stick wid Me baby. We going to the Top of de mountain . All you got to do is be good friend . You might have to buy the first round to show your sincerity , Then Drinks on Me Baby . Well depends on how much you drink ? If you are that much of a lush then reevaluation might be in order . Oh what the hell drink up .
Disproving a Personal God with Science
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
stick wid Me baby. We going to the Top of de mountain . All you got to do is be good friend . You might have to buy the first round to show your sincerity , Then Drinks on Me Baby . Well depends on how much you drink ? If you are that much of a lush then reevaluation might be in order . Oh what the hell drink up .
the only hypothesis that has failed is yours to suggest that empiricism modeled on reductionist thought is a suitable tool for the job
Just like you could quite rationally say a thermometer is a perfectly good tool for measuring distance since it gives such an accurate and universally accepted indication of temperature ... (IOW just like you leave the precise nature of illusion (or the devil) shaping thought in your statement, if I also omit the precise nature of measuring distance, we are both left with perfectly valid statements)
Only if you accept their positions on faith ...
more nonsense.
If the observer isn't properly trained or equipped they don't see anything.
If it was otherwise court's could save themselves a bundle by calling upon janitors instead of forensic scientists.
IOW empiricism is completely about the seer's powers (or nature) of investigation. According to such thought, the only requirement to directly perceive the president is the ability to open doors and use an elevator.
tons unless you can think of any investigation on how reciprocity between individuals can be carried out solely by exclusively analyzing one of them according to their external designation (like say investigating the nature of "sincere" husband's while being totally clueless about what a wife is or family responsibility)
You are simply talking more rubbish.
Reality is not only completely independent from our ability to test it but also empiricism is necessarily metonymic in its ability to identify it .
IOW if we want to accept your previous statement that "To say it's beyond testability is the same as saying it most likely does not exist. " I guess we are left with the conclusion that more things exist (like cells and atoms for instance) in the 21st century than they did in the 14th due to advancements in technology.
:shrug:
I have never said that god exists due to not coming under the umbrella of traditional empirical investigation (I have however said that there are better tools for investigating the claim ... much like there are better tools for investigating distance aside from a thermometer) ... you, on the other hand, have claimed that because he doesn't come under the discipline of empiricism, he is proven to not exist.
IOW its the constant excuse (and gross error) of yours to assert that the complete terms of reality are chalked out by empirical thought.
Such thinking leaves one with a necessarily absurd world view.
Last edited:
In the case of illness we usually have several options and regardless of which option we take, the decision requires that we do things on the professional's terms .... If we don't, we don't actually receive the treatment ... which bears a result remarkably similar to not making any decision about the treatment of illness.
If you have given your mother a gift on mother's day and have never carried out a dna test to empirically validate her genealogical position , you have at least one problem that you didn't solve with empiricism.
DNA testing isn't the only way to ascertain who is and isn't family. It's the most accurate way but far from the only one. I happen to know that my mother and I have the same rare blood type(it's why we both give blood every month), so it's very safe to say from that empirical evidence alone that my mother is my biological mother.
Of course, your post is nothing but a straw man argument, which is nothing new coming from a theist.
Of course, your post is nothing but a straw man argument, which is nothing new coming from a theist.
So that's the only possibility, and that's what the Bible means, and you can prove this?Arioch said:
What if God isn't photons? What if what you've been saying is just based on an assumption you've made? What is the scientific basis of this assumption, if that's what it is? It certainly looks a lot like one.
So where is the science, then? An assumption from you about what the phrase "God is light" means, is not science, it's your opinion.
Time to lay it out. I can see light when I want to because I know how to. I can hear sounds while I'm awake that aren't because of external noise impinging on my ears. These phenomena are internal--hidden from others, but not from me. This light and sound are called (by some people) aspects of God.
The light is very calming and also quite an attractive phenomenon. Likewise the sounds are varied and seem to be layered, the more you concentrate, the more different kinds of sounds you can "hear" internally.
This is mainly because I know some Surat Shabd yoga--but the techniques are a means to an end. Eventually you can experience the light and sound (and a couple of other things) without having to do the techniques.
I also know other people who can do this, all of whom report very similar experiences.
Perhaps we're all insane. But it's a nice way to go mad, if that's what it is.
So now, perhaps, you can prove, using science, that the experiences I've described are illusions. But I don't think so. That would be like trying to convince me I'm dead.
Last edited:
Asking for citations are you? Why should I cite what is common knowledge. Even a high school freshman knows that a photon is the smallest packet of light, this is knowledge that doesn't need a citation. It's been proven by thousands of experiments.
And if god isn't photons then god isn't light. Light is photons, nothing else. What else could "god is light" possibly mean?
And if god isn't photons then god isn't light. Light is photons, nothing else. What else could "god is light" possibly mean?
As you've managed to assume.Arioch said:
So what's this light I can see that seems to emanate from inside my head? That I don't see with my eyes, and which is fundamentally a different kind of light from the light I do see with my eyes?
What would you like to assume about it?
That is called your imagination, that light doesn't actually exist. Basically your brain is firing the neurons responsible for putting together your imaging data and thus you see light when there isn't.
Also, from your post it seems as though you are speaking metaphorically instead of literally, using a vastly different(and incorrect) definition of the word "light". If this is the case you should know that I won't play semantics games. You can take that shit and shove it.
I've only made two assumptions, that the universe exists(I doubt you'll fight me on that one) and that we can learn something about it(again, doubt you'll fight me). I've made no assumptions about the nature or mechanics of light, it's a well documented and quite prosperous area of physics. You should go read some of the stuff by Richard Feynman, you would find out that physics has a pretty good grasp of what light is and how it acts by now.
Then there is no god in a black hole. Or at night. Or in a cave.
Can empiricism study anything that has an effect on the material world?
Does God have an effect on the material world?
By the way, I can use a thermometer to measure distance, it's just less accurate than a ruler, but more accurate than a human being's dead reckoning.
Sure, in the ocean for instance, the temperature changes with depth. In the atmosphere, the temperature would give you a rough estimation of altitude. It can also measure time and differentiate between daytime and nighttime.
If God is light, and the universe is infinite, then there is no God.
Here is how I figure that. The parts of the universe that are light by volume is far less than the parts that are dark (even discounting the 90% that may be dark matter). If you calculate the exact ratio, I'm sure it's a number close to zero, meaning God has almost zero percent influence on the universe.
Here is how I figure that. The parts of the universe that are light by volume is far less than the parts that are dark (even discounting the 90% that may be dark matter). If you calculate the exact ratio, I'm sure it's a number close to zero, meaning God has almost zero percent influence on the universe.
No, that's your imagination. There is a light and it does exist. I can assume that it's some kind of neural mechanism, but it doesn't make any difference if I do. Assuming anything except that it's there and I'm conscious of it, is actually irrelevant.Arioch said:
It's as metaphorical as drawing a breath, actually. I call it light because it's bright, multicolored, and effulgent.
Yes you have made an assumption, you've assumed that the phrase "God is light" means physical light made of photons. It doesn't mean that, actually, as I can attest to.
From your post it seems that you prefer to adopt a dismissive attitude, and that you think science can answer everything although you have no way to confirm this. You're lying, in other words.
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
I haven't ruled out a god that just doesn't care about human beings. His actions would be indistinguishable from randomness. If god has a personality at all, like if he cares about human welfare, especially those that believe in him, then he should be distinguishable from randomness.
Just see how silly this thread is.
"Science can disprove that God exists", oh sure, but so far there is no evidence that science can even formulate what it is that is to be disproved. You are all wasting your time.
"Science can disprove that God exists", oh sure, but so far there is no evidence that science can even formulate what it is that is to be disproved. You are all wasting your time.