Just wait until you try to install Windows on a computer like that. I don't think omniscience will be a word we use to describe it. ;)
Don't make me come down there!
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
Silliness, IMHO - our ability to distinguish computational power from omniscience also increases over time. Imagine what Charles Babbage would think of my abilty to look at a colored piece of glass and utilize the computational resouces of the internet - he might consider it omniscient but my 6-year-old nephew will come to consider it primitive. I believe this assertion suffers from the same weakness as a similar one (also Clarke?) - "technology at a sufficient level is indistinguishable from magic." That one also assumes that our ability to make that distinction is static, and, in fact, it is not.
Anyway, I already know that ETs aren't God - what in the world would God want with all those cow genitalia?
I will have no problem distinguishing God from Spock.
and you will KNOW HIM/them by HIS/their WORKS (?)
2) Corollary- I am reminded of Star Trek Movie #5 where Kirk asks the Deity: "What does God need with a starship?"
(LOL). I think Capt. Kirk knew the difference!
A Universe Of Life: Maybe Not
There is a metaphysical outlook in some of today's religious thought that understands God as "Being" (in totality) not just "a being". In that perspective, intelligence is a characteristic of God; and, any manifestation of intelligence, no matter how much more advanced than ours, is just another "offspring" of that ommipotent Source.
I like your article - it stimulates thinking outside the delusion that God is anything like our temporary human condition.
It would be very interesting to know whether Shermer has any idea of what these terms mean, theologically. I suspect he does not. We cannot evaluate Shermer's ideas properly until he tells us what he thinks he means.
Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can't.
Well, I don't know about that. Seen from the perspective of religion, the difference between God and your everyday alien is rather clear -- for example, God can create ETIs (and the universe they inhabit), but the converse does not hold.
There's also the matter of precisely how one knows and understands the existence of God, that an alien presence would be hard-pressed to duplicate. The OT addresses the point thusly: And he said, "Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD." And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. (1 Kings 19:11-12)
Figuratively speaking, Shermer's ETIs are equivalent to the wind, earthquake, and fire -- none of which are God. They can do things within the universe, but they are not the still, small voice.
The passage applies to this topic in that ultimately it doesn't matter whether we can tell an ETI from God -- if God exists, the existence of ETIs is extremely interesting, but not theologically important.
There is also a more basic problem here: if an ETI is passing itself off as God -- well, there wouldn't be any meaningful difference between them and the false prophets described in both the Old and New Testaments. If one grants the existence of God, then the usual understanding is that He will highlight the differences between Himself and a merely-smart alien. IOW, we may not be able to tell the difference, but God can, and will show us.
"Honest" aliens, on the other hand, would be expected to announce that they're not God, or at least not try to pass themselves off as such.
But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI!
A pointless little comment -- of course God would fit the definition of an ETI, given that He is an Intelligence not of this Earth.
Shermer has a cute angle here but his ideas are neither particularly interesting, nor particularly new. At most, he demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of religion, theology, and the logical implications of God.
The approach here seems to be: Because we cannot tell ETIs from God, there is no God. Of course, a real skeptic would understand that Shermer's implication is false.
OTOH, this is literally true: As God goes beyond Earth, He is an ETI. So I guess a sufficiently advanced ETI would be indistinguishable from God, because He is God.
This paragraph negates the author's thesis. If God exists, he predates all creation. Thus, He could not "evolve" since He is already by definition, perfect and unchanging.
Thus, we have identified a criterion for distinguishing between God and "god-like" ETs.
Bad analogy -- the ETI would be more like the Wizard of Oz to the tinman: he never did give the tinman anything that he didn't already have ("never mind the man behind those curtains"). Technology is master over what already is. Technology cannot create. And it's still "garbage-in, garbage-out" -- bound to be overturned when better garbage becomes available. Nothing pure, nothing pristine, nothing perfect, nothing at all like God, who creates from nothing.
And if God is all and all is God, then God is part of the problem; I cannot accept that, either.
There is little doubt that if you could return to the Roman Empire armed with a handgun you would soon be deemed a god, or at least a wizard of some sort.
While it is going too far to categorically state that first contact with ETI would result in our worship of them as God, as we think of Him, our awe would no less than if they were gods.