In reference to Brandon's "tests," and Ros' reaction thereto--i had believed it was Azimov who made the following quote, but i checked it online, and it was Arthur C. Clarke:
The genius of science fiction wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
That this reaction of ascribing magical abilities to someone sufficiently advanced technologically as to accomplish things beyond the ken of the observer is an accurate statement is confirmed by, for example, the Cargo cults of macronesia. In one striking example, the people of one of the islands of the Bismark archipeligo during World War Two quickly evolved a cargo cult after MacArthur's logistic support boys landed there briefly in support of the Manus operation. They were there long enough to overawe the islanders, and for the cargo cult to develop, but no long enough for an understanding that a superior technology were the explanation of differences between the natives and the visitors to dawn on the natives.
As late as thirty years later, an Australian television crew found the islanders building surprisingly accurate representations of the standard Army Air Force Piper reconnaissance aircraft, and making sacrifices in the hope of luring the "gods" back from the heavens to bring more cargo.
On such a basis, i can see the point of what Ros is saying. That is why i suggested that a sufficient proof might be a flagrant violation of the laws of the physicasl universe--but then one could always assert an unknown and incomprehensible technological method. I think Ros has a point, but i think Brandon does as well.
However, the likelihood is that no such event will take place, because the human race has been sufficiently sophisticated technologically for a sufficiently long period of time for such a deity to have revealed itself, it it existed and that were ever its intent.
One of many reasons to be sceptical. I always refer, however, to the illogical nature of the proposition, and point to Occam's razor. It is a
bête noir of the religious to constantly speak of proofs. Only the religious object to being asked to prove the existence of a deity (something which, in my experience, the agnostic rarely or never does, and which is only done by those atheists who are actually anti-theists, making a religion of their "atheism")--or who demand that someone else prove that no deity exists.
Therefore, when the religious begin to ask what it would take to prove that god exists, i simply experience annoyance. I don't care if a god exists, it is irrelevant to me and my world view, my view of life. Were someone actually able to "prove" to me that god existed, my response would be "Huh . . . well i'll be damned."--after which i'd simply go about my business as before.
(All puns intended; the management of this site is not responsible for opinions expressed herein; the uninitiate are advised not to attempt these intellectual contortions at home, and are advised to have a spotter present at all times; not valid where taxed or regulated; see your user manual for exceptions and conditions.)
