Disproving a Personal God with Science

Incorrect, but it's a common mistake. Science is concerned with anything that has a measurable observable objective effect. It's only naturalistic so far because that's all we can confirm. But, religion has yet to agree that a personal God has no effect on Earthly events, so that does make it within the realm of scientific study.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The premise is that if all the arguments for God presented in this discussion fail, then I have shown there is no support for the God hypothesis, and it no longer becomes reasonable in a scientific sense to believe it. Future arguments could change that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe, but if they aren't presented, we don't have to be concerned with them. I'm not making a statement of absolute fact, but rather a statement of what is logical to believe given the present state of knowledge.

A non-testable hypothesis can also be dismissed without contrary evidence. Also, a God that existed on a completely separate plane of existence could not have an effect on this plane of existence.

I agree.

No they don't. They don't appear to be anything other than a myth. You are making the implicit assumption that God already exists without any even theoretical means of establishing the truth of it. If you are making this conclusion from the observation of human beings having an experience of God, there are more rational explanations for that having to do with psychology and neurology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In science, being able to dismiss your defense of the hypotheses is the same thing as disproof.

 

That statement is the height of idiocy.

Scientific disproof certainly does not require merely a dismissal of hypothesis ... if you don't understand why, just try and open it up as thread title.

 

well I guess that puts a nail in the argument of disproving god then, huh?

 

This video is from a very inteligent Catholic priest who has multiple degrees in Philosophy and Theology. I think he can help you understand here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8yRWrUjnL8

 

Thanks for that.
I liked his video on ''the new atheists''.


jan.

 

That would seem to suggest that on your principles, the physical universe is impossible, the natural sciences are nothing but illusion, and no other human being exists besides you. Your philosophy of perception implodes into solipsism as soon as somebody touches it.

If the only thing that "we" can ever "see" is "the insides of our heads", then what sense remains in talking about the things seen as being "representations" of anything else? Representatons of... what? Certainly something that can't ever be perceived by beings such as us.

So the physical world of the tables and the chairs, the subject matter (literally) of physics, geology and biology, is swept up into heaven and transcendentalized into a Kantian-style 'noumenon'. In other words, given a status that's not dissimilar from the status that "god" is imagined to have.

We seem to moving backwards from the atheist point of view, towards "god" and not further away from "him".

 

I wrote:

Spidergoat says:

I'm using the word 'natural' to mean "belonging to or concerned with the world of nature, and so accessable to investigation by the natural sciences". (Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.640)

And, "by 'nature', we mean everything that there is in the physical world of experience, very broadly construed. The universe and its contents, in short. To be natural is to be part of this world, and its distinguishing feature is usually taken to be the universal action of laws, meaning unbroken regularities. For philosophers like Plato, as well as those standing in the Christian tradition, the creator necessarily stands outside his creation, although able to intervene miraculously in it." (Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.643)

 

That's the logical fallacy. You can't be both outside the realm of this world and have an effect on it. As soon as you do something, that effect is observable and comes into the realm of science.

 

The only way it could be illogical is if the world is an independent manifestation ... and the only way it becomes observable by science is if the cause is empirically reducible.

IOW you are not talking about logic, you are talking about your beliefs that the world is independent from any outside cause and that any causes and effects within it can be defined in the language of examination with the blunt senses.

In fact to take this a step further, there is a good argument to suggest that you are being illogical to suggest inquiry on god be examined in such a framework.

:shrug:

 

What if God is an entirely natural phenomenon, and not "outside the realm of this world"?

Further, what if this natural phenomenon doesn't "do" anything as such? What if the "doing" is something down to human activity?
Is that a problem for science? Is it possible to look inside someone's mind and determine what their brain is doing? What kind of empirical measurement could determine if a human subject is "in tune" with this phenomenon?

Simply asking subjects to report their experience isn't really satisfactory, is it? And even though there are fairly sophisticated devices that measure brain activity nowadays, how do you correlate the data with "the experience"? Who decides when God has been "detected"?

 

For example, instruments can directly detect e/m waves, air vibrations, and much more. So do our sense detect them directly.

 

We agree on what is seen and known, so it's not just one person's fantasy.

 

We want to look for truth without any predispositions trying to skew the search.

Air-vibrations coming upon and ear and turning to sound in the brain does not mean God.

The fact that we have dreams shows there is a model for a re-presentation of reality in the brain. When asleep, the input is purely internal. When awake, the same model re-presentation is employed, with some of the input being external and some internal.

 

You say in the first sentence that you don't want any predispositions, then in the second sentence you introduce a predisposition.

Music was considered an aspect of God by the early Christians, during the monastic era especially. 3/4 time was thought to be a reflection of the Holy Trinity, for instance. So air vibrations "turning into" sound in the brain did and does mean God, to some people.

 

If God is indistinguishable from normal brain activity, then it's a non-testable hypothesis.

 

Yes, I'm talking about my belief in empiricism. To say your arguments are all outside that framework is to say they aren't supported by evidence, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.

 

What they make up about a Trinity is of no concern. Whether I want God or not to be the cause, God is not shown to be, but other mechanisms are.