Intergalactic Summit

One cannot look upon subatomic particle. We can only see how other objects react to it, to try and determine its true nature.

We know it to exist because of how it effects and moves everything around it.


This understanding extends to religion.

Ms. Stjerna, you do not grasp the problem.

Proof is contingent upon the criteria you establish to determine it. "I don't believe it until I've seen it" is such a criteria for example. Mr. Ixiris might simply demand to see God. Even then when I stretch out my hand and point out the heavens and say "this is all God" he might say: "no, I must see a man, a force or something else, I will not accept a vision of the skies as proof. If you do not show me a image of a man with ultimate power I won't believe in God."

Let me try another example: can you prove love exists, or how about faith?

There are many intangibles in life and we have words for them. Words for things that tie the universe together and provide an answer to many of humanity's basic questions: why are we here, what is our purpose? Mr. Ixiris might claim an invisible force akin to Quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation all in one, and that all causality and life and everything can be traced back to this intangible theoretical force. My answer to such questions is: God.

Similarly, if I claim that I've must have seen a Quark with my own bare eyes to believe in it, I believe mr. Ixiris will be hard-pressed to provide sufficient proof.

Certainly. In the realm of quantum physics this is basically the equivalent of making a sandwich. I will, of course, require a lump-sum payment of roughly five hundred million ISK to cover the costs of obtaining and setting up the equipment and personnel required for the deep inelastic scattering process already used on a regular basis by nearly every single subatomic particle physics research project in the known universe. This money will allow for the top-range equipment and expertise required to produce results of neccessary rigor and accuracy.

I wouldn't dare mis-spend it. After all, it's God's own coin, isn't it?

Actually, I most certainly wouldn't. I don't make demands to see nonexistent things - it's why, for instance, I've never asked to see an Amarrian's sense of decency.



The simple issue here is that you're presenting purely natural phenomena as evidence of your God's existence. Yes, nebulae are beautiful, but we understand the various mechanisms behind their formation fairly well. Quite a lot of natural phenomena happen to arrange themselves in aesthetically pleasing ways - nebulae, birdsong, sunsets, the smell of a rose. However, there are also phenomena that are equally displeasing - dust storms, the call of a howler monkey and the odor of a corpse flower. In fact, some natural phenomena have as many ugly examples as beautiful ones; I mean, here's an example, while we're on the subject of nebulae - have you seen that urine-coloured monstrosity the Jovians live in nowadays?

Life and nature are random, and the gfact is that there is no greater plan behind it all. And that very randomness, that freedom - that lack of a celestial imperative - is more inspiring than a thousand divine plans could ever be.



Well, there's no incontravertible proof of either, I'll give you that, but there are a laundry list of neurochemical and psychological impulses behind love and faith (the two are remarkably similar, in fact) that give both sentiments a foundation, if not a rock-solid explanation, in scientific theory. Besides, faith as a concept is very clearly extant, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See, here's the thing - I accept the existence of God as a concept. To do otherwise would simply be ridiculous, as Amarrians very clearly have a firm concept of what God is. Where we differ, at a fundamental level, is that you insist that your God exists as more than that concept, whereas I firmly maintain that such a thing is illogical and impossible.

Oh, well, I guess I also maintain that this belief has turned you into a nation of subhuman, genocidal sociopaths, but now we're just talking semantics.



The fact is that I don't claim an invisible force akin to quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation to all things and that all causality and life can be tied back to it.

... I mean, partially it's because a quark is a lepton, not a force. You're probably thinking of the Higgs Boson and the related Higgs Field, but I digress - oh, and incidentally, if you demand to see a quark with your own eyes, you're... well. Quarks are... how do I put this... well, they're very small. I mean, really small. I mean you might think that grain of rice that slipped over the side of the bowl last time you ate at Diurelli's was small but hoo boy, quarks are tiny.

To carry on from Andreus' example:

We can, with some effort and expenditure, show you a 'quark'. It is a real, stable subatomic particle with a definite mass. It interacts with the matter around it in a recognizable manner; if we saw a handful of random particles, we could reliably tell you which are quarks, and which are bosons, and which are protons and neutrons through the way they interact with each other.

Now, here's where it gets tricky -- bear with me as I try and make this sound sensible.

God, on the other hand, lies outside the empirical method; we can't pick up 'a bit of God' and study it, there's no evidence that it interacts with the universe in any way (beyond the usual extremely subjective religious opinions), and we can't reliably and consistently watch any kind of physical effect on any form of matter that we can currently detect.

You're asking us to accept the physical existence of something that is invisible, intangible, and has no apparent subatomic, atomic or physical effect on anything that we can currently put to an objective examination. By all known laws of physics, something of that nature can't physically exist, Merdaneth.

You're asking us to believe in something that we know, through direct and verifiable physical law, is an impossibility.

Because it reduces the greatness of the cosmos and all of free will to a cheap literary trick, a deus ex machina, a way to write oneself out of an impossible plot predicament. Sorry but, neither the universe nor myself are ruled or controlled by some unknowable, infallible, omnipotent, omniscient puppetmaster. I'll take measurable, observable, independently verifiable facts to handwavium but, that's me.

I really don't give a damn about your religion, or your empire, so long as you don't try forcing either down my throat at the barrel of a laser turret. Believe in your god, in omnipotent dust bunnies, or twinkly pink fairies for all I care, just do it in your own space and leave the rest of us alone.

Oh and Kithrus since you and others have stressed that you believe strongly in free will; last time I checked I'm an adult. I'm legally permitted to vote, to fight and die for my nation, to drink liquor, to marry, to pilot starships. I'm free as an adult to live in accordance to my own dictates and to make choices that may be good for me or bad for me. As an adult I also accept the consequences of said choices. Who are you to interfere, especially unbidden and in the name of something that may or may not exist?

Not believing in your god may be "bad" for me in your opinion but, it's not up to you to "save" me from myself.

Well this one happens to be true. The vast majority of your race feels not a shred of remorse for the atrocities visited upon the Starkmanir and the rest of the Minmatar tribes. That makes them just as morally and ethically misguided as the bastards who actually committed them.



Do you even read the IGS? I guess by your estimation very few Amarrians "have any sort of social grace". I shudder to think what your delicate, fatally naive sensibilities would make of Gaius Kador, woman.



Because logically and scientifically one must resort to the Razor - entities should not be multiplied beyond reasonable neccessity. We have scientific explanations behind the formative processes of the universe. We have not a shred of concrete evidence for the existence of a deity or any kind of divine force. In a truly postmodern sense I imagine there could be a deity unconnected and unconcerned with the universe, but due to that disconnection that supposition is impossible to verify and the idea is thus of no practical use to me in my daily life.

The simple fact is, when you have to make as many excuses as Amarrians do for why their God doesn't fit into standard scientific and logical principles, you're simply making excuses for being wrong.

Except I have recoded conversations with you before we ever truely start arguing saying 'To those who do believe no explanation is necessary. To those who do not none will suffice.'

Let me ask you something though. lets say I gave you proof you accepted what would you do?

That's not exactly what I needed to know.

I wanted to know what would change in your life.

I will however give you credit that what you said was witty but I can admit when I'm wrong.

I'd like to again welcome Brother Kahar Dex back to us, as per the title of the thread.

Perhaps one of you should peel off a new thread topic for sanity's sake if you wish to continue the religious 'discussion'?