Let's imagine for a moment, that we have good and at the same time affordable education for everyone. So, everyone knows physics, math, biology, astronomy, chemistry, history, geography, etc. very well. Everyone knows how things (including life) work and where natural laws governing things' behavior come from.

Will we still have someone saying: look, we know things only up to this corner (say, to current limits of knowledge of fundamentals). And we know that from this corner and up things and their behavior are just mathematical consequence of more fundamental things - everywhere we know. Can then someone say: "But, hey, still - god can be just around the corner".

How likely is that what we thought of "sure act of god" just to only later find it to be natural (=mathematical) phenomenon again and again and again will NOT continue? So, how risky is to predict god around next corner (if everyone knows working of nature - physics, biology, astronomy, etc very well)?

• Laws don't work by themselves - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 19:04 UTC
  • Yes... I'd like to know how - smartguy - November 2, 2001 - 19:19 UTC
    • Interactions, interactions... - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
      • Alex, I would love to answer "Hand Of God"... - smartguy - November 2, 2001 - 19:37 UTC
        • Call it "Hand of I do not know what yet, so I call it God" - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 19:53 UTC
          • Or, call it "Hand of something I assume explains everything." - luis_hamburgh - November 3, 2001 - 15:05 UTC
            • Difference between science and faith. - alexander - November 3, 2001 - 16:34 UTC
      • Alex's view is not consistent - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 20:06 UTC
        • Harvey, where is logic here? Missing again? - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 20:26 UTC
          • "Symmetry of Gaps" (??) - smartguy - November 2, 2001 - 20:42 UTC
          • Buriden's *** - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 20:52 UTC
            • LOLOL! - smartguy - November 2, 2001 - 21:31 UTC
              • It tells us something about Alex's universe - harvey1 - November 2, 2001 - 22:04 UTC
                • Does this mean anything? - alexander - November 3, 2001 - 16:49 UTC
                  • Alex you should run for president! - smartguy - November 3, 2001 - 18:39 UTC
                  • That's okay Alex, you don't have to reply - harvey1 - November 4, 2001 - 02:41 UTC
                    • I better mention that I am joking here - harvey1 - November 4, 2001 - 03:30 UTC
                      • What is the problem with nature obeying math (=logic)? - alexander - November 4, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
                        • No problem until you keep reducing - harvey1 - November 4, 2001 - 19:23 UTC
                          • What exactly do you mean when you say "breaking symmetry" - alexander - November 4, 2001 - 21:53 UTC
                            • Meaning - harvey1 - November 5, 2001 - 15:58 UTC
                              • So, natural laws do not come from symmetries then? - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 17:50 UTC
                            • Again - harvey1 - November 5, 2001 - 20:02 UTC
                              • Ok, lets paraphrase it: God made Buriden *** to prefer one hay? - alexander - November 6, 2001 - 02:23 UTC
                            • It's all very simple - harvey1 - November 6, 2001 - 05:19 UTC
        • Harvey, where is logic here? Missing again? - alexander - November 2, 2001 - 20:26 UTC
        • Surprise! Surprise! - luis_hamburgh - November 2, 2001 - 22:17 UTC
          • Luis, is Harvey just a loney and mediocre? - alexander - November 3, 2001 - 16:53 UTC
            • Both Luis' and Harvey's intelligence - smartguy - November 3, 2001 - 21:01 UTC
            • Well, I'm not here to gain friends - harvey1 - November 4, 2001 - 03:03 UTC
            • Alex, you may be lonely, but your math skills... - luis_hamburgh - November 4, 2001 - 16:12 UTC
              • I might be wrong if not math and experiments. - alexander - November 4, 2001 - 20:37 UTC
                • Since when can you chop up a particle - yanniru - November 5, 2001 - 15:07 UTC
                  • It is just state of energy of e/m field what we call a photon. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 18:08 UTC
                    • So we agree - yanniru - November 6, 2001 - 14:49 UTC