No, we do not have all the answers. Let’s face it. If we had perfect knowledge, then wouldn’t we in fact be God?
We are linear beings. In fact, we are bounded by time itself in such a way that we only move in one direction. Even if, in theory, we could attain all knowledge at a given point in time, the universe changes. Even the definition of life requires change over time. So, even knowledge is infinite. Therefore, in order to have all knowledge requires you to be an infinite being.
Can we, therefore, not know the truth? Does knowing the truth require infinite knowledge? No. We can test and observe and know whether or not certain things are true. We can weigh the evidence and see whether one thing overwhelmingly stands out or not. In fact, that is what science is supposed to be all about, isn’t it? The practices of journalism and law are supposed to require it.
However, that still leaves us limited. It still leaves us finite. So, how does that work, then?
It means we don’t set the rules. Who amongst us has created time? Matter from nothing? Gravity?
And yet, there are those, on both sides of the existence of God debate, who will act as though we can set the parameters. Some will pretend that we can set the parameters. If God fails to measure up to our expectations, then somehow that means He does not exist. If God does, no matter how skewed our parameters, then He does exist. That begs the question, though, that if we can tell God what to do and when to do it, then who really is God?
Are you familiar with the thought experiment of Galileo where he postulated that dropping a ten pound weight and a one pound weight from the Leaning Tower of Pisa would result in both hitting the ground at the same time? I watched a film once where someone actually replicated this experiment and validated this.
However, let’s say I’m a skeptic about physics. After all, aren’t all experiments skewed? How many experiments have been proven to be full of bias to support the viewpoint of the experimenter(s)? So, this whole gravity experiment is probably biased.
Now, if it really is true that gravity is indifferent to the mass of the weight, then it should be true in all times and places. Therefore, before I will believe it, someone needs to perform the experiment at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Build a platform from which to drop the weights, and then tape the results of dropping them from the platform. No cheating, either. If weights can accurately do this through the air, then there is no reason it shouldn’t work in water so setting up barriers for tides and such is not allowed.
Unreasonable, you say? Yet, how does this compare to the straw men commonly offered up when it comes to arguments for or against a particular belief? Frankly, I find there to be very little difference.
Reality must be external to the individual will, or it is not reality. There is no such thing as “my reality” or “your reality”. These are postmodern concepts and are garbage. Either something is real, or it is not. It used to be that people who thought and practiced otherwise were put away into institutions.
So, in the end, neither you nor I get to define reality. Neither you nor I get to define the parameters. So, my suggestion is to throw away the straw.