Editing Talk:God (RDM)/Archive 1
Discussion page of God (RDM)/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
::::::For what it's worth, there was some concern about the FTL article as well, regarding its validity to the show. At least as far as the scientific speculation is concerned. And some articles are indeed more speculative than others, making some case-by-case decisions necessary. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well you source your information here, as the problem is its connection to the show itself. | ::::::For what it's worth, there was some concern about the FTL article as well, regarding its validity to the show. At least as far as the scientific speculation is concerned. And some articles are indeed more speculative than others, making some case-by-case decisions necessary. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well you source your information here, as the problem is its connection to the show itself. | ||
::::::I understand that you put some effort into this, and even basically agree with it, or appreciate it. But aside from a minimal note like "It's hasn't been established whether this God is supernatural or can be explained with scientific means", I don't see how we can use any of this. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT) | ::::::I understand that you put some effort into this, and even basically agree with it, or appreciate it. But aside from a minimal note like "It's hasn't been established whether this God is supernatural or can be explained with scientific means", I don't see how we can use any of this. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::::::On the first point, philosophically, I do appreciate the FTL article and any article that adds more information to the show even if the show does not explicitly say it, so long as that information has a ''strong scientific'' backing. As the show holds so strongly | :::::::On the first point, philosophically, I do appreciate the FTL article and any article that adds more information to the show even if the show does not explicitly say it, so long as that information has a ''strong scientific'' backing. As the show holds so strongly a tenant of expressing realism, I am sure its creators would incorporate any strong scientific concepts into their verse as they have with the networking, nuclear arms, and AI, provided they had time to mention it. | ||
:::::::As I read through the adjacent article on cylon religion, I was unable to find the source of your quotes, but regardless most of the articles on this site imply that the cylon god is a supernatural being. This article refers to the god as a "deity" and the article on cylon religion refers to it as a "metaphysical being." The latter term does support other definitions of the cylon’s god being more of an abstract concept or an idea rather than supernatural entity, but it still does not address the actual scientific plausibility of a "god" existing. Without a possible scientific explanation, readers will always walk away with the one-sided idea that the cylon god is and can only be a supernatural being, rather than something scientifically plausible as AI. | :::::::As I read through the adjacent article on cylon religion, I was unable to find the source of your quotes, but regardless most of the articles on this site imply that the cylon god is a supernatural being. This article refers to the god as a "deity" and the article on cylon religion refers to it as a "metaphysical being." The latter term does support other definitions of the cylon’s god being more of an abstract concept or an idea rather than supernatural entity, but it still does not address the actual scientific plausibility of a "god" existing. Without a possible scientific explanation, readers will always walk away with the one-sided idea that the cylon god is and can only be a supernatural being, rather than something scientifically plausible as AI. | ||
:::::::As for my intentions, I thought my writing was bad and wrote most of it off the cuff, thus I was not particularly proud of it. My main intention was to generate discussion on this topic and have its possibility mentioned in the article. ''Given the cylon's are strongly rooted in the topic of AI and the idea of a technological singularity branches off of that topic, I believe it is more than reasonable to at least mention it in this article''. | :::::::As for my intentions, I thought my writing was bad and wrote most of it off the cuff, thus I was not particularly proud of it. My main intention was to generate discussion on this topic and have its possibility mentioned in the article. ''Given the cylon's are strongly rooted in the topic of AI and the idea of a technological singularity branches off of that topic, I believe it is more than reasonable to at least mention it in this article''. | ||