(November 28, 2015 at 11:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Some folks cannot distinguish between coral snakes and king snakes. Does that inability mean no differences exist?
Of course not.
An excellent analogy. Very helpful!
Yes, you're right. It IS true that coral snakes and king snakes are indistinguishable to some people-- perhaps to most people-- yet one will kill you and the other is harmless. If such a person sees a banded snake and doesn't get bit by it, then as far as that person is concerned, the two varieties of snake are indistinguishable. They are indistinguishable, but they are not the same. (If this person is bitten by a coral snake, and it injects a substantial amount of venom, they will, of course, immediately distinguish the difference.) The latent difference is that one is poisonous and the other is not.
Applied to gods and extremely technologically-advanced extraterrestrials, the latent difference is that one is magical or supernatural, and the other is not. Most dictionary definitions of the terms "god" and "deity" make use of the term "supernatural" or a synonym of "supernatural," such as "magical." Dictionary definitions of the word "extraterrestrial" or "alien" don't use this term. Additionally, it is traditionally assumed that the technological powers of extraterrestrials are a function of their ability to exploit their scientific understanding of natural law (as humans do), not an ability to break natural law. Clearly then, these are two different animals-- as different as coral snakes and king snakes. One is magical and the other is not.
Language is a slippery thing-- as slippery as a greased bullfrog. There are clear differences between a dachshund and a collie, yet they are both dogs. There are clear differences between a mechanical pencil and a non-mechanical one, yet they are both pencils. There are clear differences between a Lamberghini and a Subaru, yet they are both cars. Conversely, there is virtually no zoological difference between a dove and a pigeon, yet these are popularly defined as being two extremely different birds.
So, you're right, and your point is well-taken. Traditionally, gods are supernatural, and extraterrestrial beings are not. This is an almost universally-recognized distinction. No matter how technologically-advanced an extraterrestrial race is, they are not gods because their powers do not defy natural law.
I am suggesting, however, that this traditional distinction between gods and sufficiently technologically advanced extraterrestrials is mistaken; it is naive. It kinda-sorta made sense once, when humans axiomatically took natural law to be a thing which could not be altered by natural means. But the word "supernatural" becomes meaningless as soon as we seriously consider the idea of applying technology towards breaking natural law. Not just taking advantage of it, as we have done in the past, but breaking it-- literally altering it, at will.
"That's not true," one may protest, "because the breaking of natural law that you're suggesting would be done by purely natural means, not by MAGIC!" "You're interpreting the term "supernatural" to mean "that which breaks or defies natural law," but that ISN'T it's real meaning! It's real meaning is MAGIC! Gods are MAGICAL, and extraterrestrials are not!"
Okay. Here is where I admit defeat. I can come up with no retort to this argument because, quite frankly, I don't understand it. I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, nor the limits of my cognitive faculties. I don't appear to have the intellectual capacity to understand this notion of "REAL MAGIC." I surrender.
In my mind, REAL MAGIC isn't possible-- any more than an omniscient God who makes mistakes in His creations is possible, or an omnibenevolent God who kills almost every living thing with a flood and sends children to burn in Hell eternally for not believing in Him is possible. In my mind, since REAL MAGIC isn't possible, taking it seriously enough to bother arguing that there's an important distinction to be made between REAL MAGIC and parlor magic is silly. In my mind, the only kind of magic there is is parlor magic, and therefore parlor magic is "REAL MAGIC." In my mind, the only gods which exist are those which CAN exist. I admit that I am confused and perplexed when rational-minded, scientifically-knowledgeable atheists insist, passionately, that the only gods which are REAL are ones which can't exist, and gods which CAN exist-- no matter how similar to genuine gods they may appear-- aren't "REAL GODS." They aren't "REAL GODS" because the only "REAL GODS" are those which can't possibly exist.
Yeah. I don't get it. It seems to make sense to A LOT of smart people, but I (personally) don't get it.
To me, if zoologists were to discover a new species of horse which was white, had a single horn in its forehead, and whose blood had amazing medicinal properties, I'd call it a unicorn. Even if it wasn't MAGICAL, I'd still call it a unicorn because it would be indistinguishable from every single unicorn in existence. Even if unicorns were traditionally believed to have impossible characteristics, such as having invisible green poop, I'd still call this newly discovered creature a unicorn-- and my reason would still be that:
it's the closest thing to a unicorn that actually exists.
But that's just me. I know that others see things differently, and I readily admit that I find that fact puzzling. I don't mind it at all; I just find it puzzling.
