Tweet
I am sure I've posted it before, but I'll post it again. This one of the "logic discourses" (in quotes, because like most logic, it can be circular if you really put your mind to it) as to why some people, I know Gurm shares a similar sentiment, believe in a "highly possibility of a supreme being or intellect that we collectively call God." This ignores all other arguements for the time being...
If you examine the ultimate goal of science, what do you find? You find that the ultimate goal of science is to understand everything about everything. Everything about life, about the Earth, about the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and the cosmos in general. Obviously this is not an easy task, but one that most scientists believe might/could/will - depending on the person - happen. This is called omniscience (not pronounce omni - science, for non-native-English speakers).
To understand everything about everything, you must be able to produce and duplicate results to form proofs and axioms from theories. As such, an omniscient scientific community, or being/person, would have the ability to manipulate everything to their designs. This is called, omnipotent, or all powerful.
...to save some typing, in order to understand everything you would have to have the ability to go anywhere at every level, or be omnipresent. Which may not exactly mean physically being everywhere at once, but having the ability to be anywhere at any given time.
Anyway, the three omni's build the classic definition of "God." All powerful, all knowing, all present (omni obviously means "all" or universal). As such you could, according to this logic, call godhood the ultimate end to science, i.e. a being that has achieved the ultimate goal of science.
Thus saying that "there is no possibility of a god," which is true atheism, is to say the science is futile and ultimately cannot achive the knowledge that it so desperately seeks, beyond increasing basic comfort of the human race ... or to accelerate the destruction of the human race if you're more inclined to be a pessimist. Or to say that no being/person has yet attained said status in all of time and space. This is why some people say there is no such thing as an atheist, only people who are agnostic and don't know it
Anyway ... the believer, following this line of logic, would say that at least one being/person has achieved this goal or status and uses it for their own purposes, like the creation of planets and populations.
This of course begs the question, where did God come from. To which nobody knows ... which isn't a bad thing, as we really don't know a lot in the grandest scheme of things (it's hard to know about the universe when we still can't send people to our closest planet, let alone closets galaxy).
Anyway ... if you are speaking of logic, science, and god a more accurate statement, IMHO, would be, "I believe in the possibility of a god," more than, "I believe in God."
My $0.02.
Jammrock
If you examine the ultimate goal of science, what do you find? You find that the ultimate goal of science is to understand everything about everything. Everything about life, about the Earth, about the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and the cosmos in general. Obviously this is not an easy task, but one that most scientists believe might/could/will - depending on the person - happen. This is called omniscience (not pronounce omni - science, for non-native-English speakers).
To understand everything about everything, you must be able to produce and duplicate results to form proofs and axioms from theories. As such, an omniscient scientific community, or being/person, would have the ability to manipulate everything to their designs. This is called, omnipotent, or all powerful.
...to save some typing, in order to understand everything you would have to have the ability to go anywhere at every level, or be omnipresent. Which may not exactly mean physically being everywhere at once, but having the ability to be anywhere at any given time.
Anyway, the three omni's build the classic definition of "God." All powerful, all knowing, all present (omni obviously means "all" or universal). As such you could, according to this logic, call godhood the ultimate end to science, i.e. a being that has achieved the ultimate goal of science.
Thus saying that "there is no possibility of a god," which is true atheism, is to say the science is futile and ultimately cannot achive the knowledge that it so desperately seeks, beyond increasing basic comfort of the human race ... or to accelerate the destruction of the human race if you're more inclined to be a pessimist. Or to say that no being/person has yet attained said status in all of time and space. This is why some people say there is no such thing as an atheist, only people who are agnostic and don't know it
Anyway ... the believer, following this line of logic, would say that at least one being/person has achieved this goal or status and uses it for their own purposes, like the creation of planets and populations.
This of course begs the question, where did God come from. To which nobody knows ... which isn't a bad thing, as we really don't know a lot in the grandest scheme of things (it's hard to know about the universe when we still can't send people to our closest planet, let alone closets galaxy).
Anyway ... if you are speaking of logic, science, and god a more accurate statement, IMHO, would be, "I believe in the possibility of a god," more than, "I believe in God."
My $0.02.
Jammrock
Comment