(May 2, 2019 at 2:37 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(May 2, 2019 at 2:17 pm)madog Wrote: How you know a God is even possible, that even if such existed it could effect the natural world is just a faith position ...
While you maintain your position that anything you can't understand is God, I'm done
I never claimed that. What I have claimed is that a scientific understanding of the Universe is based upon the Conservation Laws. If a single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions, such is proof, for me at least, of something non-physical in the Cosmos. Call such an entity what you will; I would call such a being "God".
Do you have a verifiable example of a "single instance of a macroscopic violation can be repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions"?
If there were, I believe it would be pretty newsworthy. Maybe even Noble worthy.
Quote:By the way, I think that AC Clarke was wrong. Any advanced civilization would still be subject to the Conservation Laws. Faster-than-light travel is a physical impossibility, no matter how "advanced" a civilization might be.
I believe you may be misinterpreting Clarke's famous quote here. There is nothing in his quote concerning advanced civilizations being subject to the laws of the universe, yet still being perceived as magic to less advanced civilizations.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
