| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"karl" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2005 09:09:52 AM |
| Object: |
at what point deity? |
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 02:20:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400 in alt.atheism, karl ("karl"
<kona_cc@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Tricky. A flashlight or a machine gun might seem like magic to a 6th
century peasant, but in principle at least they'd be capable of
understanding how these devices work and removing them from the world
of magic.
However, that said, it's possible to imagine a race of aliens who are
simply more intelligent than humans who have developed technologies
based on principles that human intelligence is simply incapable of
understanding.
If that were the case, and the aliens replied "it's magic" when we
asked "how the hell did you do that?" I think we'd be hard put to it
to take then at other than their word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 07:38:05 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> posting the following on Wed, 05 Oct 2005
08:20:07 +0100 iin alt.atheism?
Tricky. A flashlight or a machine gun might seem like magic to a 6th
century peasant, but in principle at least they'd be capable of
understanding how these devices work and removing them from the world
of magic.
A 6th Century peasant would have no clue about the flashlight or
machinegun. It would be magic to them. In Harry Turtledove's "Guns
of the South", time travellers bring AK-47s to the Confederate Army.
While Robert E. Lee and his officers are stunned by the rate of fire
(and the lack of smoke) they already understand what a gun is, and can
comprehend that this is just a very advanced version of the weapons
they are familiar with.
However, that said, it's possible to imagine a race of aliens who are
simply more intelligent than humans who have developed technologies
based on principles that human intelligence is simply incapable of
understanding.
Or they've simply been an industrial civilization longer than we have,
with more time to advance.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 08:36:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:38:05 GMT in alt.atheism, Douglas Berry
(Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>) said, directing
the reply to alt.atheism
What's so funny about peace, love and Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> posting the following on Wed, 05 Oct 2005
08:20:07 +0100 iin alt.atheism?
Tricky. A flashlight or a machine gun might seem like magic to a 6th
century peasant, but in principle at least they'd be capable of
understanding how these devices work and removing them from the world
of magic.
A 6th Century peasant would have no clue about the flashlight or
machinegun. It would be magic to them.
Well yes, but if you took them aside and educated them - well the
point I'm making is that a 6th century peasant's brain isn't inferior
to yours or mine, and that in principle they could understand these
things.
In Harry Turtledove's "Guns
of the South", time travellers bring AK-47s to the Confederate Army.
While Robert E. Lee and his officers are stunned by the rate of fire
(and the lack of smoke) they already understand what a gun is, and can
comprehend that this is just a very advanced version of the weapons
they are familiar with.
However, that said, it's possible to imagine a race of aliens who are
simply more intelligent than humans who have developed technologies
based on principles that human intelligence is simply incapable of
understanding.
Or they've simply been an industrial civilization longer than we have,
with more time to advance.
Well quite. But the point I'm trying to make here is that there may be
some aspects to the universe that we are simply, by virtue of our
evolutionary history incapable of understanding.
Of course that said, perhaps we might at some point be able to build
machines to understand these things for us, or redesign ourselves so
that we might understand them - but in the latter case - well, that
raises a whole host of issues.
And that said, I think I'll watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project"
again, once I've posted this!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
04 Oct 2005 04:55:09 PM |
|
|
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8ridnRkk2ZSsEN_eRVn-qw@rogers.com:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek:
The Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a
hand in featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be
(a) spoiled children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the
'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Any being subject to natural law is not supernatural. Aliens with death
rays are not gods just because we don't understand how they work. To think
otherwise leads to absurd conclusions. Is a man a god to a gorilla bacause
a man has a gun and a gorilla can't conprehend it? Is a man a god to a dog
because the man can work a can opener? Is a dog a god to a flea because it
give food and dispenses death via the divine scratch?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives."
* Abba Eban
(02/02/1915 - 11/17/2002)
S. Africa-born Israeli diplomat
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 08:21:37 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu the Atheist" <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96E597CC4B1A5255229@130.133.1.4...
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8ridnRkk2ZSsEN_eRVn-qw@rogers.com:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek:
The Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a
hand in featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be
(a) spoiled children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the
'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Any being subject to natural law is not supernatural. Aliens with death
rays are not gods just because we don't understand how they work. To
think
otherwise leads to absurd conclusions. Is a man a god to a gorilla
bacause
a man has a gun and a gorilla can't conprehend it? Is a man a god to a
dog
because the man can work a can opener? Is a dog a god to a flea because
it
give food and dispenses death via the divine scratch?
Though there could be aliens with great powers that are not violating the
physical laws of the universe as _they_ know them but appear to be doing so
as we _know_ them.
Perhaps it could best be stated that an entity that must conform to some
set of physical laws - that it lacks omnipotence to violate some set of
strictures - defines it as a non-deity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 01:13:28 PM |
|
|
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4vednSBike75Tt7enZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@rogers.com:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96E597CC4B1A5255229@130.133.1.4...
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8ridnRkk2ZSsEN_eRVn-qw@rogers.com:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek:
The Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had
a hand in featured characters with god-like powers that turned out
to be (a) spoiled children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the
'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Any being subject to natural law is not supernatural. Aliens with
death rays are not gods just because we don't understand how they
work. To think
otherwise leads to absurd conclusions. Is a man a god to a gorilla
bacause
a man has a gun and a gorilla can't conprehend it? Is a man a god to
a dog
because the man can work a can opener? Is a dog a god to a flea
because it
give food and dispenses death via the divine scratch?
Though there could be aliens with great powers that are not violating
the
physical laws of the universe as _they_ know them but appear to be
doing so as we _know_ them.
Perhaps it could best be stated that an entity that must conform to
some
set of physical laws - that it lacks omnipotence to violate some set
of strictures - defines it as a non-deity?
That works for me. If you are bound by the structure of the universe, if
you must exploit the structure and properties of the universe to act,
then you are not a god.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The universal cosmic process was not created by any god or man.
-- Heracletus, On Nature
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 10:40:14 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu the Atheist" <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96E6722ECBE55255229@130.133.1.4...
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4vednSBike75Tt7enZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@rogers.com:
Perhaps it could best be stated that an entity that must conform to
some set of physical laws - that it lacks omnipotence to violate some
set
of strictures - defines it as a non-deity?
That works for me. If you are bound by the structure of the universe, if
you must exploit the structure and properties of the universe to act,
then you are not a god.
That works for some instances. However one might not have the luxury of
knowing if the entity is conforming to the physical laws of the universe
because it wishes to or because it must.
Are there any other testable determinants?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 02:14:29 PM |
|
|
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MN-dncwthqHN2NjenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@rogers.com:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96E6722ECBE55255229@130.133.1.4...
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4vednSBike75Tt7enZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@rogers.com:
Perhaps it could best be stated that an entity that must conform to
some set of physical laws - that it lacks omnipotence to violate
some
set
of strictures - defines it as a non-deity?
That works for me. If you are bound by the structure of the
universe, if you must exploit the structure and properties of the
universe to act, then you are not a god.
That works for some instances. However one might not have the luxury
of
knowing if the entity is conforming to the physical laws of the
universe because it wishes to or because it must.
Are there any other testable determinants?
That's a different question. If it *is* bound, it *is not* a god. Being
able to tell the difference requires knowing the answer to your question
as well as knowing with certainty what does and does not conform to
natural law, and we don't fully understand the universe.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy
nailed to two pieces of wood.
-- George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 01:37:43 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400, karl wrote:
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the
'magic' is 'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
The real problem in the modern world isn't explaining the wonders of the
magician, but in finding a magician people don't already see as an
entertainer instead of a diety. There really is little magic left in
the world for science to explain, at least of the sort that sends people
to the churches.
I guess the closest thing these days comes from people claiming to have
mystical experiences. But these are subjective experiences, by
definition, and not subject to scientific analysis of the sort normally
done. You could prove that these experiences are common and that they
don't really go anywhere, but that isn't as exciting as showing the king
of Egypt how Moses made the water run with blood.
- --
Ken
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDQ3Ssi2ZgbrTULjoRAsT4AJ9IyZyKDSWnemEXQ6keaTmVS0xokACgiYEk
6Z/jI7LWjw9cW7F3sYLw7ng=
=F0xV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 08:11:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Easy. 'Magic,' or 'God,' is used by the superstitious for things
they either don't have an answer for, or answers they won't accept as
it contradicts their superstition.
I, personally, don't have a problem with "I don't know, but at this
point in time we think this and here's why."
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 08:09:02 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:68u8k11apfrboibv8k9tsp71ur8ag2ltla@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Easy. 'Magic,' or 'God,' is used by the superstitious for things
they either don't have an answer for, or answers they won't accept as
it contradicts their superstition.
I, personally, don't have a problem with "I don't know, but at this
point in time we think this and here's why."
So if I parse your response right: When faced with an entity of
unfathomable powers you will assume only that it is not a deity? You will
not countenance an unbiased examination that even allows for the possibility
look only for evidence in favour of your preconceived opinion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 08:34:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:09:02 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:68u8k11apfrboibv8k9tsp71ur8ag2ltla@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Easy. 'Magic,' or 'God,' is used by the superstitious for things
they either don't have an answer for, or answers they won't accept as
it contradicts their superstition.
I, personally, don't have a problem with "I don't know, but at this
point in time we think this and here's why."
So if I parse your response right: When faced with an entity of
unfathomable powers you will assume only that it is not a deity?
A clear and concise definition for 'deity' as well as objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
You will
not countenance an unbiased examination that even allows for the possibility
look only for evidence in favour of your preconceived opinion?
A clear and concise definition for 'deity' as well as objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
Your insistance in trying to shove your imaginary buddy into every
crack in our knowledge base was fully expected, and you didn't
disappoint.
Something you might consider reflecting on, and keeping it private, is
why those who aren't superstitious bother you so much.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 09:28:10 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:atjbk1dmuhhj4u2fm858eefgl008r4mcvb@4ax.com...
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:09:02 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:68u8k11apfrboibv8k9tsp71ur8ag2ltla@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand
in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a)
spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic'
is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
Easy. 'Magic,' or 'God,' is used by the superstitious for things
they either don't have an answer for, or answers they won't accept as
it contradicts their superstition.
I, personally, don't have a problem with "I don't know, but at this
point in time we think this and here's why."
So if I parse your response right: When faced with an entity of
unfathomable powers you will assume only that it is not a deity?
A clear and concise definition for 'deity' as well as objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
Whatever definition you wish to use.
You will
not countenance an unbiased examination that even allows for the
possibility
look only for evidence in favour of your preconceived opinion?
A clear and concise definition for 'deity' as well as objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
Whatever definition you wish to use.
Your insistance in trying to shove your imaginary buddy into every
crack in our knowledge base was fully expected, and you didn't
disappoint.
I don't have imaginary buddies. I am an Atheist.
Something you might consider reflecting on, and keeping it private, is
why those who aren't superstitious bother you so much.
I'm not superstitious. And others who aren't might or might not bother me
but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are superstitious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
04 Oct 2005 06:37:36 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com>
posting the following on Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:09:52 -0400 iin
alt.atheism?
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
The Germans thought the Romans were gods because they could build
bridges that didn't fall down.
I heard Clarke expound on his most famous Law once. The "magic" level
isn't a set line, it is a point ahead of the current average level of
technology. Take a pair of radios back 150 years, and you have magic.
The locals cannot conceive how you are talking over miles of distance.
They lack the base technologies and scientific backing to explain the
device.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
04 Oct 2005 07:09:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:37:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Take a pair of radios back 150 years, and you have magic.
But take a _+single+_ radio back 150 years, and you have - STATIC!
;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
Those first to step up and say,
"Now is not the time for placing blame"
...
...are quite often to blame....
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 12:32:41 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:37:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Take a pair of radios back 150 years, and you have magic.
But take a _+single+_ radio back 150 years, and you have - STATIC!
;-)
Hey, I took a single *transmitter* 150 years ago, and I thought I was
talking to myself!
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
Those first to step up and say,
"Now is not the time for placing blame"
...
...are quite often to blame....
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 05:44:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:32:41 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:37:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Take a pair of radios back 150 years, and you have magic.
But take a _+single+_ radio back 150 years, and you have - STATIC!
;-)
Hey, I took a single *transmitter* 150 years ago, and I thought I was
talking to myself!
Clearly you were in a moment of inspiration at the time and _really_
talking to *God*(TM)! :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
Those first to step up and say,
"Now is not the time for placing blame"
...
...are quite often to blame....
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
05 Oct 2005 08:53:23 PM |
|
|
karl wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a) spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic' is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
My honest answer: It doesnt matter.
I don't worship gods - no matter how powerful they may be.
It might be possible that an alien technology is beyond my
comprehension.
(And remember Radio and TV are beyond the comprehension of 95% of the
American public - consumers of technology dont need to know how it
works...)
I make it a principle that I do not *willingly* worship deities.
I might pretend to "believe" to spare myself and my loved ones a
hidious death - if the Holy Inquisition ever gets the opportunity to
heat up its prodding irons again - but if allowed the freedom to choose
- I will always choose not to deify anything.
Making something a god always bebases/degrades the worshiper and
corupts the god worshiped.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
06 Oct 2005 08:04:55 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1128563603.604562.22140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
karl wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a)
spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic'
is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
My honest answer: It doesnt matter.
I don't worship gods - no matter how powerful they may be.
'Worship' has nothing to do with the question.
Posed a different way. An entity with powers you can not fathom makes it's
presence know to you. In general terms how would you go about constructing
the logical case for it not being a deity.
*Note: You can take the definition of deity as the broad and widlely
accepted general sense of make up any definition you wish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
07 Oct 2005 09:15:30 PM |
|
|
karl wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1128563603.604562.22140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
karl wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek: The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a)
spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the 'magic'
is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
My honest answer: It doesnt matter.
I don't worship gods - no matter how powerful they may be.
'Worship' has nothing to do with the question.
I disagree - the subject of the thread was
"at what point deity?"
A diety is a being (real or imagined) that is worshiped as a god.
Deity - hood is not defined in terms which are empirical, objective or
measurable - it is defined in terms of respect, reverence, awe etc -
all emotional, subjective, terms.
Posed a different way. An entity with powers you can not fathom makes it's
presence know to you. In general terms how would you go about constructing
the logical case for it not being a deity.
I wouldn't construct a logical argument that it isnt a deity - because
I know that would be a error of reason. I would examine my feelings, my
ethics, my principles and see whether or not I wanted to worship it -
if I didnt it wouldnt be my deity.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: at what point deity? |
13 Oct 2005 10:58:38 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1128737730.050883.90240@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
karl wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1128563603.604562.22140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
karl wrote:
Entirely hypothetical.
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously expounded:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.'
And most everyone is familiar with the character 'Q' from Star Trek:
The
Next Generation. Indeed many Trek episodes that Roddenberry had a hand
in
featured characters with god-like powers that turned out to be (a)
spoiled
children, or (b) insane, or (c) both.
So my question: How does one identify and demonstrate that the
'magic'
is
'technology'? That the great powers are merely science?
My honest answer: It doesnt matter.
I don't worship gods - no matter how powerful they may be.
'Worship' has nothing to do with the question.
I disagree - the subject of the thread was
"at what point deity?"
A diety is a being (real or imagined) that is worshiped as a god.
Perhaps I overstated then. Let me rephrase. That you do not worship is not a
testable [or even untestable] criteria for determining something is science
and not 'magic'.
Deity - hood is not defined in terms which are empirical, objective or
measurable - it is defined in terms of respect, reverence, awe etc -
all emotional, subjective, terms.
Posed a different way. An entity with powers you can not fathom makes
it's
presence know to you. In general terms how would you go about
constructing
the logical case for it not being a deity.
I wouldn't construct a logical argument that it isnt a deity - because
I know that would be a error of reason. I would examine my feelings, my
ethics, my principles and see whether or not I wanted to worship it -
if I didnt it wouldnt be my deity.
If I could extrapolate from this then: Being a deity means _not_ having a
logical argument for its' existence?
Or am I committing a logical overreach?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
