jzs said:
If he describes gizibllelables to be what I know as camaras, I'd say yes, I believe in them, I know them to exist. If he describes gizibllelables as 3-footed rhino-looking animals that are naturally green, I'd say that there is no evidence so I am skeptical, but such tihngs could exist on another planet. If he describes gizibllelables as how various gods are described I'd say that there is no evidence that I am aware of so I am skeptical. Note that that does in no why, shape, or form, rule out their possible existence.
Nope. In fact, I lack belief in any gods. But think SETI. Do we need precise definitions of aliens to go about talking about the SETI program? Nor do we need a precise definition of god(s) in order to postulate their existence or talk about them.
Well, there is one. Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Now, that doesn't exactly and explicitly define aliens, but it defines the parameters of the search loosely and completely enough. See, there isn't an exact definition necessary since the category is a quite inexact one: any life (natural or artificial) which has evolved on another planet to a state of technology capable of transmitting signals which can travel through space (i.e.: EM transmissions) and possibly be intercepted by someone like us searching for them. And the big difference is that we are using exemplification - homo sapiens are an evolved species on a planet that has the technological capabilities to send (and has already sent) EM transmissions into space which can be intercepted.
See, there are no exemplifications of 'god', nor is there an even general definition that can be used to make a determination of what might be considered one. Most older or 'pagan' religions had either gods that were part of nature (nymphs, faeries, tengu) or those that were personifications of humans (Greek and Roman Pantheon). Unless a human showed improbable characteristics, like transfiguration, it is unlikely that we can show any to be 'gods'.
Now we get to the juicy center of the matter. There are three types of "you can't prove that X doesn't exist":
1. X cannot exist within the bounded search space alotted.
If someone says that you can't prove that there isn't an elephant in your closet, that person is assuredly incorrect. It can be definitely proven to be true or false by several factors: the closet is too small to hold even a small elephant; an exhaustive search of the closet finds no elephants (or pictures or other representations, not even the word 'elephant'). Then it would be a true statement to say, "there is no elephant in my closet."
2. X might exist given the search space of all time and space if it has defined realistic properties.
Something that has realistic properties, given all of space and time of the universe certainly has the propensity for existence and is therefore unable to be disproved as existing - and will be shown to exist if discovered.
3. X exhibits properties that contradicts logical or physical laws of the universe, therefore it cannot possibly exist (even in the entirety of the universe).
Here's where most gods show up. Gods have the nasty habit of having properties that are inconsistent or incompatible with logic or the laws of nature - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, immortality, and so on. Any god which has properties like these, whether or not it is 'natural', can be shown to be impossible (not just improbable) and therefore easily shown not to exist in all of space and time. No exhaustive search required.
If one were to define a 'god' as an extremely powerful alien with super-advanced technology, then maybe its possible existence could be accepted. But most religions define god as an unknowable, ineffable something. That doesn't help much...
Robert
