[Brett66]

the point at which total computational power will rise to levels so far beyond anything that we can imagine that it will appear nearly infinite and thus be indistinguishable from omniscience--may be upon us as early as 2050.

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. ;)

[OWK]

Don't make me come down there!

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Who thinks this article is appropriate to Scientific American? This is just why my twenty-five year old subscription has lapsed.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

[Exnihilo]

michael shermer is a colossal idiot.

[freefly]

The assumption is that politicians (from every country and party) won't screw everything up for everybody...
From what I see they try harder with every day that goes by.

[Billthedrill]

Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, calculates that there have been 32 doublings since World War II and that the singularity point--the point at which total computational power will rise to levels so far beyond anything that we can imagine that it will appear nearly infinite and thus be indistinguishable from omniscience--may be upon us as early as 2050.

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?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Anyone who thinks that computational power is the be-all and end-all is a complete twit.

[kidd]

The author only concentrates on the infinite intelligence of God. He completely ignores God the Creator, the compassionate God who chose to save the world from its sins through Jesus, etc.

I will have no problem distinguishing God from Spock.

[DoctorMichael]

1) I'm not a Biblical scholar but.......Who said:

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!

[RightWhale]

A thread on the liklihood of intelligent life, or any animal life at all beyond earth, NASA-funded, too.

A Universe Of Life: Maybe Not

[Come get it]

lurking...

[Semper]

..how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us?

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.

[r9etb]

God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent.

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.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

God (per present beliefs) can raise the dead, even if all DNA has been destroyed; remove us from our universe; and create new universes, as complex and on the same scale as ours. It's possible that a sufficiently advanced ETI might be seen by some as a small-g god, but as God...? Somehow, I doubt it.

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.

[biblewonk]

1Tim 6:20 ... avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

[Eva]

This sounds like an introduction to scientology.

[Cincinatus]

When that happens, the decade that follows will put the 100,000 years before it to shame. Extrapolate out about a million years (just a blink on an evolutionary timescale and therefore a realistic estimate of how far advanced ETIs will be), and we get a gut-wrenching, mind-warping feel for how godlike these creatures would seem.

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.

[Migraine]

If we ever do find an ETI, it will be as though a million-year-old Homo erectus were dropped into the 21st century, given a computer and cell phone and instructed to communicate with us. The ETI would be to us as we would be to this early hominid--godlike.

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.

[Dog Gone]

Since the beginning of time, men everywhere attributed phenomenas they did not understand to the Gods. We see it in every culture.

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.

[Don Myers]

This whole thing is athiestic mumbo-jumbo. When little ET can convince me that he created the universe, I might be more willing to listen.