what we can do ?

Views: 2313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Regardless of any kind of god’s extent of knowledge of this universe, if there is any such being (and that is an “if” that dwarfs our galaxy!), I posit that it operates under one of three scenarios:

  • Using existing physical law with no extraordinary supersets.  This is unlikely, as any action taken by such a being would leave a unique signature to identify it.  It doesn’t get to “clean up its mess” with magic, as magic is not an allowed operator under this scenario.
  • Using existing physical law with extraordinary supersets, which man has not as yet discovered but are discoverable by and therefore eventually available to man.  Also unlikely, as there is no fact, extrapolation of fact, or credible hypothesis to suggest that such supersets exist.  I am not claiming that mankind is completely schooled in physical law, but, with exceptions such as dark matter and dark energy, there is no evidence to suggest that such an extension of physical law exists, particularly of a kind which would allow for “miracles” to be supported.
  • Using mechanisms only available to it, which are completely unrelated to or dependent on physical law, in other words, magic.  This scenario is not only unlikely but personally objectionable to me because it obviates any possibility for understanding based on natural law.  This being could play with reality as it pleased, working with or entirely outside of any known or unknown principles of physics.  This suggests a universe run by WHIM rather than law.

There are phenomena which, as yet, have not yielded to scientific inquiry, though mostly for reasons of lack of data or newness of observation.  I submit that it is extremely improbable that any future phenomenon will be so obtuse as to utterly frustrate the scientific process and therewith require an alternative mechanism for explanation.  Even if such an instance occurred, it would not necessarily be evidence of some extraordinarily enabled being.

Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence, and to date, no such evidence for any being of this nature exists.  Further, as we grow in understanding and sophistication, such a being would find it increasingly difficult to elude our curiosity.  If there is a god to be found, it will be found sooner or later.  If not:

 God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

I agree completely with Tyson, but there is this to consider --

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke --

Let an engineer loose on that magic, especially one experienced in investigation and analysis.  Said magic won't be very magical for long.

Meantime, I'll see your Clarke and raise you:

One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.  "Supernatural" is a null word.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

Loren - I came back to correct your mis-attribution of the quotation of Arthur Clarke to Issac Asimov, but I can see that you self-corrected.

But as long as I'm here --

"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
-- H. P. Lovecraft --

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
-- Issac Asimov --

"People will then often say, 'But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic, just in case?' This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation, rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)"
-- Douglas Adams --

"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."
-- Robert A. Heinlein --

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry --

"No one has ever disproved, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now."
-- Sir Arthur C. Clarke --

Whoopie ... am I supposed to care?

Obviously not.

Loren, I Agree. 


Anything may be POSSIBLE.  I am far more concerned with what is PROBABLE, and as things stand, deities don't qualify.

We get it. You don't think deities are probable. You don't believe in God. But that's not what we were talking about.

OK, I am going to enter this topic with Probable, Possible, Preferable. 

One can relatively easily figure out what is probable, based on past history. If one wants to learn from the past and do things better, or differently, or faster, or whatever, think in terms of possibilities.

If one wants to transform the situation, think outside the usual and typical, of what is preferable and then work to that goal, if it matters.

On the other had, if it isn't important, let chips fall where they may and get on with living.  

What was the topic? Oh well, as if it matters. 

Well first I will check and see if other scientists can independently verify these claims. If their evidence seems to corroborate with one another then I will accept it. Now the fun part begins. Which god did science prove exists?

Okay, you asked for it - Aphrodite.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service