What role would religion have in a post-singularity society?

[Spee-D]

What role do you think technology would have in society during and after the technological singularity? Would religion even still exist? Why or why not?

 

[CRASHiC]

If you're starting a debate, you should post all your information and proofs into the OP to build your caseline. Deliberately watering down your overall case just so you can have a slambang rebuttal is bad debating, and a tad bit manipulative for a non-competitive debating forum.

Now, there is no connection between how advanced a society is, and there religious beliefs. If we look at the percentage of the non religious in separate countries, we can find that the second highest percentage comes from Vietnam capping in at 81%, and number 10 being Estonia at 49%.

However, if we look wealth, there we see a connection between religious devotion, and religion is lacking in the wealthier nations, except for the United States.

http://evolutionspace.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/167-2.gif

Scienece is not the replacement of religion. Money is.

Source:
http://evolutionspace.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/worldwide-atheism-trend-and-pattern-a-summary/

 

[Neisan]

Technology and religion don't really relate. We're slowly becoming a more secular society (A good thing) but being secular doesn't mean you aren't religious. Religion is on a decline though, and it's a good thing.
But because there isn't a relation, there isn't much to debate here.

 

[pacmansays]

Well say we reach a point where the now superior computers claim religious is untrue and obsolete would people still hold onto their religious beliefs? I would argue yes...and for two reasons...

The first is from a common, human belief in that computers and robots though might become functionally more intelligent they somehow will still lack something the human mind has, though this is debateable.

Secondly, religious belief surpasses logic and I mean this in a positive sense. Faith surpasses logic and sometimes is useful: faith in a partner's devotion despite lack of evidence or faith in the future. This trust is shared with relgious belief and something that other atheists need to understand is that it is not annihilated by logic alone

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Technology takes our attention from what really matters all the time. We get so wrapped up in what we are doing, that we forget about what we really should be doing.

 

[spookyskeptic]

I think religion would likely still exist. One has to look at the difference between religion and faith. I look at faith as the actual belief and religion as the practices and customs associated with a faith. Like faith is believing in God and religion is the whole Communion practice, if that makes sense. Technological advance would, in my opinion, likely decrease religion but not faith. A society that thinks more rationally (or just thinks more, period) would be less likely to fall for the superstition and fancy ceremonies in religion. If anything, the door would be open for people to more freely explore matters of religion and faith. They'd ask questions. They wouldn't buy one holy man's ideas completely.

They'd Google it and hear all the ideas.

 

[Dre89]

A society that thinks more rationally (or just thinks more, period) would be less likely to fall for the superstition and fancy ceremonies in religion. If anything, the door would be open for people to more freely explore matters of religion and faith. They'd ask questions. They wouldn't buy one holy man's ideas completely.

Just curious, wouldn't a society that thinks more have more people that actually study philosophy, theology, and biblical scholarship before making such assumptions about 'one holy man's ideas'?.

Study of such disciplines would make several (I'm not saying every, or most, just several) intelligent people convinced of religion, as it has done so in the past.

Increased intelligence probably wouldn't alter theist-atheist ratios that much, just the quality of those theists and atheists.

99% of anti-theists know no where near enough about religion (particularly Catholcism) to be critical of it.

99% of theists don't know enough about their religion, and often misreprsent them in debates with atheists.

 

[Crimson King]

Made up statistics prove your point 100% of the time.

 

[abhishekh]

99% of anti-theists know no where near enough about religion (particularly Catholcism) to be critical of it.

99% of theists don't know enough about their religion, and often misreprsent them in debates with atheists.

OH YOU.

I'd say a lot of anti-theists were brought up in a religious home.

Personally, I was brought up as a Hindu and went to an Anglican school for 9 years. I'll be fair, and say I don't understand Hinduism enough, mostly because whenever I went to our Temple they didn't speak English or Hindi, and all the scriptures my parents have are in really old Hindi which I don't understand either.

I do know a bit about Christianity though, thanks to my old school.

---

I think there would be more atheists, or at least more people looking at religion from a theosophical point of view.

 

[Reaver197]

Just curious, wouldn't a society that thinks more have more people that actually study philosophy, theology, and biblical scholarship before making such assumptions about 'one holy man's ideas'?.

Study of such disciplines would make several (I'm not saying every, or most, just several) intelligent people convinced of religion, as it has done so in the past.

Increased intelligence probably wouldn't alter theist-atheist ratios that much, just the quality of those theists and atheists.

99% of anti-theists know no where near enough about religion (particularly Catholcism) to be critical of it.

99% of theists don't know enough about their religion, and often misreprsent them in debates with atheists.

Cool story, bro. Don't let things like "facts" and "reality" get in your way. Just imagine if you used them instead of baseless assumptions! You might actually make a decent argument. However, don't feel pressured to actually use any, please continue on as you are.

 

[Dre89]

Cool story, bro. Don't let things like "facts" and "reality" get in your way. Just imagine if you used them instead of baseless assumptions! You might actually make a decent argument. However, don't feel pressured to actually use any, please continue on as you are.

I'm curious to see if Sucumbio remains consistent and infracts this post as well.

Can I ask why you feel the need to mock me? What did I do to you?

Obviously 99% isn't supposed to be taken literally, it's an expression. You know that, so I don't see why you're complaining.

I'm assuming you're annoyed about the anti-theist claim. You don't need to know about religion to be an atheist. You do need to know about it to be an anti-theist.

The reality is, most people who are critical of Catholicism no hardly anything about it. They have no idea how immense Catholic theology and philosophy is. I have never met an anti-theist who hasn't been misinformed on at least one thing about Catholicism.

The thing is, most people who call themselves Catholcis are misinformed, or have very little knowledge about it. I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of it to call myself an expert, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough, if you know what I mean (although I don't believe in it anyway so it's not that important).

 

[Reaver197]

I mocked you not to simply belittle you, or to appease some base emotion of mine, demeaning your position simply because it differs from mine.

I mocked you to get your attention, because you have never really given it to me before, despite my previous attempts. Before, I tried to be as polite as I could be, though maybe I could not quite restrain my impatience completely, however I did my best to address you in the least abrasive way I could.

But, it seems you have failed to heed my message, not once, but multiple times. I'm fully aware that you are perfectly able and free to ignore any and all advice or posts I make, however, you have not but yet, at the same time, have not listened to what I was saying.

So, I mock you to resolutely make sure that you cannot ignore or miss what I'm trying to say.

I've noted several times you have the issue of pulling out statements and conclusions without any basis or even any references, links, or evidence to back them up. Maybe that's not 100% the case, maybe you have done so in some thread or post I haven't seen or read. However, every post or discussion that I've seen and read in which you had taken part, I have noted this systemic issue to not only your posts, but the very foundation of how you structure your arguments. Literally or metaphorically, your posts contain this issue.

I've tried telling you this all before, but clearly, it has not been to any effect or acknowledgement.

Use verifiable facts, use references, use anything that can be traced to something other than that post Dre made on smashboards. Use studies, use actual statistics. They're a number of them out there, some fairly easy to get, others not so much. I want to make sure that the next time you try to post an argument or position, there is actually something substantive to it. If it's not meant to be taken literally, then be absolutely clear about it and don't give me this "Oh, that time I said this thing wasn't supposed to be taken literally" crap. It's a weak excuse, and an easily avoidable issue.

Of course, you don't need to take my advice at all, you are perfectly free to ignore it and tell me to go **** myself. However, if you do, I shall mock any post of yours that I see that fails to back up any of the assertions or speculations that you make in it, no matter how metaphorically you may have meant it. It seems it's the only way for you to seriously consider what I'm saying.

I'm not doing this simply to be a **** to you, or make you feel bad or angry or picked on. I'm doing it to make sure that you, and anyone else that reads anything I or you post about, effectively consider and reconsider their positions. I want to make sure that when people type out something, they actually pause to think "Is this really true? Are there any holes or weaknesses to this argument?" before they hit that send button. I want to try to make sure that you, I, and anyone else that reads what's posted in this place can learn to constructively criticize even their own positions and thoughts, so that everyone can be better off and learned because of it.

This may seem overly-dramatic for the debate hall of a super smash bros forum, but no matter where I go, I want to make sure that I can try to have the most honest, consistent, and scrutinized critical thinking skills I have. It's effects have far-reaching consequences beyond our little debates, and our world sorely needs more of it, in places big and small.

I'm doing this so that I can honestly say that I, with all my shortcomings and inevitable wrong answers, tried my best to try to make sure that you, Dre, were pushed to be as smart, intelligent, and learned as you could be. And if I have to mock you, so be it. Despite what you may think about me, I'm trying to help you as much as I'm trying to help myself in these debates, in whatever way I can. As sappy and kitschy as that may sound, it is true, of you and everyone else I debate or respond to. You don't have to have the same opinion as me at the end of it, but I want you to feel better off because of it.

 

[Dre89]

Ok fair enough, but it's not as if I was claiming literally 99% of anti-theists and theists hardly know hardly anything about religion.

What if I just say 'most', is that acceptable?

 

[abhishekh]

Ok fair enough, but it's not as if I was claiming literally 99% of anti-theists and theists hardly know hardly anything about religion.

What if I just say 'most', is that acceptable?

Only if I can say 'most' theists are ignorant about other religions and beliefs, and still think belief in God isn't just something to do with blind faith.

 

[Dre89]

Only if I can say 'most' theists are ignorant about other religions and beliefs, and still think belief in God isn't just something to do with blind faith.

I'll give you that, most theists are generally ignorant about other religions.

And belief in God isn't just about blind faith. That's fidiesm, which is only one particular type of belief in God.

Again, the theists who have blind faith in God are either fideists, or the ones who aren't adequately versed in theistic philosophy, theology and biblical studies.

The only people who claim all religious belief is about blind faith are the ones who again, aren't well versed in the disciplines mentioned above. That's something a person like Richard Dawkins does. Not so coincidentally, Richard Dawkins is not adequately versed in such disciplines, and is disliked by most philosophically educated atheists, as well as theists.

 

[abhishekh]

Again, the theists who have blind faith in God are either fideists, or the ones who aren't adequately versed in theistic philosophy, theology and biblical studies.

The only people who claim all religious belief is about blind faith are the ones who again, aren't well versed in the disciplines mentioned above. That's something a person like Richard Dawkins does. Not so coincidentally, Richard Dawkins is not adequately versed in such disciplines, and is disliked by most philosophically educated atheists, as well as theists.

Exactly.

10char

 

[Reaver197]

Ok fair enough, but it's not as if I was claiming literally 99% of anti-theists and theists hardly know hardly anything about religion.

What if I just say 'most', is that acceptable?

It's not so much specifically what you said there, you're sort of missing the forest for the trees. It's simply the nature of how you present your arguments and opinions in general, and that post seemed to really typify it.

Just double check how verifiable your claims are before posting them, and if you don't really mean it literally, make sure that's obvious, because you really left very little room to interpret your statement as anything other than you literally claiming that.

"99% of anti-theists know no where near enough about religion (particularly Catholcism) to be critical of it."

Versus

"I personally think most anti-theists know no where near enough about religion (particularly Catholicism) to be critical of it."

Then providing a link or example of your stated position will help support it, instead of leaving people feeling that you just have some heavily skewed perception of things. In this specific example, it's hard to really provide examples to prove that most anti-theists don't know enough, but, say, your claim about Richard Dawkins being disliked by even philosophically educated atheists, could stand to have some links to anything written by prominent atheist philosophers or something like that.

It's to make sure that you don't appear, even if you didn't intend it, that you're making your personal perception of things (with all the bias that people inevitably have, conscious and unconscious) to be representative of how things actually are.

Just my personal thoughts.

 

[1048576]

There will always be willfully ignorant people, therefore, there will always be religious people, even in a society where we know and can explain everything. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
In US in 2006, a third of adults believed evolution was "absolutely false" even though you can test it yourself with several copies of a fast-breeding species (flies work), differentiated, closed environments, and a few weeks time.

 

[Dre89]

The enthymeme, and subsequent flaw in your argument is that you assume all theists are creationists, which is why you conclude theists are ignorant.

This just further strengthens my point about anti theists not adequately understanding religion.

 

[Reaver197]

1048576: There is always ignorance, no one and no society ever knows and can explain everything, technically and practically. Even the most intelligent and knowledgeable people are ignorant in some fashion. Also, though it is definitely demonstrable that a number of religious people act like they're willfully ignorant, that doesn't inherently mean willful ignorance is a guarantor of religion.

Dre: I have to point out the irony of you showing why he can't assume something some people say applies to a whole group of people, then immediately making a broad statement of a whole group of people based on what he, one person, said.

 

[Dre89]

That's why I said it strengthens my point, not proves it, because Im not generalizing based on one person.

He's just another person that adds to my inductive conclusion.

 

[abhishekh]

Religion will die out. Maybe not the cultural aspects of it, but not many people will really want to follow a religion.

There really is no reason at all to follow organized religion at all, other than a sense of security.

As far as I know anyway. Religion will probably still be studied in the future though.

 

[1048576]

I assume creationists are theists, not vice-versa. That's how you explain creationism.

 

[Bookworm]

A creationist is a type of theist. A theist is anyone who posits the existence of a higher deity. A creationist is a particular type of theist who discards evolution theory, and believes that such a higher deity created the world in the state it currently is in now.

Traditionally it's just been a purely theoligcal position, but there are those such as William Lane Craig, and apparently a contingent of astrophysicists who will argue that there is scientific evidence behind the theory.

I'm not sure how many types of creationism there are, but I know Biblical creationism is impossible, simply on the grounds that it is concluded by taking the Bible literally. The problem is, it's logically impossible to take the Bible literally, because there are two conflicting creation stories, one where humanity is create dlast, and one where humanity is created first. However, the ones who do take the Bible literally generally believe that logic/reason is corrupted anyway.

 

[Reaver197]

That's why I said it strengthens my point, not proves it, because Im not generalizing based on one person.

He's just another person that adds to my inductive conclusion.

Eh, yeah, I guess I'll give that to you. My only question is, and you don't necessarily have to answer, how do you determine whether an anti-theist does know enough about religion, and who is even an anti-theist? It seems easy to skew the numbers, since it would probably be a lot harder to prove to yourself when an anti-theist does know enough. Just a thought that occurred to me.

 

[Dre89]

Pretty much everyone who has directly criticized Catholicism has said wrong things about it. It makes sense, because you would have to accept religion to want to study it all those years.

An example of an educated anti theist was the man who quit the priesthood after 20 years. To criricisr the theology, you would have at least had to have studied it, and most critics haven't.

Another thing to remember is that the difference between the anti science creationist and the anti theology atheist, is that unlike the creationist who acknowledges the methodology and complexity of science, anti theists generally have no idea how immense theology is.

I'm not well versed in theology, but I know enough to know I don't know enough, although I don't believe in it anyway.

 

[rvkevin]

To criticize the theology, you would have at least had to have studied it, and most critics haven't.

Meet the Courtier's Reply.

 

[gm jack]

Some of the things the Catholic church does do not require a deep understanding of theology to criticize. Covering up institutionalised abuse or discouraging condom use where HIV is a huge problem are not justifiable.

 

[Dre89]

HIV is probably only such big issue because people had multiple partners.

Would you torture a little girl to save the lives of five other people? If you won't compromise your morals in unfavourable situations, you shouldnt expect the Church to.

 

[SuperBowser]

Old post about condoms, abstinence and HIV

I think you can make a case for criticism of the Church on this topic.
---------

On topic: I think spookyskeptic got it right. While religion will likely fall (this phenomenon is already observable), spirituality will not necessarily follow.

 

[1048576]

Since you ignored me, I'll ask a little more directly this time, Dre.

Do you understand the difference between the conditional and the converse? Do you agree that 'theists are creationists' and 'creationists are theists' represent two different claims?

 

[HaiWayne]

What role do you think technology would have in society during and after the technological singularity? Would religion even still exist? Why or why not?

This really depends on when technological singularity occurs, if it ever occurs (in my opinion, kind of a far fetched idea). Obviously if its occurs in the next few years, religion would stay the same. But say, if you go 500 years into the future, its very plausible that religion would be diminished to the state of mythologies (many religions in the past have been reduced to this status). And I make this claim solely based on the fact that religious adherence is decreasing in developed countries consistently.

The only people who claim all religious belief is about blind faith are the ones who again, aren't well versed in the disciplines mentioned above. That's something a person like Richard Dawkins does. Not so coincidentally, Richard Dawkins is not adequately versed in such disciplines, and is disliked by most philosophically educated atheists, as well as theists.

I am pretty sure that Dawkins actually said "all religious belief is about blind faith". In fact, in his book, The God Delusion, he spent most of his book refuting specific arguments (unrelated to faith) in favor of God.

 

[Dre89]

104, yeah I do, but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Dawkins is a joke. He knows nothing about philosophy or theology. He's actually hated by most philosophically educated atheists, because he makes them look stupid.

The God Dellusion isn't considered genuine academic literature, the academic community knows it was just a money making venture, that's why it isn't in the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism, isn't in the Geeat Books of the World Collection (when other modern atheists are), and is the only "philosophy" book, if you can call it that, found in mainstream bookstores, because serious academic literature isn't found there.

Anyone who thinks he's a good atheist loses credibility in this debate. In fact, anyone who still thinks science refutes religion or God doesn't understand philisohy of religion (the study of God) and doesn't understand the circularity of scientism.

 

[Reaver197]

What the **** kind of argument is that? Dawkins' a joke because he makes philosophers look stupid? How the hell does that reflect badly on Dawkins then, if the "philosophers" are the ones looking like they have bad arguments? Plus, you don't even, once again, mention specifically any philosopher, link, or provide any sort of example to actually corroborate what you're saying.

And, of course, the completely unsubstantiated claim of not being "genuine academic literature", and that was a "money making venture" simply because it's not mentioned in two other book collections. Of course, that is the only logical conclusion to make from those statements. Never mind the fact that the Cambridge Companion to Atheism was published only a month after The God Delusion, therefore more likely it didn't have the time to get the rights or put it in the final draft for publishing. Not to mention it really doesn't mean anything if it didn't show up in it anyway.

Oh, and this Great Books of the World collection you mention, try Googling for it. All I found was this Great Books of the Western World collection, which is all I can assume is what you're talking about, and it was published in 1994.

In fact, the only person that should be losing credibility around here is you. Spouting such BS arguments, then having the nerve to say that other people somehow don't have any for agreeing with Dawkins' arguments is almost mind-blowingly hypocritical to me.

You can think Dawkins' arguments suck, or that he's an idiot, or whatever else you want to think about him. I personally don't care what you think of him. However, have at least some semblance of a proper argument instead of some circumloquacious ad-hominem, especially if you're going to use that to void out other people's opinions.

 

[gm jack]

HIV is probably only such big issue because people had multiple partners.

Would you torture a little girl to save the lives of five other people? If you won't compromise your morals in unfavourable situations, you shouldnt expect the Church to.

They actively told people condoms would not prevent the spread of aids,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

or that it could in fact make it worse,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

including claims they were deliberately infected with HIV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7014335.stm

Now, I wouldn't expect them to condone their use, but actively lying to people about an effective preventative measure for an incurable, usually fatal disease is a whole new step.

Again, I know I am no expect in the debate of the existence of God, but the actions of some religions are something I would find it very hard to support.

 

[Dre89]

What the **** kind of argument is that? Dawkins' a joke because he makes philosophers look stupid? How the hell does that reflect badly on Dawkins then, if the "philosophers" are the ones looking like they have bad arguments? Plus, you don't even, once again, mention specifically any philosopher, link, or provide any sort of example to actually corroborate what you're saying.

And, of course, the completely unsubstantiated claim of not being "genuine academic literature", and that was a "money making venture" simply because it's not mentioned in two other book collections. Of course, that is the only logical conclusion to make from those statements. Never mind the fact that the Cambridge Companion to Atheism was published only a month after The God Delusion, therefore more likely it didn't have the time to get the rights or put it in the final draft for publishing. Not to mention it really doesn't mean anything if it didn't show up in it anyway.

Oh, and this Great Books of the World collection you mention, try Googling for it. All I found was this Great Books of the Western World collection, which is all I can assume is what you're talking about, and it was published in 1994.


In fact, the only person that should be losing credibility around here is you. Spouting such BS arguments, then having the nerve to say that other people somehow don't have any for agreeing with Dawkins' arguments is almost mind-blowingly hypocritical to me.

You can think Dawkins' arguments suck, or that he's an idiot, or whatever else you want to think about him. I personally don't care what you think of him. However, have at least some semblance of a proper argument instead of some circumloquacious ad-hominem, especially if you're going to use that to void out other people's opinions.

Atheists dislike him because he makes atheism look like it's founded on straw-man argument and misinformation.

Actually, it was first published in the 50s. Since then, it has been republished and updated.

One of the new additions is modern philosophy and theology, which includes the likes of Bertrand Russell.

I hadn't even heard of him until I had all these atheists telling me how bad his book was.

I am yet to meet a single philosophically educated atheist who actually thinks it is a good book. I am also yet to meet a lecturer who has read atheist literature, and can recommend me good atheists, who thinks that book is good either.

For starters, Dawkins acts on the premise that creationism and theism are synonomous, and that disproving creationism somehow disproves God. That in itself shows how uneducated on the topic he is.

I don't know what he's like as a biologist, but he isn't in the science section of the book collection either, and it's been over 30 years since the Selfish Gene came out.

To give you an example of how bad the God Delusion is, it features in essay questions at my uni for PH100, which is Introduction to Philosophy. That is a compulsory course for everyone in the uni, not just the philosophy students, so it's heavily watered down. The only reaosn why it's there is because PH100 students aren't expected to to do serious, or legitimate academic reading, so they use Dawkins.

He doesn't feature at all in senior philosophy units, he wasn't even in God section of the Philosophy of Religion undergraduate unit reader.

Edit- I read a dbate he had with a theist, and was amazed how little he knew. Apart from the fact he thinks science has some wieght in the God debate, showing he knows nothing about metaphysics, he thought all theists were fideist, and doesn't even understand the cosmoligcal argument, he didn't even know what it is about God that allowed him to be an unmoved mover, as opposed to any other contingent being.

 

[rvkevin]

TGD was not intended to pierce philosophical circles, so why is this being brought up?

For starters, Dawkins acts on the premise that creationism and theism are synonomous, and that disproving creationism somehow disproves God. That in itself shows how uneducated on the topic he is.

This is false. His argument doesn't even rely on Evolution, he merely uses it as an example to illustrate it. Maybe you should actually understand (or at least look at) his argument before dismissing it. Something you too eagerly accuse him of doing. It actually got its roots from Dan Dennett, although the delivery could have been more clear and, however inconsequential, Dawkins may have slightly overstated his conclusion. I suspect anyone not familiar with Dennett's idea would have been as lost to what Dawkin's was trying to convey as you apparently have been.

I don't know what he's like as a biologist, but he isn't in the science section of the book collection either, and it's been over 30 years since the Selfish Gene came out.

I've seen a majority of his writings at mainstream bookstores in the Biology section (Borders, Barnes & Noble).

Edit- I read a debate he had with a theist, and was amazed how little he knew.

Care to share the name of the opponent?

 

[Dre89]

Funnily enough, Dennett also only features in the introductory unit at my shcool and not the senior ones, although I don't really know anything about him.

If I'm wrong, could you please elaborate on what Dawkin's argument is exactly?

David Quinn was the name of his opponent. It was an extract of a written copy of the debate from the Turbidy Show. In the extract, Dawkins implies that all thiests are fideists, and isn't aware why God is any different to contingent beings. I will say so, that in the extracy I read, i felt that Quinn also did poorly.

It's like the speghetti monster argument, anyone who thinks God is like a spaghetti monster hasn't studied metaphysics, and doesn't know anything about the philosophical concept of God. The spaghetti monster only works if your notion of God is some guy with a beard in the clouds, or some other childish notion like that.

 

[Sucumbio]

The spaghetti monster only works if your notion of God is some guy with a beard in the clouds, or some other childish notion like that.

Not exactly. The Flying Spaghetti monster works for those who require tangible proof of God's existence, otherwise God could be an _insert any colorful metaphor here_. It just so happens that we have a physical descriptions of God. By the Roman Catholic's God is a Trinity of beings existing simultaneously as the Resurrected Jesus (descriptions are typically based on depictions of Renaissance interpretations), The Father (per Genesis, made in the image of man -Adam-), and The Holy Ghost (not a physical being, so there's no physical description to be had). Definitely not a flying spaghetti monster, lol. And definitely enough tangible proof. Jesus did live, as is historically documented. The matter of Faith comes in when you decide whether or not he's the son of God. God is made in our image, so all we need to do is look at a man to know what he looks like. We can see plenty of males walking the world, so there's no guesswork there. As for the Holy Spirit, well... heh. Yeah, that's a bunch of malarkey to anyone requiring empirical evidence. To those folks I'd say if you -really- want to find out if its "real" or not, you'd have to break into the Vatican and steal your eyes upon protected documents which would categorically prove scientifically the existence of it.

(Wait, why do you have to do all that? Why don't they just spill the beans?)

Because Peter was asked to build his Church upon Faith, and giving it away like that will make lemmings out of people instead of Faith-believers.

This segues into Topic nicely. In a Post-singularity existence, we'd basically be so close to pure-energy forms that we'd not only fully understand the Universe and its creation, but we'd probably also know God in its purest sense, all mythology aside.

 

[Dre89]

Requiring tangible evidence is self defeating to begin with, because it assumes tangible evidence is the only way to deduce truths in the world. But we didn't use tangible methodology to prove that tangible methodology is true. This proves tangibility is not necessary to deduce a truth.

The SM is a complex, physical being existing in space and time. God is nothing like that.