/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8872598
I'm having trouble thinking of how could even one have a "scientific" discovery of that. Something that you could not only observe, but test, makes theories about, and reproduce analysis. Even "angels coming down from heavens and personally sucking your dick" wouldn't necessarily qualify for that.

>>8876592
Fair example of the problem I'm alluding to, but omniscience isn't God's only property. There's also actually quite a wide debate as to whether or not he even has that property, particularly if you go back and actually read the Bible, where he demonstrates regret, some degree of surprise, and is constantly not only testing things, but where this supposedly omnipotent being is regularly depending on humans to carry out his will, and situations that are against his will are regularly occurring.

It maybe, much like even the most minor of the Greek gods are described as "all knowing and all powerful", despite mythological tales demonstrating they are anything but, these are merely titles, and they've been inflated to such a degree as to be paradoxical.

If such a powerful being were to reveal itself, it could readily demonstrate it had powers sufficient to inspire the tales in the Bible, even if some tales were exaggerated or distorted through time and retelling. It might even be able to explain how it has those powers and how they work. You might even be able to be made to understand how such a being could create a universe (hell, we have theories on how to create universes ourselves.)

But yes, you can't prove that something is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenign. If anything, that's an empirical contradiction in and of itself that the observed state of the universe does not allow.

I think the best one could do was, "God, but not as we know Him."