Disproving a Personal God with Science

spidergoat

spidergoat

pubic diorama
Valued Senior Member
lightgigantic said:
You just talked about how you can disprove a personal god on the authority of science ... so whenever you are ready to begin ...
Click to expand...

It isn't my place to make your case for you, so go ahead. Explain your best arguments for God's existence, and I will endeavor to show how science shows beyond a reasonable doubt that those arguments are faulty. I guess I should explain what "personal" means. That is, a God who participates in human affairs.
 
Stephen Hawking has an interesting take on God and how It doesn't exist - or at least there's no need for It in this Universe.
 
spidergoat said:
It isn't my place to make your case for you, so go ahead. Explain your best arguments for God's existence, and I will endeavor to show how science shows beyond a reasonable doubt that those arguments are faulty.
Click to expand...
We note how the argument appears to first require that a strawman be constructed--the "it isn't my place to prove or disprove the case, and any case you can make can be disproved, because the God of science says so".

More dishonesty.

Michael said:
Stephen Hawking has an interesting take on God and how It doesn't exist - or at least there's no need for It in this Universe.
Click to expand...
Not accurate. Hawking says he believes there is no need for God to have created the universe; he does not say that God doesn't exist or that the universe doesn't "need" God.
 
Well that's true :)
He did a new doco recently talking about his ideas of the Universe and it's non-God(s) needed beginning.
 
Michael said:
Stephen Hawking has an interesting take on God and how It doesn't exist - or at least there's no need for It in this Universe.
Click to expand...

he only applies God to the universe..
this still doesn't disprove God overall..
there is still the human aspect of God..

its funny how most all the bible talks about relationships, how to behave, how to treat your fellow man..there is pry only 1% that addresses physical stuff (how the universe was created) yet science and religion tends to focus on this 1% to invalidate/justify God.
 
@Knowledge91 --

God>Science
Click to expand...

Which god are you talking about here? The god of the Bible? If so then he's demonstrably not greater than science. According to the Bible, god couldn't stop an army of chariots because they were made of iron(so apparently god is fey). Not only would that shoot the whole omnipotence thing in the foot(well, more so at any rate), but it demonstrates a power well below that of even five hundred years ago.

@arfa brane --

No, Spidergoat is right. The burden of proof lies with the theists, not with the atheists. It is on theists to provide evidence that god exists.
 
lightgigantic said:
What makes you think science invalidates the claim that god directs the wanderings of all living entities through the agency of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness?

Bg 15.15 : I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence of an agenda? With all our wars, diseases and such, I don't see it. If that is the case, if you just chalk it up to "mysterious ways", then it is an untestable hypothesis, and can be dismissed without evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that the workings of the brain are subject to vagaries of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness all on it's own. It's a complex and unreliable system.

So either a God is instituting a complex and mysterious undetectable agenda of mind control and hides his tracks... or people forget and remember thanks to evolution leading to a complex brain through well understood principles. Which explanation multiplies assumptions unnecessarily?
 
Last edited:
Arioch said:
No, Spidergoat is right. The burden of proof lies with the theists, not with the atheists. It is on theists to provide evidence that god exists.
Click to expand...
No, the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim. Someone who claims God does NOT exist has a burden of proof.
This proof is not, and cannot be founded on the argument "theists have a burden of proof". This gets precisely nowhere.

If someone claims that God DOES exist, they then have a burden of proof. There's a problem, of course, with either claim because after lots of centuries there seems to be no rational way to even form an argument that refutes them.

But we can indulge in speculative nonsense, if we feel the urge. I could speculate that something Jesus was supposed to have said is true--God is light. I mean, why isn't that true, and what sort of light was he (supposedly) talking about? The light of reason? The light from shiny things, like gold and silver? Oooh, look.
 
I'm not trying to argue that God doesn't exist, I'm trying to argue a specific thing, that science can debunk theist arguments for a personal God. That's why I suggested that lightgigantic go first with his best arguments.
 
spidergoat said:
I'm trying to argue a specific thing, that science can debunk theist arguments for a personal God.
Click to expand...
Ok then. Let's assume Jesus really existed and was a theist.
He claimed that God is light. Now (you can) use science to debunk the argument that he meant this as something that applies to every person, personally.
 
I don't think he meant a literal light. Light and seeing is used as a metaphor for understanding something. I have no problem with that from a philosophical point of view.
 
spidergoat said:
Light and seeing is used as a metaphor for understanding something.
Click to expand...
I think he did mean that God is literally light. And he meant that this light is a personal experience, therefore he meant a personal God.

Where is the scientific debunking? Are you saying "it's a metaphor" debunks Jesus' claim? What you think and what science may or may not have to say aren't really the same thing, are they?
Can you prove it was meant metaphorically, and not literally? What kind of light was he talking about then?
 
arfa brane said:
I think he did mean that God is literally light. And he meant that this light is a personal experience, therefore he meant a personal God.

Where is the scientific debunking? Are you saying "it's a metaphor" debunks Jesus' claim? What you think and what science may or may not have to say aren't really the same thing, are they?
Can you prove it was meant metaphorically, and not literally? What kind of light was he talking about then?
Click to expand...
Are you a sun worshipper? Do you have to stop and bow at flashlights too?
 
OK, let us say, as in the three main religions, that the personal God created all that is and is everywhere upholding it, knowing everything, and taking a very active interest in everything that goes on, often interceding on its behalf, if not even directing every single things, such as the location and action of every atom in a McDonald's french fry. Or is that too much?
 
wellwisher said:
Are you a sun worshipper? Do you have to stop and bow at flashlights too?
Click to expand...
Another lame excuse for an argument appears on the philosophical horizon.

Yawn.
Oh, right. Are you saying Jesus was talking about the light from the sun. Not from the moon then, or stars? So he was definitely referring to light you can see with your eyes, then?

So now you can use science to prove this, and of course refute it at the same time?

No, you can't. Nor can spidergoat. Nor can I, and nor can anyone.
So what was he talking about, then? Nobody has any idea, right? So I can conclude that you atheists are indulging in dishonest speculative nonsense, then. You have no arguments, but you do have opinions, none of which seem to hold up to rational debate, about a subject that appears to defy rationality, then?

Speculative nonsense, indeed. Sure, it's reassuring to tell yourself you're right, that science being rational can debunk theist arguments, but none of you have even started down this path. Why are you so sure it can be done, but you can't actually demonstrate the "doing"?
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
I think he did mean that God is literally light. And he meant that this light is a personal experience, therefore he meant a personal God.

Where is the scientific debunking? Are you saying "it's a metaphor" debunks Jesus' claim? What you think and what science may or may not have to say aren't really the same thing, are they?
Can you prove it was meant metaphorically, and not literally? What kind of light was he talking about then?
Click to expand...

Is this an argument for God? Jesus talked in metaphors all the time, it doesn't take more than a brain the size of a mustard seed to determine that.
 
Last edited:
We have that despite the thread title, nobody has used any science to refute anything.

We have one example, a saying from the Bible, that can't be refuted with science, because either nobody here understands what the science is in order to use same in any refutation, or nobody knows what Jesus was talking about--here, substitute "metaphorically talking" because he may not have actually existed.

Or are we happy with "metaphorical light"?
Is everybody happy--you bet your life we are.
spidergoat said:
Is this an argument for God?
Click to expand...
Not as such. It's an argument that refutes your claim that science can refute any claim of a personal god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top