Disproving a Personal God with Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by spidergoat, Aug 18, 2011.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,630
    According to your rules of predisposition, you mean?
    So, you've managed to reach a conclusion without any hint of scientific enquiry, or any kind of enquiry except dismissal of an hypothesis, or rather, the substitution of one hypothesis with another?

    So yet more evidence that scientific debunking is devoid of substance, then?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,630
    Unless someone reports their experience of God, which scientists are unable to distinguish from normal brain activity. What can science do with "the evidence"? Dismiss it as non-empirical? Suggest to the subject they go on a course of anti-psychotic drugs, and measure their brain activity again?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    No

    Actually what this thread is about is you trying to disprove a personal god on the authority of science.

    At the moment you are trying to turn it around into "prove god on the authority of science", which is a request plagued by a host of logical inconsistencies.

    Trying to suggest that scientific disproof occurs on the level of rendering a hypothesis untenable/unaccomplishable is simply soft headed since the progressive path of science is clearly illustrated to the contrary.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    It's quite simple really, if God exists...he did a horrendous job at convincing his own creation that he exists...

    I mean I understand Astrophysics, Psychology, Number theory, Music theory, Politics, good ettiquette, Marketing tactics, Morality, human nature, mother nature how I exist, why things happen the way they do, women! (far more difficult than it should be), I'm in good shape and loving life...

    ...but what I don't understand is why I need a God that punishes his creation to eternal damnation, after HE gave them their intelligence, HE gave their curiosity, HE gave their "proclivity" to disbelieve...does all this with indisputable omnipotence, and yet, me being as smart and polite, moral, and successful as I am...am still NOT capable of taking the word in the Bible as anything more than a wonderful mythology built by our ancestors... am still NOT capable of committing acts of violence/murder (and I don't even worry about going to hell if I did!)...am still NOT capable of feeling "hopeless" and NOT capable of believing I'm purposeless without God's plan...and lets not forget about the Jews the Muslims, the Hindis, the Buddhists, the aboriginal tribes, the millions and millions of people throughout the history of the world who were not given the opportunity to read or even HEAR about the bible... they went straight to hell right?...or God just gives them a lucky break because his omnipotent plan allows for a HUGE percent of error...that error mostly being generated by the fact that "His Word" is in a book written by man vs. in actual reality....
     
  8. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Oh an my above post fits for ANY religion that requires specific practices and beliefs...if you just believe there is SOMETHING that created the universe then GOOD for you...if you believe that something has emotions like humans, gets angry like humans, wants to be loved like humans... even in the most infinitesimal way...you've got some strange beliefs that are irreconcilably incompatible with existence...
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    so you don't have problems with religious perspectives that don't establish hell as eternal?
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    The Trinity stuff was a predisposition to having God.

    You don't know the mechanics that science has shown? Time to learn, a st is available to you. You must become your own research assistant.
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    They can think of anything they happen to think of.
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,630
    No, I don't know the mechanics. Are you saying science can tell me what I'm experiencing--someone has figured out what consciousness is?

    Or are you just thinking of anything you can think of?
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Start with the ear, but don't start with some Trinity thing, for there is nothing there.
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,630
    I don't follow. Start what with the ear?
     
  15. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Start with any science about sound waves and sound, such as with the ear and its mechanisms. Or not.
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,630
    But what is this exercise supposed to prove, or disprove? What light, pun intended, can it hope to shed on the question of consciousness?

    Hasn't it been done already? Isn't it true that no matter what experiment you do to investigate the senses, there is no data that correlates unequivocally with consciousness? It remains something we simply can't measure, in any way, except for asking someone if they're awake, say.
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    ... and it is observed as being of-this-world.
    Ie. even if something "from the other world" were to interfere with "this world", "we in this world" would necessarily perceive it as being "from this world".


    Unless you grant LG the exceptional status of "being from the other world", and simultaneously grant yourself (and some others, for peer review) the exceptional status of being able to perceive and communicate with someone "from the other world," everything he says here is still part of "this world" - since we are reading it here, "in this world."



    With methods and tools "from this world," how could we possibly distinguish "things from this world" from "those form the other world"?
    We cannot.

    Indeed, the hypothesis, as it is formulated, is not testable.
    But that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that it is impossible to know God.
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    In that case, we start with nothing and hope to be left with something.


    !


    Who suggested that this be the case?


    This is not definitive. Has it never happened to you that you had a dream that involved a sound - a sound that actually came from the environment?
     
  19. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    We find where the truth leads, whether to God or not God.


    Me, it doesn't mean that God did it.


    Yes, a few times, so I'll change it to largely internal.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It is not possible to be without predispositions.
     
  21. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    We can only try, at best, but some may not even do that.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Try what? To be to be without predispositions?
    That try itself would be a predisposition.
     
  23. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    I don't purposely withhold findings because they might point to God. Yazata even thought my "We only see the insides of our heads" took away from atheism.

    Too much love or hate for an idea can get in the way of the search for truth.
     

Share This Page