Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Well That About Wraps It Up For God (Score 1) 755

by WrongMonkey (#48708155) Attached to: Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God
The God in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is a physical being that is physically seen by the people like Moses. He communicates with people and performs miracles to prove his existence and power. Strangely, he is not omniscient and not all powerful. There are several times when God is tricked, negotiated with, shown to have incomplete knowledge or had his power overcome. The Bible is also clear that other gods exist and they do have power, but God of Abraham is simply the most powerful.

The Bible is kind of a crazy book that has very little to do with what's taught modern Churches. You really should read it some time.

Comment: Re:What Will They Do... (Score 3, Insightful) 327

by WrongMonkey (#48707299) Attached to: The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'
Your statement just is empirically incorrect. The 20th century was the largest increase in human population AND the greatest increase in overall standard of living. We might someday reach the point where exhausting resources starts to diminish standard of living, but it hasn't happened yet.

Comment: Re:Well That About Wraps It Up For God (Score 1) 755

by WrongMonkey (#48705333) Attached to: Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God
Your hypothetical higher being is interesting, but completely different than the "God" described in the Bible and most other religious works. That's half the problem with these arguments: as soon as science reaches a point where it really can disprove "God", the believers change their definition to something more obscure and intangible. You are now describing something so abstract that its completely meaningless either way.

Comment: Re:Shut it down (Score 0) 219

Wanderers are different than explorers. Nomadic people follow established cycles in known locations. Trading with the village in the next valley over is different than sailing into the unknown. Moving between established cities is different than spending trillions of dollars to hurdle a person through the void of space to a dead rock that's inhospitable to life in every conceivable way.

Comment: Re:Shut it down (Score 3, Insightful) 219

Exceptions that prove the rule. Out of thousands of cultures, the number of premodern societies that attempted any serious, sustained exploration can be counted on one hand. And really, its doubtful that premodern migrations to the Americas were any kind of deliberate exploration effort. It was probably just nomads following the herds.

Look at this way, modern humans have been around for about a quarter of a million years. The first migrations out of Africa were only about 30,000 years ago. If exploration were really some fundamental human constant, it seems odd that we spent 90% of our time in a relatively small portion of one continent.

Comment: Re:Shut it down (Score 2) 219

Actually too many to name. There have been thousands of countries, nations, empires, etc. and very few of them had any policy of active exploration. The romantic notion of exploration is a very recent development. Throughout most of history, wandering beyond the horizon would have been suicidally insane and very few to attempted it were ever heard from again.

Comment: Re: Shut it down (Score 2) 219

Exploration in the 1400s was taking a profitable venture (the spice trade, later precious metals) and finding new ways to make it more efficient (new trade routes). Discovery of new lands was incidental. Nobody wandered around the ocean without a particular destination in mind, that would have been suicide. So if we really follow your analogy, then we should stop manned space exploration, focus on activities that have immediate profit, and be satisfied knowing that new discoveries will take place whether we pursue them deliberately or not.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...