In an earlier post, you implied that people exist who "believe that science can and does know everything", and I responded that I have never heard of anyone who believes that. You have neither withdrawn nor substantiated your implication. OK, that's up to you; perhaps you have simply abandoned it - which is fine. Instead you make what seems to be some kind of vague imputation relating to me. Not sure what it is, or what connection it might have with anything I have ever said. If you want to, you could explain - or not.
"are you, finally, prepared to say that science doesn't have an answer for everything? Or will you come back with another longwinded answer that doesn't actually do that?" It was a simple question, which you have answered...
Most amusing. You ask a complex and obscure question, containing vague and misleading implications, and when asked to explain it you don't - you just baldly say, "It was a simple question".
"Within the intellect" isn't really good English in that context. Since you're so keen on questioning the cognitive abilities of forum members and obviously have a very high opinion of your own, I'd just like to point that out.
"The notion that the science of humankind actually does today know everything in the universe is preposterous to the point of lunacy." So, you agree; science does not know everything? (This is a new, different, question by the way)
Did you know the world is flat and it travels on the backs of four elephants who in turn sit astride a turtle paddling it's way through space
Mankind, which includes women as it refers to man as a species, so please don't correct me, doesn't know everything yet, But it is close to doing so - though perhaps will not achieve it for some years - by applying the scientific principles and discoveries of geniuses, such as Pythagoras, Coperinicus and Newton and Einstein, among others. So yes, science does have the answer to everything, in my opinion: it is just a question of when and how we find those answers. Disagreement with that statement is of course possibe but would take us out of the realm of fhe thing we know as facts and upon which we base our exisence into the land of romance, emotion and fantasy where faith resides. Look at history. People used to believe all sorts of things we find risible now - some still do. Fine. I am happy for anyone to live in whaatever fantasy land they wish as long as they pay their way. But I'd prefer it if they didn't try to drag others with them, form governments that pass laws based on their way of life or demand that they are given special treatment because they believe something that cannot be proved or that others do not wish to have any influence over their lives. I sometimes wonder if the Englightement of the 18th century ever happened, such is mankind's devotion to hocus pocus! Now, God, Allah, Beezelbub, Wickerman, Ganesh (the Elephant God) or whomever strike me dead if I am wrong ...
Oh dear... You're as bad as Pete ! Open your mind ! In something as wonderous and (as far as we know) infinite as the entire universe, how can anyone be so arogant as to believe that something as insignificant as a human could ever come close to knowing everything? Using your own logic - we used to believe all sorts of things that have been proved to be wrong... Don't you think that astronomers, scientists and pilosophers of old also thought they knew everything? Just because mankind has been around for a few thousand years doesn't mean we have developed far enough to be all-knowing. Thousands of years, in cosmic terms, is next to nothing. One thing that really can be stated as absolutely certain is that most of the things we think we know now will be proved to be wrong in the future...
I totally disagree. But I am open to being PROVED wrong. I don't have to prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting the sky but obscured from our view by other celestial bodies. If you believe there is, you have to prove its existence. That's just an analogy by the way. I'm not suggesting that you are daft enough to believe such a flight of fantasy and I'm sure your beliefs could not be dismissed in such a way. But do you get my point?
