Disproving a Personal God with Science

Sorry, light is only seen to be light. No God hanging around.

A Bible written by people has no truth value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_7

Obviously, if you think this is a metaphor, you are only rationalising it that way because you are incapable of doing otherwise. What if it isn't a metaphor--what happens if you doubt your rationalisation that it is? Does the world collapse around you?

How is this light you describe seen? Who sees it and decides it isn't God?
Is it your mind that tells you you're seeing light through your eyes?
What if your eyes are closed and you're in a dark room--no light, huh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"What-if's" are of no concern. No world collapses. There was none to be shown.

Light is made in the brain. A dream has light, even in a dark room with one's eye's closed.

No God shown as light. Disproved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BELIEFS IN THE UNKNOWN ARE UNGROUNDED BELIEFS UPHELD. A belief is that construct that states we consider something as true. But considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true. Indeed, that is the ‘hold up’, for a belief hangs in the air, because it is upheld by the owner of the belief.


THE ETERNAL UNCAUSED MOVER It could not be a Mind, for it would be an already defined and very complex composite system. Thus, no God.

Victor Stenger checks in for the rest:

The Summary of the Disproofs of God
That Also Led to the Understanding of Everything​

*
Where shall we find, or not, the Supernatural—God? We would find it doing super things that are beyond the natural. If we look everywhere and only find the natural, then the disproof of God lives.

*
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? Now what is it that is as simple as it gets? A ‘nothing’. Therefore, we cannot expect it to be very stable. Something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus much more likely than Nothing. So, God is not needed to create anything.
*
MASS AND MATTER ARE CREATED FROM ENERGY! The universe appeared from a state of zero energy, this being, of course, within the unavoidable and tiny quantum uncertainty. So, no miracle occurred.
*
THERE IS NO TIME-ZERO IMPRINT OF THE VERY HAND OF GOD! An expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed some localized order consistent with the 2nd law. At the Planck time, the disorder was complete; it was maximal. Thus the universe began with no structure. None. In fact it was chaos! There was no initial design built in to the universe at its beginning! There was no imprint left by a Creator.
*
BIBLICAL REVELATION IS UNREVEALING. Biblical prophecy is either vague, wrong, coincidence, a matter of ordinary prediction, or it can be more-simply explained as written after the fact. Humankind’s holy books are what one would expect if they were products of human culture.
*
IN THE ‘BEGINNING’… THERE WAS NO CAUSE! Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. That realm is causeless.
*
QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS. Einstein did away with the aether, shattering the doctrine that we all move about inside a universal, cosmic fluid whose excitations connect us simultaneously to one another and to the rest of the universe. Second, Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity.
*
ENLIGHTENMENT DEISM. In 1982 a definitive series of ‘EPR experiments’ with this configuration was carried out by Alain Aspect. The results agreed perfectly with conventional quantum mechanics and thus ruled out any subquantum theory with local hidden variables.
*
THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE NATURAL.* A principle of point-of-view invariance is equivalent to the principle of covariance when applied to space-time. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space. Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.
*
OUR VALUES/LAWS/MORALS DO NOT COME FROM GOD AND/OR RELIGION. There are common ideals that arose during the gradual evolution of human societies, as they become more civilized, developed rational thinking processes, and discovered how to live together in greater harmony. Human and societal behaviors look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
*
THERE WAS NO FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE. For fine-tuning, only ‘dimensionless’ numbers that do not depend on the system of units are meaningful. The Fine Structure ‘Constant, ‘a’, is not even a constant. There can still be long-lived stars if we vary the parameters and certainly the universe is not fine-tuned for this characteristic. The 7.65 million electron-volts needed for Carbon to form actually hinges on the radioactive state of a carbon nucleus formed out of three helium nuclei, which has over a 20% range to work with without being too high. The vacuum energy of the universe is not fine-tuned, for the large value of N1 is simply an artifact of the use of small masses in making the comparison. The Expansion Rate of the Universe in not fine-tuned since the universe appeared from an earlier state of zero energy; thus, energy conservation would require the exact expansion rate that is observed. Same for the Mass Density of the Universe. Looks the same as if there were no God.

THE VILE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL becomes that we rely on our own human instincts, these taking precedence over confusing divine commands, for these commands offend both our common sense and our reason. Observations of human and animal suffering look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
*
All in all, we have found only the natural. There is no fingerprint of the Supernatural. None at all. The ‘God’ notion is dead.
*
We have 0 proofs of the supernatural, and many disproofs of the supernatural;
Which led us to many proofs of the natural, and 0 disproofs of the natural.

 

But you can see light in your dreams, you said. What is the nature of this dream-light? Is it made of photons, perhaps?

If it isn't, then that disproves the claim that all light is made of photons. It establishes that there is a light "in the mind's eye", whatever you like to call it.

 

It's also that there is only sound in the brain, etc., during a dream, but no sound waves. Conversely, when there is no brain around and a tree falls in the forest there are just sound waves (air vibrations) but no sound.

 

So how do you explain the existence of sound in dreams, if there are no sound waves?

No, that's incorrect. Perhaps what you mean is the sound isn't heard. But if there are sound waves, there are pressure waves in the air--the energy doesn't disappear if it doesn't interact with somebody's hearing.

 

Sound is made by the brain. When awake the ear mechanism sends the mapping to the brain. When dreaming, that part is left out, the brain still able to make sound, just as it can also make light, smell, taste, and touch. The same simulation model of reality is used whether awake or dreaming. Dreams may be driven partly by noise and static but the brains has to make sense of this.

Yes, sound is what is heard, as transformed from air vibrations, odours are smelled, based on molecule shapes, sight, via photons, taste based on a matrix of sweet, salt, bitter, and sour levels on the tongue.

 

So much for the personal God.

 

No it isn't. You're making things up now.

So much for science debunking claims of a personal God. So much for your opinion being passed off as "science".

This light you claim can be seen in dreams: is there anything supernatural about it?

 

that's something different.

You said that you can disprove a personal god on the authority of science.

So far you have failed to do that.

 

Let's work through that slowly:

By its nature, science is a naturalistic pursuit. It's concerned with how events are correlated in this tangible perceptible world that we inhabit. The existence or non-existence of some hypothetical "god" would seem to be a transcendental matter. So how is "science" even relevant to the divine existence question?

If you can produce arguments for why all of my arguments for the existence of "god" fail, then obviously you won't be convinced by my arguments. I might even be persuaded by you, provided that I recognize the strength of your arguments vis-a-vis my arguments. (That's unlkely to happen in real-life theistic arguments, where both sides are totally locked into their respective positions a-priori.)

But how do we get from there to the conclusion that "there is no longer any logical support for the original hyppothesis and it can be dismissed as untrue"? There seems to be an implicit premise slipped in there that the arguments that I've hypothetically presented (and which for the sake of argument you've just demolished) constitute all the arguments that can possibly be presented.

Perhaps totally conclusive evidence and arguments for "god" do exist, but I just haven't presented them. Even more dramatically, perhaps some hypothetical "god" thing exists (in the sense of 'creator', 'sustainer' and so on) but there isn't any direct and unambiguous evidence of that existence on our physical plane at all. (Beyond the fact that the universe exists in the first place.) It's conceivable after all that countless varieties of being exist that don't physically interact with our space-time-matter universe at all.

I'm not sure that the word "supernatural" has any kind of meaning at all within natural science. Which would seem to suggest that a scientific disproof of "god's" existence might be impossible simply by definition. Transcendental beings like this hypothetical "god" would appear to lie outside the scope of natural science.

 

Sound is made in the brain as a qualia from air-vibrations jiggling the ear mechanism, which makes a mapping for the brain, etc.

Nothing supernatural about light in dreams, nor when awake of the photons' representation in the mind as light.

We only ever see and sense the insides of our heads.

 

Supernatural happenings would be those in which the natural course is overridden by the Personal God and changed. Then I could fly and so could elephants.

 

Well, that looks vaguely scientific, I guess.

This sound that is "made" in the brain. Is it possible for the brain to "make" any sound without external stimulus? Or is that only possible when the brain is unconscious or in a dream state?

Quite. So it would seem that "seeing light" becomes a matter of context. Do you think this context is implied in the quote from the book of St John?

 

the human connection to the source. What do we mean by the source . Well humans are low voltage . Sun Gods and sun kings know this kind of stuff. Me being both . Get the volt meter lets do the experiment . I already did so I am not the lazy one . The power . Think of this for a minute . A lemon makes a great battery for being a plant . Me I am high voltage , don't get to close or you might get burned . Takes a little power to light you up , Light you up , like a fire I just want to light you up light you up . Load Guitars take electricity

 

Maybe if one's brain exploded. Or if one has schizophrenia.

Good old St. John was just making things up, but his context was more loosely just talking about light in general, not my context,which they didn't know about, as like that shone from the sun. Hey, that's it. The sun god. Thanks, Me-Ki-Gal.

 

Well, you've found the right kind of muse then, since making things up is your thing just now.

Shame about all that science you could be using instead.

 

People who can't show their 'truths' with proofs have made them up. Wishes become beliefs that become pronouncements.

 

Good thing you've managed to avoid that particular gaffe, then.