Why science and religion are not compatible

[citizenzen]

I'll repeat what I said - it wouldn't prove anything, either way. It would simply take one bit of evidence out of the equation. Imagine trying to disprove string theory, say, by analysing the minds of the scientists involved. It's inherently absurd.

Analyzing brain structures and brain activity is "inherently absurd"?

 

[citizenzen]

Look around a little bit. There's been a fair amount of research done on the psychology of belief. Here is a link to a little bit of it, after googling "Psychology of belief."

Thanks for the links. I'll bookmark it and check it out.

 

[Aridas]

Oh yes there is :
Is an omnipotent being able to create a rock it cannot lift?

• If Yes….then it is not omnipotent since there is something it cannot do.
• If No…...then it is not omnipotent since there is something it cannot do.

General rule of thumb, nonsensical arguments are best not used as a bar for whether Omnipotence is the case or not.

Yes there is:
Is an omnipotent god able to see all the strife in the world?

If No….then not omnipotent
If Yes…..then is it able to stop it?

If No …. Then not omnipotent.
If yes….. then why doesn’t it?

If because it doesn’t want to…..............then it is a VILE TURD.
If because it doesn’t care…...................then it is a HEINOUS TURD.
If because it doesn’t want to interfere…..then it is a USELESS TURD.​

And this... well, heh. Only a little emotionally charged. Really. It also takes a very human-centered view of how this "god" is supposed to act. Not that you're completely wrong, from our perspective. From an ant's perspective, the human that casually steps on it and kills it without ever noticing can be considered a heinous turd.

Or, to be more clear, this argument only works from a limited viewpoint. I requires that this "god" know about humanity. It requires that this "god" care enough about humanity to even look at them. It requires that it care enough about strife, specifically, to look a that and do something. The list goes on a fair bit, really. The problem of evil really only is a problem if all three of Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence are claimed. Omnipotence alone, well... "can" does not mean "will," "does," or "should do."

 

[Leumas]

We made god in our image.

So if somehow science could demonstrate the physical cause of that belief, in either a structure of the brain or pattern of activity, it could go a long way to proving that god belief is an artifact of our physical brain and not of divine origin.

Here is one hypothesis:

Three things are INNATE in us:

1. We as humans have evolved to attribute AGENCY to everything even if it is wrong. If we attributed the rustling of the leaves to a leopard wrongly….no loss….but if we didn’t we got eaten…..so the one who has a HYPER agency-attributing ability survives.
2. We human beings have evolved to be social animals with social hierarchy. Thus we also evolved to have EMPATHY. This means that we put ourselves in the place of the other member of the social group and try to understand his/her intentions and motives and pains and so forth. In other words we try to put the mind of the other in ours. We ATTRIBUTE MIND to others. This is useful in socializing. The better a person is at it the better s/he is able to PLAY THE GAME OF CHESS of life and the better s/he is able to CLIMB THE SOCIAL LADDER.
3. We also evolved to have sense of a TIME LINE. Past, present and THUS…future. This is useful in PLANNING and the better one is at learning from the past and making plans for the future the better s/he is able to play the game of chess of life. So if we exist today with all the activity and people around us, but we also see people die and go away, then where do they go in the future?

So combine these three:

1. Attribution of AGENCY
2. Attribution of MIND
3. Fear of death and the future.

Animistic religions are the most primitive among religions. Everything has an AGENCY behind it. Rain, Thunder, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and so forth. We also extend a MIND to these agencies. And if we have fear from or need for it we then SUPPLICATE to it to stop or give.

Of course people who die also must go somewhere where they still CONTINUE ON into the FUTURE and though we cannot see them they must still have a mind.

So then are evolved the ANCESTOR religions.

Of course…as we started congregating in agrarian groups and we started having RULERS we naturally started AGGREGATING the AGENCIES in groups too and assign them rulers too.

Thus were contrived the GODS….and godly hierarchies.

And just as despots started to appear so did despotic gods too. And just as EMPIRES started to appear with OMNI-RULERS so did deities start being just ONE RULER too.

The God principle evolved with us as our PSYCHE and SOCIAL structures evolved.


And we made god in our image.



See these books:

• The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God: An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity
• Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
• The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God
• The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
• Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives
• Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality
• The Future Of An Illusion
• Origins of Religion: " Totem and Taboo " and " Moses and Monotheism "
• A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution
• Moses And Monotheism

 

[Aridas]

Analyzing brain structures and brain activity is "inherently absurd"?

Not what he said. Probably not the clearest example, though. Simply said, I think his point was that the argument given didn't really address the point that he's making. I could be wrong, as always, when I'm not looking at the whole thing in context.

Thanks for the links. I'll bookmark it and check it out.

Here's the first in a series of a few videos that deal with more about the psychology of belief.

Also, thank you Leumas.

Surprisingly, there has not been a single voice here suggesting there is one situation in which science and religion are fully compatible. Genuine science, not the neo-Darwinian poppycock kind of jive, but real science that exposes itself, RISKS FALSIFICATION, and genuine religion, a proposed truth that asserts we were made by a creator with the furtherance of purpose in mind, that science and that "religion" are grounded in the notion of "intelligent design".

Alright, seriously. Just stop. "Genuine religion?" "Genuine science?" Sorry, but completely redefining terms and then trying to present them as the answers for questions involving the original definitions is blatantly fallacious and wins you nothing. Seriously, why are you even wasting your time?

Edit: Oh, You might want to watch this video, Patrick1000. It's a later one in the chain that I mentioned earlier in this post.

 

[Patrick1000]

Not redefining

Not what he said. Probably not the clearest example, though. Simply said, I think his point was that the argument given didn't really address the point that he's making. I could be wrong, as always, when I'm not looking at the whole thing in context.



Here's the first in a series of a few videos that deal with more about the psychology of belief.

Also, thank you Leumas.


Alright, seriously. Just stop. "Genuine religion?" "Genuine science?" Sorry, but completely redefining terms and then trying to present them as the answers for questions involving the original definitions is blatantly fallacious and wins you nothing. Seriously, why are you even wasting your time?

Not "redefining". I was emphasizing a point. Neo-Darwinism is not falsifiable. I just showed that with Paul's help. When the cytochrome c example came up in 1963, the biologists said "evolution" meant something else altogether. NOW THAT'S!!! REDEFINING!!!

Well done intelligent design science, unlike neo-Darwinism, exposes itself to the risk of falsifiability, and so is serious science in a way that modern Darwinism can never hope to be.

Check out Stephen Meyer's SIGNATURE IN THE CELL. An important book, even for an atheist like myself. And yes it is real science, and no, Darwinism, modern evolutionary biology as conventionally "practiced" is very much not real science, for reasons already mentioned. Just ask Paul, he knows all about Motoo Kimura now. By he way, the cytochrome c business is but one example. I could go on and on with this stuff.

To say it another way, Darwinism is not science. What Meyer does is, not that I agree with him.

 

[citizenzen]

Not what he said. Probably not the clearest example, though.

I was mostly giving him a hard time.

But I do wonder about his notion that "it wouldn't prove anything". Wouldn't prove anything to who? Take evolution as an example. All the evidence behind it isn't sufficient proof to a great many people. If you're resistant to the conclusion, no amount of evidence is proof enough.

 

[Patrick1000]

Not a "great many" but some people demand that any theory be reasonable

I was mostly giving him a hard time.

But I do wonder about his notion that "it wouldn't prove anything". Wouldn't prove anything to who? Take evolution as an example. All the evidence behind it isn't sufficient proof to a great many people. If you're resistant to the conclusion, no amount of evidence is proof enough.

Not a "great many" but some people demand that any theory, of whatever kind, scientific or otherwise, be reasonable. Neo-Darwinism is simply not reasonable.

We shouldn't confuse fossils, and embryologic observations and our facility with gene manipulation with a presumption that we understand life's origin's and its mechanism of change over time.

 

[Aridas]

Not "redefining". I was emphasizing a point. Neo-Darwinism is not falsifiable. I just showed that with Paul's help. When the cytochrome c example came up in 1963, the biologists said "evolution" meant something else altogether. NOW THAT'S!!! REDEFINING!!!

I'd have to say that the moment that you conflated the terms "religion" and "intelligent design," you were redefining. That you failed to even acknowledge what "religion" actually means after being hand fed it, but instead retreated to a very specific subsection of religion and claimed that it was the only real way to determine religion after that? Not so good for your credibility.

The moment that you failed to understand that science is a process of understanding reality following a rather specific methodology and instead tried to repeatedly conflate it with philosophical naturalism and/or blind dogma, you were redefining things. Your failure to even acknowledge that, as well? Not so good for your credibility.

Making blatantly false claims, as if they were truth, in general? Not so good for your credibility.

Incidentally, I don't believe that you've fixed your statements wherein you end up arguing that science is not scientific, yet. Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to take you seriously about anything related to science, with that hanging over you, on top of everything else.

 

[Patrick1000]

I conflated nothing, get a grip

I'd have to say that the moment that you conflated the terms "religion" and "intelligent design," you were redefining. That you failed to even acknowledge what "religion" actually means after being hand fed it, but instead retreated to a very specific subsection of religion and claimed that it was the only real way to determine religion after that? Not so good for your credibility.

The moment that you failed to understand that science is a process of understanding reality following a rather specific methodology and instead tried to repeatedly conflate it with philosophical naturalism and/or blind dogma, you were redefining things. Your failure to even acknowledge that, as well? Not so good for your credibility.

Making blatantly false claims, as if they were truth, in general? Not so good for your credibility.

Incidentally, I don't believe that you've fixed your statements wherein you end up arguing that science is not scientific, yet. Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to take you seriously about anything related to science, with that hanging over you, on top of everything else.

Religion , in our western tradition says you were made, you are a creation. You were created by an intelligence. THAT! is religion in our tradition. THAT! is where it starts. Get a Bible if you need convincing. That is what this thread is about. I conflated NOTHING!

Enough with this bogus NONSENSE!

I make no blatant false claims. Show me where in my claims about cytochrome c anything was "blatantly false". Just a few simple facts, and I have got dozens more.

I claim nothing. I would suggest people think before they accept this hogwash as true.

 

[Aridas]

Religion , in our western tradition

You notice that you had to qualify religion, there. You're redefining it into a dramatically more limited form. Which is part of what I've been pointing out.

says you were made, you are a creation. You were created by an intelligence. THAT! is religion in our tradition.

"Our tradition?" Incredibly presumptuous, aren't you?

THAT! is where it starts. Get a Bible if you need convincing.

Funny thing. Christianity is a religion. Technically, a whole slew of them under one banner, but that's beside the point. Islam is a religion. Also technically a bunch of them. A very similar one, no less. Wicca's a religion. Also, technically a bunch of them. Scientology is a religion. Atheistic Buddhism is a religion. Jainism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. There are many, many, many more, both potential and real.

Get over your fixation on Christianity. Christianity is a religion, but for something to be a religion, it doesn't have to be Christianity.

That is what this thread is about. I conflated NOTHING!

If this was about conflicts between Christianity and science, you'd have a point. Religion is not necessarily Christianity, however, much as you keep trying to say that it is.

Enough with this bogus NONSENSE!

I could say much the same to you.

I make no blatant false claims. Show me where in my claims about cytochrome c anything was "blatantly false". Just a few simple facts, and I have got dozens more.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to our exchanges, then. Well, my side of them, anyways, given that you seem to ignore most of what I say when I respond to you.

I claim nothing. I would suggest people think before they accept this hogwash as true.

Oddly enough, I don't accept evolution as true. I accept it as the current leading scientific theory, which has, quite frankly, an incredible amount of evidence backing it up and has made useful contributions to our body of knowledge. Given that I am not an expert and freely admit that I am not willing to go to the effort to officially become one, I accept it provisionally as the most likely explanation.

That said, when repeated claims are made that betray basic misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, I do tend to get slightly annoyed at the straw man arguments. Interestingly enough, I like logic and I don't try to hide it. I like good arguments. I get annoyed when fallacies are thrown around, though.

 

[Patrick1000]

The thread is about the compatibility of religion and science

You notice that you had to qualify religion, there. You're redefining it into a dramatically more limited form. Which is part of what I've been pointing out.



"Our tradition?" Incredibly presumptuous, aren't you?



Funny thing. Christianity is a religion. Technically, a whole slew of them under one banner, but that's beside the point. Islam is a religion. Also technically a bunch of them. A very similar one, no less. Wicca's a religion. Also, technically a bunch of them. Scientology is a religion. Atheistic Buddhism is a religion. Jainism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. There are many, many, many more, both potential and real.

Get over your fixation on Christianity. Christianity is a religion, but for something to be a religion, it doesn't have to be Christianity.



If this was about conflicts between Christianity and science, you'd have a point. Religion is not necessarily Christianity, however, much as you keep trying to say that it is.



I could say much the same to you.



Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to our exchanges, then. Well, my side of them, anyways, given that you seem to ignore most of what I say when I respond to you.



Oddly enough, I don't accept evolution as true. I accept it as the current leading scientific theory, which has, quite frankly, an incredible amount of evidence backing it up and has made useful contributions to our body of knowledge. Given that I am not an expert and freely admit that I am not willing to go to the effort to officially become one, I accept it provisionally as the most likely explanation.

That said, when repeated claims are made that betray basic misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, I do tend to get slightly annoyed at the straw man arguments. Interestingly enough, I like logic and I don't try to hide it. I like good arguments. I get annoyed when fallacies are thrown around, though.

The thread is about the compatibility of religion and science. For the most part, in the US, the "evolution debate" is indeed a debate about this compatibility. As most Americans identify themselves as Christian, and as the debate as it occurs in the main is about Christian belief vs evolutionary beliefs, I refer to Christianity as "religion" for that reason.

Practically speaking, it (Christianity) applies in the context of what goes on here in our country.

 

[westprog]

Analyzing brain structures and brain activity is "inherently absurd"?

No, it's science. Drawing conclusions about fundamental physics by studying what people think about fundamental physics is absurd. (That's assuming that the potential God study falls under physics - which seems appropriate).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course they agree Paul!!!! That was/is the whole point of my "trick question"! To show neo-Dawinism as the unmitigated gobbledygook that it is!

How is it possible to have a "theory of evolution" that says both at once, talks out both side of its mouth at once, biologic systems evolve as environmental pressures select for the fittest phenotypes, AND, at the same time, evolution occurs through a process where phenotype is unaffected by natural selection/environmental pressures, molecular evolution occurring clock like and independent of everything and anything? Well it is possible when one is not dealing with anything that remotely resembles science.

Motoo Kimura is a talented biologist, but what he is doing here is not very scientific, nor are the oodles of biologists and not so very biologists that jump on the "neutral evolution" bandwagon every time the situation so suits, and then right back off when the next situation demands the opposite, demands molecular change affect phenotypic change with natural selection then delivering to us the fittest of the lot available from the phenotypic menu.

This is Marxism, Freudian pseudoscience type rubbish. Like these other two pseudodisciplines, neo-Darwinism explains EVERYTHING, every case and so it therefore explains nothing. And keep in mind it explains every case because Kimura changed the rules, changed the theory's axioms at his whim, changed Darwin's theory when it suited his contrived truth, a truth that in reality would otherwise flat out FALSIFY THE WHOLE BOGUS NEO-DARWINIAN SHEBANG.

I can make up a science like that too Paul, one in which once it hits a contradiction and is FALSIFIED, I CHANGE THE SCIENCE'S AXIOMS. Wonder if they give Nobel Prizes for such nifty face saving ideas????

My trick question proves a point. Neo-Darwinism is a bunch of biologic bull, and just because most evolutionary biologists buy in to that insane bull, well that don't make it true. Far from it. Look at the nonsense above, Kimura's "theory". What did you expect evolutionary biologists would do Paul? Say Darwin was WRONG after all? Say the discipline they have devoted their lives to has just been FALSIFIED and so is not scientifically true? Of course they are going to jump on the Kimura bandwagon and off and on and off and on and off, as the biologic problem to which they devote their attention on any given day demands.

Darwinism science? Indeed not! Nothing more than poppycock! And you yourself proved this to be the case, showing how inconsistent biologists were, buying into a theory that explains nothing, because it has an answer for everything by changing its own rules.

Surprisingly, there has not been a single voice here suggesting there is one situation in which science and religion are fully compatible. Genuine science, not the neo-Darwinian poppycock kind of jive, but real science that exposes itself, RISKS FALSIFICATION, and genuine religion, a proposed truth that asserts we were made by a creator with the furtherance of purpose in mind, that science and that "religion" are grounded in the notion of "intelligent design".

What say you to that Paul, makes a lot more sense than Kimura and your evolutionary biologists that like to have it both ways. What do you think of intelligent design Paul?

I would suggest it makes a heck of a lot more sense than neo-Darwinism. That theory is looking flat out dumb in the wake of this cytochrome c stuff, is it not?

I already answered you several pages ago.

There is no trick in your question. Evolution by means of natural selection works through genetic changes that result in protein changes which can be selected.

Not all protein changes result in a change in function of the protein. You have to know something about how proteins work before you can even think about this problem.

Cytochrome c oxidase is a carrier protein in the electron transport chain. It has a 'business end' (not actually the end) and the rest of the protein is there to help get the business end in place and to help anchor it in a membrane. If a non-polar amino acid within the anchor is substituted for another non-polar amino acid, then we will see a change in the protein make-up and no change in function (as long as the size of the side chain does not cause a problem).

Biochemistry, and evolution by means of natural selection, does not happen 'in theory' following some set of logic rules that you decided upon -- if there is a change in some protein then there must be a change in function that must be selected. That just isn't how it works.

Evolution by means of natural selection works off of genetic changes that do provide changes in function. That there are many genetic changes that do not produce changes in function is simply a part of biochemistry and molecular genetics. It has no impact on evolution. Those changes are very helpful, though, when we look at change over time.


ETA:

You have to keep in mind why the 'biological clock' idea was 'invented' and what purpose it serves. This goes a long way toward discussing this particular protein (or really group of protein subunits). The biological clock is a rough measure of how often mutations occur to help predict the potential accumulation of changes within proteins. It can work only because not all protein changes result in changes in function. And cytochrome c oxidase was used as the putative clock because it is so conserved in eukaryotes. It's conservation, in terms of its function (conservation of the business end) is why we see so much difference between this protein in eukaryotes and prokaryotes that we have studied in detail (the other issue you raised earlier).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it's science. Drawing conclusions about fundamental physics by studying what people think about fundamental physics is absurd. (That's assuming that the potential God study falls under physics - which seems appropriate).

Hold up a minute there. Studying why we see things a particular way in fundamental physics, how our brains might be wired to see things in that way, would be incredibly important to the study of fundamental physics. It would belie our confidence that we could ever reach a true fundamental picture of the world.

 

[Darat]

Well, there's two approaches to this. One is pragmatic. If there were a test for an omnipotent being, why hasn't anyone suggested it? By this I mean a scientific test, not of the metaphysical speculation kind. While a test might be impractical under present conditions, it could certainly be designed in principle.

However, the main reason is very simple. If a finite, limited being is playing hide and seek with an infinite, all-powerful being, then clearly the omnipotent player is going to win. No matter how hard the finite being searches, he has to accept the fact that he won't find a God that doesn't want to be found. You can perfectly well speculate in philosophical terms as to the likelihood of such a being existing. You can deduce metaphysically that there is no necessity for him. However, scientifically speaking you have to accept that the God thing is a dead end, and that there is no way to have a definitive answer for it.

All well and good and thanks for sharing part of your belief system with me but it does not answer the rather simple question I had asked you. Here it is again:

...... The claim I would like to see your evidence for is the highlighted part of your post: "...Certain definitions of God are possibly testable. Most aren't...."​

 

[tsig]

Of course they agree Paul!!!! That was/is the whole point of my "trick question"! To show neo-Dawinism as the unmitigated gobbledygook that it is!

How is it possible to have a "theory of evolution" that says both at once, talks out both side of its mouth at once, biologic systems evolve as environmental pressures select for the fittest phenotypes, AND, at the same time, evolution occurs through a process where phenotype is unaffected by natural selection/environmental pressures, molecular evolution occurring clock like and independent of everything and anything? Well it is possible when one is not dealing with anything that remotely resembles science.

Motoo Kimura is a talented biologist, but what he is doing here is not very scientific, nor are the oodles of biologists and not so very biologists that jump on the "neutral evolution" bandwagon every time the situation so suits, and then right back off when the next situation demands the opposite, demands molecular change affect phenotypic change with natural selection then delivering to us the fittest of the lot available from the phenotypic menu.

This is Marxism, Freudian pseudoscience type rubbish. Like these other two pseudodisciplines, neo-Darwinism explains EVERYTHING, every case and so it therefore explains nothing. And keep in mind it explains every case because Kimura changed the rules, changed the theory's axioms at his whim, changed Darwin's theory when it suited his contrived truth, a truth that in reality would otherwise flat out FALSIFY THE WHOLE BOGUS NEO-DARWINIAN SHEBANG.

I can make up a science like that too Paul, one in which once it hits a contradiction and is FALSIFIED, I CHANGE THE SCIENCE'S AXIOMS. Wonder if they give Nobel Prizes for such nifty face saving ideas????

My trick question proves a point. Neo-Darwinism is a bunch of biologic bull, and just because most evolutionary biologists buy in to that insane bull, well that don't make it true. Far from it. Look at the nonsense above, Kimura's "theory". What did you expect evolutionary biologists would do Paul? Say Darwin was WRONG after all? Say the discipline they have devoted their lives to has just been FALSIFIED and so is not scientifically true? Of course they are going to jump on the Kimura bandwagon and off and on and off and on and off, as the biologic problem to which they devote their attention on any given day demands.

Darwinism science? Indeed not! Nothing more than poppycock! And you yourself proved this to be the case, showing how inconsistent biologists were, buying into a theory that explains nothing, because it has an answer for everything by changing its own rules.

Surprisingly, there has not been a single voice here suggesting there is one situation in which science and religion are fully compatible. Genuine science, not the neo-Darwinian poppycock kind of jive, but real science that exposes itself, RISKS FALSIFICATION, and genuine religion, a proposed truth that asserts we were made by a creator with the furtherance of purpose in mind, that science and that "religion" are grounded in the notion of "intelligent design".

What say you to that Paul, makes a lot more sense than Kimura and your evolutionary biologists that like to have it both ways. What do you think of intelligent design Paul?

I would suggest it makes a heck of a lot more sense than neo-Darwinism. That theory is looking flat out dumb in the wake of this cytochrome c stuff, is it not?

You were just playing a trick and aren't an atheist?

 

[tsig]

That's the explanation of the action. It's not the wanting itself.

Simpler:

You wanted to replicate a pleasurable sensation.

 

[tsig]

I'd have to say that the moment that you conflated the terms "religion" and "intelligent design," you were redefining. That you failed to even acknowledge what "religion" actually means after being hand fed it, but instead retreated to a very specific subsection of religion and claimed that it was the only real way to determine religion after that? Not so good for your credibility.

The moment that you failed to understand that science is a process of understanding reality following a rather specific methodology and instead tried to repeatedly conflate it with philosophical naturalism and/or blind dogma, you were redefining things. Your failure to even acknowledge that, as well? Not so good for your credibility.

Making blatantly false claims, as if they were truth, in general? Not so good for your credibility.



Incidentally, I don't believe that you've fixed your statements wherein you end up arguing that science is not scientific, yet. Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to take you seriously about anything related to science, with that hanging over you, on top of everything else.

See this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531

 

[westprog]

I was mostly giving him a hard time.

But I do wonder about his notion that "it wouldn't prove anything". Wouldn't prove anything to who? Take evolution as an example. All the evidence behind it isn't sufficient proof to a great many people. If you're resistant to the conclusion, no amount of evidence is proof enough.

I'm specifically referring to scientific proof here. It's simply not possible to take such an analysis dealing with one aspect of science, and use it to draw conclusions about something else altogether.

There's nothing to stop anyone drawing whatever conclusions they want from this data. They simply can't claim it forms scientific proof.

Even if nobody in the world had ever considered the possibility of an omnipotent being, scientists could not a priori rule it out.