[Guest]

It seems there is a lot of controversy over this topic on Brainden.... Understandable... Well I just mean spiritual as in God but also as in ghosts and things. What is your opinion?

[andromeda]

But why is that the only truth they can live with?

I'd contend it's part of the cognitive infrastructure their parents endowed them with at a young age. Their understanding of the world has built on these basic foundations ever since. So, even when they realise their church has lied to them, they're still looking for a meaning in the same context. The understanding of the world they've built, makes no sense except within the framework of sentient causation. It takes effort and bravery to throw out those tried and trusted lies to really think about things.

Take the typical anti-atheist complaint "without a god there's no meaning to life".

It's a non-statement, but it gets used all the time. To even see that the meaning to life is held within each of us, and is something each person decides/stumbles on requires the thinker to look at their own goals and desires. So the sheeples won't. Meaning has to come from an external source or they'd have to look into their own mind, and they won't do that.

/rant

Welcome to the Den and great deduction!

My grandmother used to take me to church all the time when I was a kid, however I was never smittened by God, or Jesus... The only conclusion that I got as a ten year old, going to the church and looking at the murals at the church was that Jesus was an alien

[Guest]

Welcome to the Den and great deduction!

My grandmother used to take me to church all the time when I was a kid, however I was never smittened by God, or Jesus... The only conclusion that I got as a ten year old, going to the church and looking at the murals at the church was that Jesus was an alien

The Huns did much to shape culture by being an alien threat around when the church was forming, but I hadn't heard there had been any Chrestos dipictions as a Hun. :-)

But in relation to the imagery you're probably talking about for ol' Chrestos the Jewish trouble maker, the Roman Bishop (AKA Pope) gave him the toga, colours, and halo of an Emperor. The robes an halo signify Roman military might, and that Mr Jeebus would be leading the Romans in their conquests of those nasty non-catholic barbarians (ie christians who didn't like the catholics).

[Izzy]

Mr Jeebus would be leading the Romans in their conquests of those nasty non-catholic barbarians (ie christians who didn't like the catholics).

I blame Jebus for the Fall of Rome.. The real Gods would have never let that happen! All hail ye mighty Zeus! (Still waiting for a smitin' from good ol' gawd.)

[akaslickster]

I blame Jebus for the Fall of Rome.. The real Gods would have never let that happen! All hail ye mighty Zeus! (Still waiting for a smitin' from good ol' gawd.)

Nice for all to opine about their beliefs. The spiritual world may or may not exist. That is why one must be deceased in order to find out. I, personally, believe that there is a 50/50 possibility, regarding any type of circumstance, thereof.

Why should one start proclaiming something, that had not been completely proven to others?

The answer lies in ones own belief.

I will take that on, stipulating that the time actually happens when I encounter any type of possibility.

Meanwhile, I will continue to be a person who is open-minded to that very discussion.

Do not reject everything until you are dead. Perhaps, then you will have a chance to decide WTF.

[Guest]

I blame Jebus for the Fall of Rome.. The real Gods would have never let that happen! All hail ye mighty Zeus! (Still waiting for a smitin' from good ol' gawd.)

NOOOO!!!!!

Jupiter!

But yes, it did pretty much fall apart after they tore apart Jupiter's temples and put up silly catholic things. Oh, and burnt the oracle pages.

[Guest]

Is there a spiritual world?

Let me begin with T.H. Huxley's analogy:

"The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an island in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."

Now one characterization of that "ocean of inexplicability" is that it is (at least for now) the dominion of spirits, or the place where only mysticism can "float our boat". Science (Reason) seems limited to the dry land, positing falsifiable hypotheses about the surrounding ocean. Mystics gleefully plunge in and swim. Why not? What rational basis do we have to prevent them? Do the best swimmers come back bearing, for example, emotional content that sustains and nutures the island's rational inhabitants in demonstrable and measurable ways?

I am here to learn. I hope ADParker, among others who've posted here, will come back and provide me with some guidance based on reason. Intuitively I have a desire to explore the seas of inexplicability in every way available to my mortal being. I know that I did not begin my mortal journey as a rational being. I began as a bit of DNA that preceded the "big bang" of my conception.

Does DNA rely on reason? Or vice-versa?

At what point in a human's personal growth does (s)he stop relying on the "force" of ancestral electro-chemical drives and begin productively applying reason?

Was our pre-rational existence completely unbiased? How much of it must we un-learn before we can trust our rational capabilities to be truly objective?

Are we, as human beings at any sort of pinnacle of rational evolution? Is our rationality in any sense perfect? If not, how do we compensate for the as yet undetected biases in our reasoning?

[Guest]

It seems there is a lot of controversy over this topic on Brainden.... Understandable... Well I just mean spiritual as in God but also as in ghosts and things. What is your opinion?

God is alive and well and in Heaven with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who lives in God's true children and guides them. Ghosts and things also exist, they are pretty well-known in the occult ('under cover") world. I used to call them ghosts and departed spirits, now i call them devils posing as departed souls. But that's me. Each to his own, they say.

{A major argument against the existence of God is the fact of death and pain and suffering. Before Adam and Eve ate the forbiden fruit, there was no death, no pain no suffering. Genesis 1:31 states that God looked on what He had created, and it was very good. Only when mankind decided to stand on their right of disobedience, God cursed the earth for man's sake. More work to do, less time to be idle and do things they shouldn't. And that is where suffering and pain and death started. It was then that God told man that he will go back to the dust he was made of.} (Concerning a link to an atheist site)

Some go on this to point out that an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, loving God would be there and stop mankind before the sin. While it is possible for Him, He gave mankind the power of free will. He gave them one little order (don't eat that fruit) and left the rest of their decisions up to them. That is why He did not interfere when they decided to steal what they were not allowed to have. He gave them the choice to obey or not, and they decided to follow their own minds instead of His one command.

And that is why we have things like pain and suffering and death and disease. Because people love to leave God's Word out of their choices.

[unreality]

why do thousands of generations have to suffer because one idiot named Adam made a bad choice? Why is he (or he and Eve, or whatever) representative of Humanity?

Though to diverge, if I was in the same spot, I would choose Knowledge over Bliss

[Guest]

why do thousands of generations have to suffer because one idiot named Adam made a bad choice? Why is he (or he and Eve, or whatever) representative of Humanity?

Also, why would god even make the temptation in the first place? If he didn't want Adam to eat his special apples, why make it possible for him to do so? Besides, if god was all-knowing, shouldn't he have seen it coming? Seems kinda silly if you ask me.

[Izzy]

Yay, joy, another theist. This site really was starting to bore me.

God is alive and well and in Heaven with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who lives in God's true children and guides them. Ghosts and things also exist, they are pretty well-known in the occult ('under cover") world. I used to call them ghosts and departed spirits, now i call them devils posing as departed souls. But that's me. Each to his own, they say.

Okay, but I thought God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit were all one?

There isn't really much to debunk here, other than it all being false of course, as I'll just throw is off as a general definition of God as EC will use to argue in his further statements.

{A major argument against the existence of God is the fact of death and pain and suffering.Before Adam and Eve ate the forbiden fruit, there was no death, no pain no suffering. Genesis 1:31 states that God looked on what He had created, and it was very good. Only when mankind decided to stand on their right of disobedience, God cursed the earth for man's sake. More work to do, less time to be idle and do things they shouldn't. And that is where suffering and pain and death started. It was then that God told man that he will go back to the dust he was made of.} (Concerning a link to an atheist site)

Alright, fair enough, but what's with the pain and suffering that's just so inhumane? Like the worms that crawl into the eyes of innocent African children as they sleep? Or 9/11, which was done in the name of a different God? Or child cancer? Or random weird deformities? Or severely handicapped children as the result from incest relationships, which the bible had many in anyway? etc. etc. Should original sin really be that big of a deal that Gawd is punishing us, *thinks in bible terms* six thousand years later? That makes God sound pretty childish. "Oh, you hurt my feelings, so I'm never going to forgive you!"

Some go on this to point out that an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, loving God would be there and stop mankind before the sin. While it is possible for Him, He gave mankind the power of free will. He gave them one little order (don't eat that fruit) and left the rest of their decisions up to them. That is why He did not interfere when they decided to steal what they were not allowed to have. He gave them the choice to obey or not, and they decided to follow their own minds instead of His one command.

I've actually never made that argument myself. But you still claim god is this omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being. So alright, let's break these up one at a time.

Omnipotence: God can either create a rock he can lift, or be unable to create a rock he can't lift. Paradox, ergo no God. You could say God is doing both, but in different dimensions, but that still limits the power of both Gods.Still no omnipotence.

Omniscience: If God knows everything, then he knew the outcome of all of this before it was ever played out. Meaning, he knew he'd wipe us all out and take us to heaven someday, where we would praise him eternally. ..Well, that's the point? Why should we have to suffer so long, and the worship a god that did nothing for us? An all-knowing god should see our reluctance in this. Yet, he banishes us to hell for not conforming. So.. what's the point?

Omnipresence (stolen from page 33 of God: The Failed Hypothesis.

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).

2. If god exists, he is omnipresent.

3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.

4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.

5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

And that is why we have things like pain and suffering and death and disease. Because people love to leave God's Word out of their choices.

Nope, you've proven nothing. We feel pain because we evolved that way. We have suffering because we're conscious beings with emotions. We die because our cells die, which die because after enough cell divisions, the telomeres are exhausted, and the missing bits start to eat into genes. Diseases are caused by germ cells, which just evolve naturally. Also, last sentence is BS. Many devout Christians/Catholics/whatever have died from cancer and stuff. Unless you're referring to original sin again. Well.. didn't Jesus die for all that anyway?

[Guest]

Or 9/11, which was done in the name of a different God?

The God of Islam is the same god as the Christian God and the Hebrew God.

Paradox, ergo no God.

Help me with that. I would think that Paradox implies both "there is a God" and "there is no God" at the same time.

Why does one's God have to be omnipotent? (S)he could just be, for example, the most powerful thing in the universe--capable of controlling everything humans can sense or observe, etc. but not everything absolutely.

For those who take the Bible for guidance, there's reason to suspect that this particular God isn't perfect. I love to quote the time when Moses told God to repent and he did (Exodus 32: 12-14).

If Paradox implies both God:yes and God:no then the whole debate between the dogmatic atheists and the dogmatic theists seems pretty ludicrous. There is room in the universe for both of you. Look to your true God: Paradox!

Edited April 11, 2009 by seeksit

[Izzy]

Allah isn't the same god as Yahweh. In Islam, Jesus is just another prophet, while in Christianity, he's God himself.

God's existence in itself isn't a paradox (he simply doesn't exist), but his traits are. Remove the traits, we have no problem. Remove all the traits that cause problems, and you have no God left.

[Guest]

God is alive and well and in Heaven with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who lives in God's true children and guides them. Ghosts and things also exist, they are pretty well-known in the occult ('under cover") world. I used to call them ghosts and departed spirits, now i call them devils posing as departed souls. But that's me. Each to his own, they say.

{A major argument against the existence of God is the fact of death and pain and suffering. Before Adam and Eve ate the forbiden fruit, there was no death, no pain no suffering. Genesis 1:31 states that God looked on what He had created, and it was very good. Only when mankind decided to stand on their right of disobedience, God cursed the earth for man's sake. More work to do, less time to be idle and do things they shouldn't. And that is where suffering and pain and death started. It was then that God told man that he will go back to the dust he was made of.} (Concerning a link to an atheist site)

Some go on this to point out that an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, loving God would be there and stop mankind before the sin. While it is possible for Him, He gave mankind the power of free will. He gave them one little order (don't eat that fruit) and left the rest of their decisions up to them. That is why He did not interfere when they decided to steal what they were not allowed to have. He gave them the choice to obey or not, and they decided to follow their own minds instead of His one command.

I do not think death, pain and suffering are an argument against your God. The God portrayed in the Old Testament was a very big fan of all of those things. The problem is that you must already believe in (the X-ian) God to believe in the Bible. I, and others, believe the stories of the Bible to be mostly fictional, with a sprinkling of fantastically embellished accounts of events that may or may not have occurred. You therefore need to show me something other than scripture if you are to convince me there is a God.

While we're at it, how do you dismiss other beliefs with the Bible? How can you be so convinced that your god, which you happened to have been exposed to because of your ethnicity and/or geography, is the real God, that yours is the One True Faith among all the other True Faiths? Have you read the Vedas? The Tao-te-Ching? How do you know one of them isn't true? Or both? Or none?

Until somebody -- anybody -- shows me one credible and objective piece of evidence of the existence of God -- any god, I'm not picky which one -- continuing this discussion is kind of pointless. The best anybody has come up with so far basically amount to: "if you already believe in God, it's obvious that God is all around us", and "it says God did such and such in the Bible". Can't anybody do better than these pathetic circular arguments?

And that is why we have things like pain and suffering and death and disease. Because people love to leave God's Word out of their choices.

Are you serious? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that if we all let God make our decisions for us He would make the pain and suffering go away? That it's because of me and my ilk that there's war, disease, corruption, poverty, filth, and hatred? I really hope I've misunderstood...

[Izzy]

I do not think death, pain and suffering are an argument against your God. The God portrayed in the Old Testament was a very big fan of all of those things.

That made me laugh out loud.

Are you serious? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that if we all let God make our decisions for us He would make the pain and suffering go away? That it's because of me and my ilk that there's war, disease, corruption, poverty, filth, and hatred? I really hope I've misunderstood...

Some friends and I were arguing with theists on the Bible page on Facebook (which we all got banned from. Religious oppression!), and yeah, I had people tell me that. Mind, I can't go back and find the exact quotes, but whilst discussing free will, I was told that "God created us with a will. But we must deny it and follow Christ. We do not have control..". What utter stupidity. Free will loses it's point entirely, and no, I will not submit. Nor should any of you. People also said that God only shows himself through 'bad events' (read: DISASTERS), and that if we really all did accept God, disease, death, etc. would vanish.

Really, they've been brainwashed since childhood, and I guess this complete bull comes with that..

[Guest]

Allah isn't the same god as Yahweh. In Islam, Jesus is just another prophet, while in Christianity, he's God himself.

You are free to believe as you choose, Izzy. There's plenty of room for you to claim that the manifestations of God in the three "Holy Land" Religions have diverged. However I was originally addressing your comment about 9/11--an act of those who (presumably) take their guidance from the Qur'an. I based my statement on the Qur'an, Surah 2 verse 136: Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and The revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendents (children of Jacob) and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (In Islam)". To believers in the Qur'an, that book is entirely the direct word of God.

God's existence in itself isn't a paradox (he simply doesn't exist)

Do you claim to have succeeded in proving a negative? This statement may have been less than a full expression of your views, but on the face of it, it seems hard to defend.

[andromeda]

Do you claim to have succeeded in proving a negative? This statement may have been less than a full expression of your views, but on the face of it, it seems hard to defend.

Actually God had 2000 years to show up, but he never did?! That proves a lot!!

I think that all of you theists are just waiting for Godot!

Edited April 12, 2009 by andromeda

[Guest]

And that is why we have things like pain and suffering and death and disease. Because people love to leave God's Word out of their choices.

People aren't going to let you get away with this statement unless you claim it to be your personal belief based on your faith rather than a statement of fact.

Do you believe that ignoring God's Word is the *only* cause of pain and suffering and death and disease, etc.? If men are given choice, perhaps other aspects of the universe are also free to function without God's interference.

If the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, it only makes sense that this God would step back and allow things to evolve. What would be the point of a universe without any deviation from perfection?

If, on the other hand, there is a less-than-perfect God who can't know (and thus can't control), say, the precise position and momentum of every particle, then free choice is intrinsically embedded in the universe, even if one claims it was created by this God. (The laws of Physics of our universe declare that it is intrinsically--absolutely--impossible to know the precise whereabouts and momentum of every particle. This is not just an issue of not being able to measure it, but an issue of its absolute immeasureability.)

Edited April 12, 2009 by seeksit

[Izzy]

Do you claim to have succeeded in proving a negative? This statement may have been less than a full expression of your views, but on the face of it, it seems hard to defend.

You seem to be misunderstanding. God's existence isn't a paradox. Omnipotence, however, is. This would only hold true if something is actually omnipotent. Which is why nothing can be. Therefore, God isn't omnipotent. Now, the same is true for most of God's other traits. Meaning, God must not have these traits. But without these traits, God isn't really all the awesome-sounding, and making God also not what God claimed to be. So *shrugs* God either isn't great, or doesn't exist. If God exists, it's doubtful he created us, as he'd be no more special than any of us, and it'd basically be a very 'hands-off' experience anyway. So he might as well not exist.

Honestly, arguing with theists has lost it's fun for me. Same stuff over and over again, you know? Bah.

[Magic_luver101]

in all the world i never thought i would find a bumper stiker halpful this is what it said IF YOU HAVE A GOD GOOD FOR YOU IF YOU DONT HAVE A GOD GOOD FOR YOU JUST DONT TALK TO ME ABOUT IT it was blunt and to the point most people only bring on religon to get in an argument now i am not saying that i dont like reading and talking about this with you guys but we are being much more civile then most

[akaslickster]

Yes, there is a spiritual world if you allow it to exist mentally or have been shown some other way to be proven. The other alternative is just go along with ma & dads traditional belief, and follow as peeps do.

I am certain without proof that if people are good, then good will come back to them.

[Guest]

People aren't going to let you get away with this statement unless you claim it to be your personal belief based on your faith rather than a statement of fact.

How does that make it any better? Doesn't it make it worse? Plenty of people believe things that are not supported by facts -- for instance, that some races are superior to others. Surely you can't be arguing that racial hatred is OK, provided there's no basis for it.

You're being rather vague about what you meant by that statement, but I don't think you should "get away with it" at all, because, quite frankly, I find it offensive. The implication is usually that people who do not believe in God, or who believe in the wrong God(s), are incapable of "pure" love, compassion, or moral judgment. But is that so? For starters, I am not blinded by such prejudice, but perhaps more importantly, my ethical decisions are based on conscience, rather than fear of damnation, or trying to guess Jesus might have done. I fail to understand why we need God to distinguish right from wrong. Are we not perfectly capable of determining ourselves the effect of our actions on others? Is a choice made for our own salvation really free?

Do you believe that ignoring God's Word is the *only* cause of pain and suffering and death and disease, etc.? If men are given choice, perhaps other aspects of the universe are also free to function without God's interference.

Uh... you said that. Remember? I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't believe in God.

If the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, it only makes sense that this God would step back and allow things to evolve. What would be the point of a universe without any deviation from perfection?

Doesn't it make just as much sense that God is an obsessive neat-freak who wants everything to be perfect? Or that He thinks of us as lab rats? Or that He is bored with us and no longer cares about us? Or that He's dead? Or that there never was a God? Just because something is plausible does not mean it is true.

Besides, what is the point of a universe that is less than perfect? And why does the universe need a purpose? It doesn't. We are the ones who need to give it a purpose, preferably one that is divine, because by extension it gives our own lives divine purpose. Being part of a "plan" is just another way we can live in denial of our mortality.

If, on the other hand, there is a less-than-perfect God who can't know (and thus can't control), say, the precise position and momentum of every particle, then free choice is intrinsically embedded in the universe, even if one claims it was created by this God. (The laws of Physics of our universe declare that it is intrinsically--absolutely--impossible to know the precise whereabouts and momentum of every particle. This is not just an issue of not being able to measure it, but an issue of its absolute immeasureability.)

If.

[Guest]

How does that make it any better? Doesn't it make it worse? Plenty of people believe things that are not supported by facts -- for instance, that some races are superior to others. Surely you can't be arguing that racial hatred is OK, provided there's no basis for it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I meant by my comment was simply that if someone states their beliefs as being beliefs rather than as facts, their statement can't be refuted logically. Of course it can be condemned; and you can use reason, logic and facts to condemn it as a misguided belief. But note that condemnation is a judgment--you have to confront the person on their level (the level of belief) because they haven't claimed to base their opinion on fact. This points to the limited value of reason in this universe that you and I share. You obviously subscribe to this given your next statement:

You're being rather vague about what you meant by that statement, but I don't think you should "get away with it" at all, because, quite frankly, I find it offensive.

I hope some of the vagueness is lessened by this elaboration.

Besides, what is the point of a universe that is less than perfect? And why does the universe need a purpose? It doesn't. We are the ones who need to give it a purpose, preferably one that is divine, because by extension it gives our own lives divine purpose. Being part of a "plan" is just another way we can live in denial of our mortality.

Please let us make a distinction between purpose that a theist derives from their deity and purpose that the individual derives from their experience. In my experience the universe has the following purposes: It intends to annihilate all hope for life on Earth in about 5 billion years. Meanwhile it allows us to take Newton's laws of motion on pure faith in nearly every aspect of our every day lives despite the fact that they are an approximation. It allows me to pursue a rich variety of experiences as a result of being assigned a conscious mind even though nobody can identify precisely how or when that conscious mind originated.

[Izzy]

You're not seriously emphasizing the 'faith' we hold in Newton's laws to suggest it is anything similar to the faith some have in God, right? Newton's laws of motion have been proven on countless occasions, as a quick Google search will reveal. Approximations or not, they hold true, and always will, at least in a universe with constants set as we have them.

[Guest]

You're not seriously emphasizing the 'faith' we hold in Newton's laws to suggest it is anything similar to the faith some have in God, right? Newton's laws of motion have been proven on countless occasions, as a quick Google search will reveal. Approximations or not, they hold true, and always will, at least in a universe with constants set as we have them.

One of the atheists who has appeared on this thread, ADParker, likes to use a very restrictive definition of 'faith': that it is willful neglect of facts in favor of some belief system. Is not your statement "Newton's laws ... hold true and always will ..." an example of such a definition of faith? (as a thought exercise, try replacing "Newton's laws" with "the bible" in your statement).

In fact, as you well know, Newton's laws have been resoundingly proven false. They are useless when trying to explain simply observable phenomena such as gravitational lensing. (But how does the fact of gravitational lensing affect our daily lives?)

Personally I prefer a more generous definition of 'faith': it can be a useful everyday tool in dealing with those things that science and reason have a hard time dealing with (such as emotions) and with those questions that science has yet to answer. We live in a universe where science has been able to explain the nature of only 4% of its stuff: baryonic matter and its associated energy and the space-time in which it functions. Everything else--the 23% that is dark matter and the 73% that is dark energy--science has only been able to make vague hypotheses about. They are chipping away at the edges of this problem, proposing testable hypotheses, but isn't it the height of hubris for us to proclaim science and reason has triumphed when it has such a miserable failing score (How far would you get in school if you got 4% of the answers right on your tests?)

Edited April 14, 2009 by seeksit

[Izzy]

One of the atheists who has appeared on this thread, ADParker, likes to use a very restrictive definition of 'faith': that it is willful neglect of facts in favor of some belief system. Is not your statement "Newton's laws ... hold true and always will ..." an example of such a definition of faith? (as a thought exercise, try replacing "Newton's laws" with "the bible" in your statement).

Well, they will hold true, if the constants in our universe remain as they currently are..

In fact, as you well know, Newton's laws have been resoundingly proven false. They are useless when trying to explain simply observable phenomena such as gravitational lensing. (But how does the fact of gravitational lensing affect our daily lives?)

..Didn't know. ..And I don't know.

Personally I prefer a more generous definition of 'faith': it can be a useful everyday tool in dealing with those things that science and reason have a hard time dealing with (such as emotions) and with those questions that science has yet to answer. We live in a universe where science has been able to explain the nature of only 4% of its stuff: baryonic matter and its associated energy and the space-time in which it functions. Everything else--the 23% that is dark matter and the 73% that is dark energy--science has only been able to make vague hypotheses about. They are chipping away at the edges of this problem, proposing testable hypotheses, but isn't it the height of hubris for us to proclaim science and reason has triumphed when it has such a miserable failing score (How far would you get in school if you got 4% of the answers right on your tests?)

Source for your percentages? Though, I suppose it won't really matter, I get your point, 'Science has explained very little.' The LHC may or may not provide some answers, we'll see. We don't know everything now, but we will. Eventually..