Sklansky is right - part II

[RJT]

One needs to read my previous post to get a better understanding of what I am talking about in this post. Make sure you know this is reli-fiction at any rate.

The germination of these thoughts came from Sklansky’s unnamed theory. Using his theory with thoughts from posters on the forum I was able to get to this point:

Part II

When we left off last episode (post) we decided we need to simply prove or disprove the existence of God. No big deal.

To do this, my idea is to come up with a new concept of God/no god entirely. This post explains what I mean by “new concept entirely” and my next post suggests methods on how we can do that.

We have (at least) 4 groups of geniuses who believe there is not god ( I am reducing the term “religion” which was the primary use of Sklansky’s theory to “god” - that is, to its basic - I reduce it also for simplicity):

1) Those who do not allow for any god.
2) Those who allow for some sort of god - but not like any religion’s view to date.
3) Those who are in either 1 and 2 and have no use for the conversation.
4) Those who are in either 1 or 2 and are willing to discuss (and/or are interested in ) the subject.

Using group 4 we can proceed.

I am thinking any further progression of the subject (either positive or negative - “discovery” of God or proof of no god) must come from a new sub-group of category 4 geniuses. (This is where we - using the word “we” loosely and you can see that I do use it loosely here as I include myself in this conversation- - on the forum come in. I am also including myself in group, even though I am a believer, again for simplicity.) The 5th group - really a subset of group 4 - let’s call ourselves, maybe, the 5th Dimension ( I’ll take suggestions on other names) need to take a new approach and look for a new method to search for god/no god.

I suggest the reason all prior methods have failed is because they relied on previously used concepts of God. * Perhaps, it is the concept of god (any concept of god that has already been thought of and/or formalized into a religion ) that has gotten in the way of any proof to date. I suggest we need to discover a new concept. ** I am not talking about another dimension type of new concept, or a God child playing with blocks type if new concept. (My next post explains a bit more what I mean by this.)

Had the answer to a previous post of mine in which I asked “has any scientific thought been discovered completely independent of previous scientific knowledge?” been answered with a ton of past discoveries, our task here predictably would be easier. So far the only close thing to this is David’s suggestion that the theory of relativity would come closest - (or exactly?) - to answering my question in the affirmative. So if it is possible to “discover” a new idea “out of thin air” then there is no theoretical reason that “we” can’t discover a new god/no god concept. Since perhaps a totally new concept of anything has only happened maybe once in history, it makes our task that much harder. Again, no big deal for us geniuses.

So, it might be possible - like the theory of relatively was discovered out of thin air - we can make this “discovery” of a new concept of god/no god from out of the air. If the example of the theory of relativity does not exactly apply and there is in fact no scientific breakthrough that hasn’t been based on past knowledge (therefore probably not possible) , then we have to discover the new concept from somewhere in our total knowledge of science. Similar to how DNA (maybe?) was “ discovered”.

My next post deals with some suggested methodologies relative to discovering a new concept of god/no god.


*Now when I say we need a new concept of god - I also mean to say, “or a new concept of no god.” I think it is easier for me to talk in the positive (to try to discover god) rather than the negative. Our final conclusion (if we are successful) in either direction - discovering god or the opposite - should lead to proof of one and the other at the same time. So if we discover god, then we prove that “god does not exist” is a false statement. If we somehow “discover” and find no god, then we have proven that “god exists” is false.

**For believer, when I say we need a new concept of god, it does not mean we negate our God, it means we will better understand the things we didn’t know.