[dctoedt]

> Science doesn't allow for magic

No downvote here, but science "allows for" [sic] whatever IS. It's a bit above our pay grade to say what can't be; for all we know, magic might be a black swan [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

[jessedhillon]

Actually, science does not allow for magic. Either something has an explicable mechanism by which it works, and that mechanism can be exposed through the scientific method, or it's supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, inexplicable through science.

A black swan event is merely the occurrence of a highly improbable event. That says nothing of the event's explicability.

Edit: more accurate to say science cannot explain true magic, if there were such a thing.

[aidenn0]

Science does in fact allow for magic. If it were true that saying several syllables in succession accompanied by appropriate gestures caused lightning to shoot from your fingertips in a repeatable manner, science could measure and classify it.

We do not know, as of yet, what, nor how many things are fundamental to the universe.

[rmah]

And thus, by explaining, measuring and classifying, lighting incantations are no longer magic.

[technolem]

If magic with an explicit lack of even the potential to be explained existed, science would still allow for it. At no point does science require that reality must explain itself.

[chris_wot]

Something seems wrong with this argument... Surely science is a subset of reality?

[Steko]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Clark

What's the difference between many religious concepts of gods and an extraterrestrial civilization that (at least on our scale) appears immortal, omniscient and all powerful?

Asimov's The Last Question illustrates the point pretty well:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[nitrogen]

What's the difference between many religious concepts of gods and an extraterrestrial civilization that (at least on our scale) appears immortal, omniscient and all powerful?

Two major differences:

1. Evidence. Extraterrestrial life is definable and testable. "God" by most definitions is unknowable, and most religious definitions of "god" and his/her/their/its work are contradictory to scientific evidence.

2. Purpose. Nobody has committed genocide in the name of extraterrestrial aliens, but religion has been used to justify all manner of atrocities.

[chris_wot]

Goodness, that's some fairly shoddy logic for point two! I could equally phrase this as "No religious group have committed genocide in the name of extraterrestrial aliens, but atheists have been known to justify genocide".

In other words, the first assertion includes everyone, including ALL religious people, and the second premise doesn't follow from the first anyway. Furthermore, the argument doesn't even answer the question between the differences between aliens and deity, because you are focussing on the religious movements and not the omniscient god!

All around, a poor effort.