Without god....what would have happened?

[nobspeople]

Let's suppose there is no god. No god to create everything and set mankind up for failure, then stomp its foot and pout like a spoiled child and condemn is 'loved' creation to potential eternal hell (according to some).

If humanity would have evolved on its own, with no 'grand man' in the sky, or created by humanity, who do you think the human race would have faired?
Would it have 'crashed and burned' early on? Why or why not?
Would it have come to the same fruition it's at today? Why or why not?
Would it be more advanced in science, technology, morality? More economically sound? Why or why not?

Of course, there is no wrong answer. This is an 'opinion' piece. If the moderators deem it necessary to be 'relocated', by all means please do so. But it was placed here as there seem to be a mix of believers and nons perusing this area and, as such, seems to have the potential to be a good area for a 'cross pollination' of ideas.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hard to say, but the science is that we almost bought it a couple of times. Apart from needing the K2 event, without which we'd still be nocturnal rodents, if we hadn't cracked bipedalism, we may not have survived the African climate -change. And the Ice age could have polished off one human species more than it did.

We've been lucky. We've also been adaptable. And just as important, we've been able to adapt our surroundings.

[POI]

Let's suppose there is no god. No god to create everything and set mankind up for failure, then stomp its foot and pout like a spoiled child and condemn is 'loved' creation to potential eternal hell (according to some).

If humanity would have evolved on its own, with no 'grand man' in the sky, or created by humanity, who do you think the human race would have faired?
Would it have 'crashed and burned' early on? Why or why not?
Would it have come to the same fruition it's at today? Why or why not?
Would it be more advanced in science, technology, morality? More economically sound? Why or why not?

Of course, there is no wrong answer. This is an 'opinion' piece. If the moderators deem it necessary to be 'relocated', by all means please do so. But it was placed here as there seem to be a mix of believers and nons perusing this area and, as such, seems to have the potential to be a good area for a 'cross pollination' of ideas.

Great topic! There looks to be so much to unpack here...

I'll start light... There exists:

1. false positives
2. false negatives

A false positive involves first invoking some sort of intentional agency for some cause, but then later finding out there was no intentional agency involved in the cause. It's usually harmless and/or benign if the first impression, (false positive), turns out to be incorrect..

A false negative involves invoking no intentional agency at first, being wrong, and having that intentional agency actually be the culprit.

In regards to evolution, the survivors more-so often invoke false positives. Why? Because, 10K years ago, all you would need to do is not invoke a false positive once, and you may be a lion's lunch Meaning, the only ones left are the ones who more-so invoke false positives, verses false negatives.

Now, does this mean atheists are 'stupid'? NO. It just means that atheists too may invoke many false positives, but may no longer or less so do so for the concept of an invisible all-watching agent.

The fact the majority of humans are 'god believers', in some capacity, supports the notion that survival of the fitter is a sound proposition to uphold. This is one reason why we have more god believers than not.

How would we fair, knowing we are on our own? Well, prolly like the vast majority of scientists already do. Chuggin' along with experimentation and discovery, and progressing forward accordingly.

Would it be more advanced in science, technology, morality? More economically sound? Well, we prolly would not have flat-earthers, people with signs stating "god hates fags", Catholics going to Africa to preach against condom use, people crashing into buildings with plains, etc etc etc etc.................................................................................................................................................................

[1213]

Let's suppose there is no god. No god to create everything and set mankind up for failure, then stomp its foot and pout like a spoiled child and condemn is 'loved' creation to potential eternal hell (according to some).

If humanity would have evolved on its own, with no 'grand man' in the sky, or created by humanity, who do you think the human race would have faired?
Would it have 'crashed and burned' early on? Why or why not?
Would it have come to the same fruition it's at today? Why or why not?
Would it be more advanced in science, technology, morality? More economically sound? Why or why not?
...

Interesting question. If we look native tribes that perhaps live as many ancient people lived, is it what we would find, if God would not have intervened? It seems to me that Judaism and Christianity led to this development that we now have.

[brunumb]

It seems to me that Judaism and Christianity led to this development that we now have.

Judaism and Christianity may have contributed to it, both positively and negatively, but that does not mean that there is an actual God behind it all.

[POI]

Let's suppose there is no god. No god to create everything and set mankind up for failure, then stomp its foot and pout like a spoiled child and condemn is 'loved' creation to potential eternal hell (according to some).

If humanity would have evolved on its own, with no 'grand man' in the sky, or created by humanity, who do you think the human race would have faired?
Would it have 'crashed and burned' early on? Why or why not?
Would it have come to the same fruition it's at today? Why or why not?
Would it be more advanced in science, technology, morality? More economically sound? Why or why not?
...

Interesting question. If we look native tribes that perhaps live as many ancient people lived, is it what we would find, if God would not have intervened? It seems to me that Judaism and Christianity led to this development that we now have.

People claim God intervenes all the time. Does this ever mean god does??? Back in early times, people just placed them to 'divinely inspired paper'. You know, what we read from antiquity today...

Maybe divine dictates never stopped, but we are no longer adding them as continued Biblical canon? (i.e.):

[William]

The idea of their being a Creator derives from the idea of being within a Creation and this specific environment means that it is as natural as nature that ideas of The Creator would evolve.

Therefore the OPQ is a nonesense question.

[Bradskii]

Let's suppose there is no god. No god to create everything and set mankind up for failure, then stomp its foot and pout like a spoiled child and condemn is 'loved' creation to potential eternal hell (according to some).

If humanity would have evolved on its own, with no 'grand man' in the sky, or created by humanity, who do you think the human race would have faired?

I don't see that the question makes any sense. If there were no God (my position) then this is exactly how it turns out. If there is a God (the position of any given Chistian) then this is exactly how it turns out.

[JehovahsWitness]

If humanity would have evolved on its own, ... [how] do you think the human race would have faired?

Pretty much as it has done now. In my opinion. ...

• Mankind would have been able to send a man to the moon but be unable to ensure enough food gets to babies in africa to eliminate hunger.

• We would have the technology to communicate in seconds across the globe but seemingly be incapble to eliminate war, lies and hatred.

• We would have made amazing medical advances but most people would die from the effects of obesity, smoking self abuse or suicide.

• We would be able to examine and analyse the environment to the finest detail but be incapable of figuring out and effectively implementing how not to poison our environment with pollutants.

• Reading, writing and free access to information will be abundant for even the poorest of people, yet hatred and ignorance will not be eliminated.

• A handful of billionaires will live like kings while the vast maajority of people will livenon less than a US dollar day.

Those that have full bellies will duly declare the whole thing a grand success!

[Tcg]

Those that have full bellies will duly declare the whole thing a grand success!

This is quite clearly a statement of fact. Given that, what verifiable evidence can you provide to support this statement of fact?


Tcg