Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6

I guess with how long people want to spend on it is up to them personally, After all I believe faster than light travel is achievable  and thousands of years of history go against that. But I don't think we should give up on it because of that.

On another note regarding the proof of god, Azdgari you accused me of putting the detection of God out of reach for safety's sake. Please provide definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence.

First of all, mhaberling, I know that this is at times frustrating for you. It is frustrating for us sometimes as well. But you're keeping your cool and stating your case, even though we keep telling you that you need to do better. Don't give up. If this subject gets out of hand try something else here. And while right now most of us think you have something to learn, it may be that we are the ones that need to do that. But it is up to you to be the teacher if that is the case.

Here I wanted to comment on your speed of light thing first. No, thousands of years of history don't go against being able to do that. Only in the last 110 years has that subject come up. And yes, though it is generally thought we cannot exceed the speed of light because current theory says that it would take an infinite amount of energy just to get mass up to the speed of light (and hence even more energy to get us past i, there may be ways to indeed exceed that limit, and some in science would agree that it is worth pursuing the subject. You may be in a minority thinking that, but this is one of those areas where the truth is not currently available in the sense that our knowledge is based upon current theory, and current theory is always open change as we make new discoveries.

And while I'm sure Anfauglir will respond as well, the problem here is that we have no idea how to define any evidence to show that a god may exist. What we are trying to tell you is that we have no knowledge of any scientific subject that would point towards a deity being involved in anything. Right now we think, in those areas where we are fairly advanced, knowledge-wise, that all of the phenomena we observe can be accounted for naturally. And in those areas where we still know little (abiogenesis, for instance) we are not finding gaps that appear to be un-fillable. Progress continues to be made in our understanding of what life is and what it requires and we are working backwards to the beginning of our existence, albeit more slowly than we would like.

So there is no arena, be it in science or any other human endeavor, that is so inexplicable that only the existence of a god or gods could explain anything. And so, if we have no ability to create or detect the criteria necessary for a god, and no ability to create or detect the criteria for detecting a god, we're sort of stuck. Unless something new comes along that allows at least one of those two criteria to start making sense, there is nothing for us to work with. We are stuck with what we, as humans, can discover.

Angauglir cannot provide what you asked for, and nobody else can either. Definitive evidence that is in reach that would show the nature of God's existence does not exist. And while Christians jump with joy when they hear that, because they apparently think the lack of not only evidence but also criteria is absolute proof that a superior being, out of our reach, must indeed exist. However, that same thinking also applies to flying teacups, spaghetti monsters, the afore mention Odin and the many trickster gods of American Indian lore.

If nothing we'e discovered needs a god and nothing we discover in the future needs a god, I think we'll go ahead and leap to the conclusion that there isn't one. Because until the dude starts talking to us again, until he lets us walk around in the desert lost for 40 years, until he lets us write once again that insects have six legs and until he restates his fear of iron chariots, many of us are going to assume his stories of his existence are just that, stories.

If the kids shows up and the words of Revelation come true, I'll rethink my position. If amputees start spontaneously healing, I'll give the existence of some sort of supreme being serious consideration. If I suddenly turn handsome and all the women start chasing me I'll consider it. But in the meantime, we've got nothing. And of course we think that is all religion has as well.

We can at least consider the possibility of faster than light travel, because we can conceive of it, whether it can be done or not. Ideas can be floated, numbers can be crunched, etc. But we've also figured out that if we did fly at even just the speed of light to a nearby solar system, the shockwave we caused would destroy our destination, which sort of makes one wonder why we should even try. We can't find anything within science that should cause us to consider your god. If you think otherwise, a) we shouldn't be your audience, scientists should be and b) enjoy your Nobel Prize if you're right.
Changed Change Reason Date
kaziglu bey Very patient and informative response. December 26, 2012, 05:49:15 PM