onifre
The dictionary I was using is Cambridge Online, which also defines a being as "a person or thing that exists". My logic was: The scientist is a person/thing that exists, so the scientist is a being, and since the scientist created our universe, he/she/it fits the definition of a god.
I’m new here and forgot to explain what I’m getting at, which is this:
I’ve met some Christians who are happy to say that they are religious, but have also met some (a whole church full in one case) who maintain that their belief is not a religion because they know that God exists; it is obvious (to them) that God exists. To me it is double-speak since it requires a redefinition of words to fit their group world-view.
Modulus doesn’t say how we could falsify the proposition about the scientist. If it can only be believed as a matter of faith then why isn’t it just another new religion? What is the essential difference between 'knowing' that God exists and proposing that the scientist exists, when no objective tests are possible in either case?
Put it another way: I ”know’ that the scientist likes to wear blue socks while watching American Idol. Did I just step over a borderline into religion, and if so, where’s the line?
There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made - Richard Feynman
™ Version 4.2
