Guitar Zeroh 2012, Wow! That article on homeschooling "science" makes me sick! I homeschooled my son from 4th grade on, and being an Atheist, we studied ACTUAL SCIENCE!!!!!! lol
So God would exist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship him. My knee(s) will not be bowing.
If there were such a being we wouldn't recognize it. It would have to have the power it takes to create a universe 13.7 billion light years across. Now how would we relate to that?
We exist on a rather small planet with a thin atmosphere orbiting a smallish medium sized star which is one of over 100 billion stars in our galaxy which is one of billions of galaxies, many bigger than ours. What are the chances of there being another planet such as ours? Millions, if not billions.
In this little star system we live in we have a probe that has been moving at over 38,000 miles an hour since 1977 and has not yet made it all the way into interstellar space. In all that time it has traveled a little over 1/2 a light DAY and when it does enter interstellar space it will travel for over 1,000 years before it passes another star at a distance of 1/2 a light year.
What would science discover that would point to the existence of a god or supreme being?
Science would solve M-Theory at the same time as they'd discover that the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-theory is accessible through a phenomenon in consciousness that everyone has the potential for. We'd discover that all God was was a concept taken from an experience of what M-Theory calls "11-dimensional hyperspace," and that it occurs as a colossal transformation of consciousness. That which Richard M. Bucke called "Cosmic Consciousness," what Romain Rolland called the "oceanic feeling" was this effect in consciousness that has had many names throughout history and religion, such as the Shekhina in Judaism, the Beatific vision in Christianity, samadhi or Brahman in Hinduism, satori in Zen Buddhism, "ego death" among entheogenic enthusiasts, etc. We'd up-date the Perennial Philosophy to reflect that.
So, God, in this model wouldn't have a form at all or would be a being of any sort. It would be a kind of pure potentiality which contains all possibilities that interconnects us all. And while Brahman may be the experience of it that doesn't require a concept, because it's an experience within consciousness, M-Theory is how we intellectually think about it when it form it into a concept, but both the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-Theory and the Brahman of Hinduism point to the very same thing.
Of course science tests all its conclusions so there would have to be tests for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence to make sure that science had discovered the one true God and not some powerful, clever, and apparently ubiquitous demigod. Such tests would seem to be impossible. The candidate beings might be powerful, but could you ever be sure that any one of them was omnipotent? Similarly for omniscience—you could give him or her a thorough testing and still not be sure that he or she knew everything.
Wouldn't omnipotence, by definition, include the ability to fudge a test of omnipotence?
That's not the issue. The issue is: what test would be sufficient to establish omnipotence?
How would you design a test to cover all the possibilities in a finite amount of time? You might say that a being who could reverse the directions of the planets around the sun was very likely omnipotent, but his power could be limited to our solar system. Logic implies that omnipotence cannot be proved in any finite way.
It would seem to me, that to envision all possibilities, would require an infinite imagination, of which, I'll be the first to admit, I fall a little short.
I agree. This is one of the core concepts when I say I am agnostic atheist. It is logically impossible to test for omnipotence because any knowledge we have must be inferred from supporting knowledge, so knowledge is inherently limited.
To begin with, I would question whether an omnipotent being could know he is omnipotent since it would take infinite time to perform every power; it's paradoxical. An omnipotent being that knows he is omnipotent would also know that, at any given time, he has only used an infinitely small, approaching 0, percent of his power; no matter how hard he tries, he will never reach his theoretical potential... But that contradicts omnipotence -- so I would actually conclude omnipotence, or omni-anything, is logically impossible.
In other words, even if you could simultaneously recite all the digits of pi, you would still fail...
@Jonathan - RE: "I would actually conclude...omni-anything, is logically impossible."
I can't 100% agree, I've SEEN omni-ignorance --
Omni-ignorance can't be omni since it approaches 0. But haha, I know where you're coming from.
Jonathan - are you forgetting that there are negative numbers?