Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?

[Dulahan]

@2DaveWixon Like I was saying above, the Kahns were all about assimilation. Provided you bent the knee to Khagan (Great Kahn) you could maintain a degree of autonomy in respect to Faith and Government (not unlike the Romans). Rather progressive for a blood thirsty barbarian. Mohammad, at the time of his death, had captured the Arabian Peninsula. Following Caliphates culminating with Ottoman Empire were a churning mass of undulating border lines. In all it maybe 2 million sq miles (this is a guess really, like I said, there was ALOT of undulating)

Genghis himself conquered twice as much as any man in history, his line captured something like 11 million sq. miles of territory (which is roughly the size of Africa)

As a Theological Leader he surely blows Kahn away, really it would he tough to many any comparison outside of Jesus -- which is completely relevant to the topic at hand. I am just pointing out that if we remove Ideology, its not a big step to select the Steppe people.

 

[Dulahan]

Galvanizing. Well, that's one word for it, I suppose. The message being basically "kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with me."

You sort of have to take a step back when looking at these historical figures. They come from an era of casual violence and even the best of them is sure to offend out modern sensibilities.

 

[BAYLOR]

You sort of have to take a step back when looking at these historical figures. They come from an era of casual violence and even the best of them is sure to offend out modern sensibilities.

These were not nice people, they couldn't afford to be given the type of world they lived in.

 

[logan_run]

George Washington. Thomas Jefferson.

 

[sinister42]

Well if you go back far enough, the first spark of "life" that emerged out of the primordial soup.

 

[sinister42]

Don't Atheists and "God as Watchmaker" ultimately believe in a limited form of 'Spontaneous Generation'? As an article of faith, as there is no evidence either way.
i.e.
Where did the first living thing(s) come from?

"Life" evolved from whatever preceded it. The point at which the amino acids in the "primordial soup" of ancient Earth gained the qualities necessary to call them "alive" is when life began. Scientists have a lot of competing theories. See, that's the thing about science - there's no "THIS IS THE TRUTH" for anything. There's "this is likely what happened" but there can be a lot of those coexisting and competing with each other at once.

The alternative notion put forth by religion, "I don't know - therefore GOD" is patently nonsense. Ok, that's an oversimplification and some might find my explanation disrespectful, for which I apologize, but isn't that ultimately what it comes down to? What other evidence does religion have?

Yes, there are religious movements (mine - Reform Judaism - included) some members of which take a more holistic view - holy books are allegories and ethical guidelines, but not to be taken as historical truth, you can have evolution and God simultaneously, maybe God is a hands-off creator that after he went POOF he sat back and let evolution happen.

To call the scientific process an "article of faith" is patently nonsense, as the notion of "faith" is anathema to how science actually works. Science works on evidence. We don't have all the answers, but we're working on it. And as we find them, the notion of a supernatural God shrinks a bit into the gaps we haven't explained yet.

You find me God using the scientific method and I'll go to Temple tomorrow.

 

[Mirannan]

"Life" evolved from whatever preceded it. The point at which the amino acids in the "primordial soup" of ancient Earth gained the qualities necessary to call them "alive" is when life began. Scientists have a lot of competing theories. See, that's the thing about science - there's no "THIS IS THE TRUTH" for anything. There's "this is likely what happened" but there can be a lot of those coexisting and competing with each other at once.

The alternative notion put forth by religion, "I don't know - therefore GOD" is patently nonsense. Ok, that's an oversimplification and some might find my explanation disrespectful, for which I apologize, but isn't that ultimately what it comes down to? What other evidence does religion have?

Yes, there are religious movements (mine - Reform Judaism - included) some members of which take a more holistic view - holy books are allegories and ethical guidelines, but not to be taken as historical truth, you can have evolution and God simultaneously, maybe God is a hands-off creator that after he went POOF he sat back and let evolution happen.

To call the scientific process an "article of faith" is patently nonsense, as the notion of "faith" is anathema to how science actually works. Science works on evidence. We don't have all the answers, but we're working on it. And as we find them, the notion of a supernatural God shrinks a bit into the gaps we haven't explained yet.

You find me God using the scientific method and I'll go to Temple tomorrow.

"God of the gaps" is fairly pathetic, but on the other hand there is a gigantic gap right at the Beginning that God fits right into. Hawking put it quite well, as the "One who breathed fire into the equations".

The thing is, it may well be that in some Platonic sense there is a single, perfectly logical structure comprising all of physical law that, if activated, leads inevitably to a Universe much like ours (perhaps with some minor alterations, such as sapient dinosaurs instead of humans) but that doesn't mean it actually has to exist in a "real" sense. (Definitions of "is" and "exists" and "reality" are quite difficult, aren't they?)

Some people think that God created everything there is just as it now is, a relatively short time ago. The opposite end of that spectrum of belief might be that God created the structure (the equations, if you like) in such a way that if activated it would lead inevitably to sapient beings, somewhere and at some time, while leaving open the details of their biology - and then "breathed fire into the equations" and walked away.

In my humble opinion, the latter is much more impressive than bodging the whole thing up "by hand". But that's just me.

Oh, just one more thing and maybe the most controversial; IMHO assigning a sex to a singular, omnipotent being is ridiculous.

 

[Brian G Turner]

As we're drifting into religious discussion here, I think t's best to let this old thread die away - if anyone wants to bring up the original topic in a new thread, they are welcome to.