Sklansky is right - part III

[RJT]

This is a reli-fiction post. See two previous posts.


Part III

If we take our idea that an entirely new concept of god/no god can be discovered based on nothing science or religion or philosophy (any and all knowledge) has given us to date then it becomes “simply” a matter of finding it. Hopefully at that point, after we discover god/no god, it becomes a “simple” matter of formulating its proof.

To give you an example of what I mean when I say “an entirely new concept”. I mean: no myth, no allegory, no Father-figure, no child building blocks , no prime mover and no quantum physics type stuff. All of those concepts have already been thought of.

We have to find a new out-of-thin-air-like-the-theory-of- relativity-was-discovered type concept of god/no god. Then we can formulate an entirely new “science” to prove our discovery - similar to if physics was just formulated. ( I am using the science of physics, because we can say that is the science that the theory of relativity spawned? If I am in error in my analogy, well, you can still get my point.) My idea of a new concept is like the artist who first thought to paint in the abstract - a new concept in art - we can almost say the idea of abstract art came out of thin air (whether it actually did or not is beside the point for my comparison.)

I can compare the “discovery” of black holes to the discovery of the “absence of god”. We can think of black holes as empty spaces, but they aren’t really that, right? Black holes exist in the physical world. We need to discover the “black hole/absent god” in the conceptual world. Once we can conceive it we can than describe/prove it. But again this must be a totally new concept, unlike any concept to date. The old concepts so far are un-provable.

This method of discovery is probably the hardest of my 3 suggested methodologies - we will almost have to basically get lucky - but it is not all luck because we will be trying to think of the new concept. We are aiding the luck factor by trying to discover it.

Another methodology we can use stems from the second part of David S.’s answer to my question “are all scientific breakthrough based on at least some prior science knowledge”. His answer was something like this: other than (possibly ) the theory of relativity all other breakthroughs could be traced back to man himself (not from thin air).

So if we take this idea, we can create our new concept from things we know. That is, it must stem from something inherent in man (or animal or plant or from some knowledge about the universe that we know) - but let’s keep the idea simple for now: We have to discover the new concept of God like we did DNA - a new concept that relates to us physically - might even be something that relates to (stems from) us mentally, I am not excluding this avenue. (And to repeat myself: or to find no god in something inherent in man, etc.) Once we have this new concept we can then prove it and understand it like we proved and understand DNA after we discovered it.

The last method that I can think of to discover this new concept of god/no god is the “easiest” way, the most tangible way, the traditional way. Through the scientific method. Observe, analyze, formulate, test. (botched that I am sure, sorry, been awhile since elementary school). I am not sure that this method can prove non existence of god though. I need help figuring out whether it can or not. In this method we use religious texts.

I will give the example of what I am visualizing via Christianity, since I am most familiar with this religion’s texts. All know religions (not just Christianity) and all extant texts would have to be analyzed this same way before we can complete our study.

Some Scientist and many theologians have already tried to do a “scientific” study in a “quest for the historical Jesus”. But this is not what I am saying. They were looking to find out the most they could about Jesus by using methods that science uses when it wants to find out all it can about a certain subject.

I am suggesting we need to read the texts and see if we can translate what is said into any scientific understanding. I’ll give a rudimentary (perhaps not even a good) example:

Jesus said, “Behold, the Kingdom of God is at hand.” There is a whole body of theology to try to interpret what Jesus means when he talks about the Kingdom of God. That “branch” of theology is called eschatology. I am not suggesting this.

I am saying, “can this sentence be translated into scientific language, rather than theological language?” Was Jesus saying something that, for example, quantum physics now can explain what he means? The obvious answer would be -hell no. Yet, has it ever been attempted by scientists? How do we know that the Bible can’t be “translated” into scientific language? To my knowledge, no one has ever tried. (This last thought came as a direct result of Sklansky’s yet unnamed theory and its caveat “…who has studied the topic as much…” )

The End

A (another) short cartoon will follow, please stand by.

[David Sklansky]

"Another methodology we can use stems from the second part of David S.’s answer to my question “are all scientific breakthrough based on at least some prior science knowledge”. His answer was something like this: other than (possibly ) the theory of relativity all other breakthroughs could be traced back to man himself (not from thin air)."

I am not an expert on this subject. Plus you misquoted me. I said I was TOLD that the GENERAL (as opposed to the SPECIAL) Theory of Relativity was possibly a long way off from being discovered if Einstein hadn't done it. And I'm fairly sure there were other breakthroughs in that category but I am not familiar with them.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"Another methodology we can use stems from the second part of David S.’s answer to my question “are all scientific breakthrough based on at least some prior science knowledge”. His answer was something like this: other than (possibly ) the theory of relativity all other breakthroughs could be traced back to man himself (not from thin air)."

I am not an expert on this subject. Plus you misquoted me. I said I was TOLD that the GENERAL (as opposed to the SPECIAL) Theory of Relativity was possibly a long way off from being discovered if Einstein hadn't done it. And I'm fairly sure there were other breakthroughs in that category but I am not familiar with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are other breakthroughs, then that makes our task - to discover this new concept of god/no god - that much easier, or rather a higher probablility of being successful.

Sorry for the mis-paraphrasing.

Btw, I hope no one took this reli-fiction as parody. It is not. A bit wacko maybe, but that is me being wacko, I am not poking fun of others.