Disproving a Personal God with Science

[Arioch]

@arfa brane --

There is a light and it does exist.

Have you had this independently verified by an outside source? No? Then you can't assert that it exists. You can say that you believe it exists but that's as far as you can take it.

I call it light because it's bright, multicolored, and effulgent.

Is it made of photons? If not then it's not light. You're retconning the word to suit your purposes, I'll not play this game anymore.

you've assumed that the phrase "God is light" means physical light made of photons.

Well that is what light is. If you're talking about some other phenomenon then name it, but it isn't light.

It doesn't mean that, actually, as I can attest to.

The only way it doesn't mean that is if "light" doesn't mean "light" anymore. We know exactly what light is, we know how it operates and what it's "made of". You can't just retcon words to suit your fancy, not in a debate like this at least. In your own head sure, but doing so will make it impossible to communicate your ideas with others, which is why calling god "light" or "love" is about as meaningful as a politician's word.

Like I said, I won't play this game anymore, either stick to agreed upon definitions or just stop talking about it.

From your post it seems that you prefer to adopt a dismissive attitude,

Yes, I am dismissive of unfounded assertions(i.e. assertions which are either logically fallacious or unsupported by evidence), and games of semantics. They're a pointless waste of time and I gain nothing from them, nobody does. If you don't like this then tough shit, you can either deal with it or stop responding to me.

Heat, kitchen, door.

and that you think science can answer everything although you have no way to confirm this.

Bullshit. I know that there are plenty of questions that science can't answer, yet. I always have to remind people to at that "yet" as it's very important.

You see, the realm explored by science grows every year, and every year we discover the answers to questions that we were told that science could never answer. It used to be said that science would never be able to chart the movements of the planets, then along came Kepler who not only charted the movements of the planets but gleaned the laws of motion from them. We were told that science would never be able to understand the difference between living and nonliving matter(we were told that it was a matter strictly for God), yet we not only have done so but we've gotten rather adept at manipulating that difference(DNA). For centuries we were told that science would never be able to defy the gods and cure diseases, then we did. Every time someone has said that science could never solve some problem or analyze some phenomenon they've been proven dead wrong. What makes you think that you'll be the exception.

I'm reminded, again, of a quote from Charles Darwin.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Currently people are saying that morality and ethics are forever outside of the realm of science to study, but we're studying them anyways and we've made remarkable progress in learning some basic fundamentals that have always seemed to escape religious moralists and many philosophers(who view this inquiry as a sort of intrusion into their territory). For example, many sets of morals(don't kill your own, don't steal and lie, stuff like that) are universal in every successful society regardless of their religion or race. This means that such morals are instinctually built into us by evolution. Fascinating huh? And such discoveries would likely have gone unmade without the "intrusion" of science into this forbidden realm.

Who are you to just declare, on no authority but your own(which is no authority), that your god or spirituality is beyond the power of science to study? As I'm oh-so-fond of telling people, it may well be true that this or that important question(I stipulate "important" for a reason) can't be addressed by science, but how will we know if we never try?

When people like you declare by fiat that your beliefs can't be studied empirically all you're doing is running like a coward. You're attempting to shield your beliefs from skeptical inquiry by preventing others from inquiring about them with the very best tool we have for learning about the world. How is that right? How is it anything but an insane attempt to protect yourself by controlling others?

You're lying, in other words.

Nope, you assume that I'm lying in order to justify your own closed mindedness.

 

[arfa brane]

I know that there are plenty of questions that science can't answer, yet.

One of which is the consciousness of light inside your head. You can't explain this so all you have left is outright dismissal.
There is nothing unfounded in my assertion--I can see it. What it's called is light, because that's what it's like. It is not like light you see with your eyes. You can see this inner light too, you just need to know how.

Who are you to just declare, on no authority but your own(which is no authority), that your god or spirituality is beyond the power of science to study?

And who are you to declare that my experience is an illusion if it can't be independently verified? You can't even define what that means.

As for fMRI, it does NOT give unequivocal results. If it did it could be used to read people's minds, or in court cases as evidence. It is something that comes down to how data is interpreted, fMRI data does nothing more than determine which areas of the brain are active. It's like saying you can tell how many different fish there are by looking at waves on the surface.

I haven't declared that it's beyond science; I have declared that there isn't any in this thread, but rather there is a lot of opinion. Maybe you should have a look at neurological studies of people who meditate, and the results (which are of course, not very conclusive).

Independent verification is possible. If I tell someone they can see this light, then I show them how, and they report seeing light, how is that not verification? Or that they can hear these sounds inside their head, with a little practice, and they also report hearing sounds? Why does science need to see what's happening inside someone's head?

BTW, do you believe in your breathing reflex? Have you had your breathing independently verified, and how was this done?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

This is actually not true. We have adequate knowledge from science to show that any claim of sapient life with god-like qualities can be shown to be false as long as that life form has touched reality in any way.

 

[Arioch]

@arfa brane --

One of which is the consciousness of light inside your head.

Oh, are you using "light" to mean "consciousness"? If so then you'd have save a lot of confusion by just saying so instead of playing these definitional switching games.

You can't explain this so all you have left is outright dismissal.

If you're talking about consciousness then that can be explained, but the explanation is quite long winded and I'd rather not get into it now. I'll see if I can find a link to it later(it's late).

If you're talking about "seeing" something in your head, I can explain that too. You're having a mild visual hallucination. We know that the human brain is extraordinarily susceptible to hallucinations, it's the most likely and most parsimonious explanation available. That's all you can ask for.

There is nothing unfounded in my assertion--I can see it.

But only you can see it. How do I know that you're not just making stuff up? How do I know that you're not in the grip of some drug or perhaps your brain is altering your memories(this, again, is a well documented phenomenon)? I can't know the answers to these things so the only way for me to believe you is to take it on faith, without any supporting evidence. That is why it is an unfounded assertion.

What it's called is light, because that's what it's like.

A shrimp is like a lobster, that doesn't mean that it's called a lobster, or that it is a lobster. Incidentally, a lobster and a shrimp share more points of commonality than your "light" and real light do.

It is not like light you see with your eyes.

Then it's not "like" light.

You can see this inner light too, you just need to know how.

Oh inner light, that's what you're talking about. Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, you could have cleared that up much earlier, though I can see why you didn't.

1. "Inner light" is not literally light, it's a metaphor for the good nature in all of us. By admitting that you're talking about "inner light" you've just negated your claims that god is literally light as "inner light" is not literally light. QED.

2. To assume, on no grounds other than your own arrogance, that I've not "seen" this inner light or had religious experiences is extremely foolish of you. You should know that the overwhelming majority of American atheists were theists at one point. I, personally, was a fun fundie christian. Not only have I experienced the "oneness" that buddhists love to bang on about, but I've had six NDEs, as well as "felt" that god was speaking to me on numerous occasions. To take that condescending tone with me when you've done nothing but make spurious assertions, deliberately obsfucate the issue, and present logically fallacious arguments is almost the height of arrogance.

And who are you to declare that my experience is an illusion if it can't be independently verified?

I didn't merely "declare" it, that's the most plausible explanation. It's sure as hell a lot more plausible than "god is photons and I'm seeing god in my head". Besides, your explanation is about as unparsimonious as it gets, you have a whole slew of unsupported assumptions in yours.

You can't even define what that means.

Independent verification is where an outside source that doesn't share your confirmation bias observes the same phenomenon as you do, preferably under controlled conditions to reduce the chance of error.

You can feel free to insert your foot into your mouth any time you want.

As for fMRI, it does NOT give unequivocal results.

You're right, but you didn't ask it to. What you asked was well within the capabilities of an fMRI machine if you take the appropriate steps I listed. Besides, didn't we already establish that this whole fMRI bit was nothing more than a red herring fallacy? Stop using it already.

If it did it could be used to read people's minds, or in court cases as evidence.

Interestingly enough we're getting much closer to this than we were before, our neurological models are becoming increasingly advanced. All of the data indicates that such things will be possible in the future, even if their accuracy isn't one hundred percent.

It's like saying you can tell how many different fish there are by looking at waves on the surface.

Given the right conditions and the right equipment, and if you didn't care whether any of the fish lived or not, this is more than plausible.

Anyways, I'd like it if you could just drop this irrelevant red herring(it's redundant, I know). It's doing nothing but distracting people from the original topic at hand.

 

[arfa brane]

If you're talking about "seeing" something in your head, I can explain that too. You're having a mild visual hallucination.

No, I'm not hallucinating. I can see this stuff at will.

But only you can see it. How do I know that you're not just making stuff up?

No that isn't true either. Only I can look inside my own head. But suppose other people tell you the same thing--they can see light--how do you know they aren't just making it up?

Then it's not "like" light.

Yes it is like light. It's bright and shiny and it centers your mind, unlike light you see with your eyes. The sounds are like sound too.

1. "Inner light" is not literally light, it's a metaphor for the good nature in all of us.

No, it is NOT metaphorical. Can you breathe metaphorically?

It's sure as hell a lot more plausible than "god is photons and I'm seeing god in my head".

But YOU said that, I didn't. I said I can see what I (and a lot of others) call light, inside my head. It is not photons of light, and it does not impinge on my retinas.

You're the one who is distracted by your overwhelming need to dismiss my claims.
And I asked you if you believe in your breathing reflex. If you claim you can breathe, how can this be independently verified, and why shouldn't it be dismissed as something you're just making up?
Since control of breathing is a way to meditate (or, if you like, to experience God), science as such appears to have a problem here.

Suppose I claim I can control my breathing to the extent I can also control my heartbeat, by slowing it down at will? More unverifiable illusions?

 

[arfa brane]

We have adequate knowledge from science to show that any claim of sapient life with god-like qualities can be shown to be false as long as that life form has touched reality in any way.

Oh sure. As long as you first of all restrict the nature of God to be "sapient life with god-like qualities", then "as long as that life form has touched reality in any way".

What if God isn't a sapient being or a life form, at least as far as we understand those terms? What if the reality is being touched constantly, but we are obliged to pay attention to that? What if the experience defies logic or is beyond rational thought, in other words is not a function of your intellect?

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Interesting.

So how do you propose to use a thermometer to measure the distance between Beijing and Tokyo?

 

[lightgigantic]

Can empiricism study anything that has an effect on the material world?

Only if the cause fits within the parameters of empirical investigation ... which effectively curtails anything that contextualizes the working senses or greater issues of the macrocosm or microcosm.

Or to put it back to you, can empiricism (theoretically) exhaust the ultimate limits of investigation of the macrocosm or microcosm, or is it by definition relegated to but a mere metonymic investigation of the two?

Just in case you don't understand that, if you try answering what ultimately a cup of flour is or the universe you will soon run to the end of your tether with tacit terms.

Does God have an effect on the material world?

Sure

In fact you could say that god is the cause of the material.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know what the fuck you just said.

But I don't care any more.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

That is definitely not empirical.

That is anecdotal.

Of course, your post is nothing but a straw man argument, which is nothing new coming from a theist.

While there are many atheists who utilize terms incorrectly to support their arguments, I think the problem arises more so from a lack of serious thought than their particular ideological stance.

Its the folly of being over zealous I guess.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know what the fuck you just said.

I just said empiricism has limits and explained in three different ways what they are.

But I don't care any more.

“Science may have found a cure for most evils, but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all--the apathy of human beings.”

 

[wynn]

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.

Nobody is disputing the logic of this.

But it is the logic of "cultural religion."

With medical treatments, one at least has some reason to trust one or the other more.
The same cannot be said for religions. Because in religions, all terms are defined by the religion - the illness, the medicine and the health.
It makes for a closed self-referential circle that necessarily works out.

With medical treatments, one has some ideas of what it means to be ill and what it means to be healthy; and those ideas do not depend on the medical profession.
If I take a medical treatment, I can afterwards tell whether I am feeling better or not, regardless of what the medical practitioner says.

But similar does not apply to religion.
I can take up a practice, still feel like shit, see no changes - but the religionists tell me that I am healthy or that the treatment works.

Religion can only be taken up meaningfully if one dismissess all one's current notions of what it means to be ill and what it means to be healthy.
One has to sever, in an act of blind faith, all ties to one's current reality and blindly accept the religion's terms.

 

[spidergoat]

Does anyone care

what I think?

One, two, three, four,

rinky dink.

 

[lightgigantic]

Does anyone care

what I think?

One, two, three, four,

rinky dink.

if you make one more post as a critique we won't have to count to four ..... or at least we will know you are a hypocrite

 

[wynn]

if you make one more post as a critique we won't have to count to four ..... or at least we will know you are a hypocrite

And calling himself a hypocrite will really really help him, yes!

 

[lightgigantic]

Nobody is disputing the logic of this.

But it is the logic of "cultural religion."

With medical treatments, one at least has some reason to trust one or the other more.
The same cannot be said for religions. Because in religions, all terms are defined by the religion - the illness, the medicine and the health.
It makes for a closed self-referential circle that necessarily works out.

With medical treatments, one has some ideas of what it means to be ill and what it means to be healthy; and those ideas do not depend on the medical profession.
If I take a medical treatment, I can afterwards tell whether I am feeling better or not, regardless of what the medical practitioner says.

But similar does not apply to religion.
I can take up a practice, still feel like shit, see no changes - but the religionists tell me that I am healthy or that the treatment works.

Religion can only be taken up meaningfully if one dismissess all one's current notions of what it means to be ill and what it means to be healthy.
One has to sever, in an act of blind faith, all ties to one's current reality and blindly accept the religion's terms.

If the problems solved by a professional field have no relevancy outside of the profession they have no clientele ... or at least if one is of that opinion that have no need for the professionals.

 

[wynn]

If the problems solved by a professional field have no relevancy outside of the profession they have no clientele ... or at least if one is of that opinion that have no need for the professionals.

Of course religions have a clientele:
1. those who were born into the religion and who thus default to it;
2. those who were not born into the religion, but whom God has chosen to be members of that particular religion and summoned them (this is an option we must acknowledge at leas theoretically);
3. people who are psychologically weak and who give into manipulation; people who take to a religion in an act of self-rejection.



I contend that a religion is a self-referential and closed system that is inaccessible to those outside.

In fact, you yourself have argued as much here at the forums all along:
Key thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085

God is not a contradiction, and in fact is a perceivable entity - such perception of his reality (ontology) is fully dependant on the appropriate epistemology - it is not valid to apply an epistemology for perceiving god that one applies for perceiving lesser realities (like dull mater)

- there is the example of how if one desires to perceive the president directly one must come to the presidnt's attention (that is one must apply an epistemology ordained by the president for perceiving him - you see him on his terms - not your own) - the same applies for god

As to what the appropriate epistemology is

1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences

3 - Disciplic succession also follows the understanding of revelation by certain great souls, whose realisations and actions are normative

4 - The purpose of disciplic sucecssion is to reprise the original revelatory experience. In other words the experience is recreated without loss or dimunition in each generation

5 - Understanding scripture entails a) the right apprehension of propositional truth and then b) the unmediated apprehension of transcendence, as coveyed through scripture. The purpose of understanding in the first mode is to attain understanding in the second

6 - Disciplic succession contains a system of applied knowledge to effect the personal transformation of its members so that they gain the qualification to receive those experiences of transcendence conveyed by disciplic succession

7 - Disciplic succession conveys knowledge that is not conditioned by human limitations - it is free from the four defects that vitiate "knowledge " by human production (namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

8 - Scripture must be accepted "as it is". Its authority must always be respected. There must be no addition or subtraction, and no distortion. When scripture is so understood, ther meaning of scripture becomes "self evident" and the texts become "self luminous"


9 - Realized knowledge enables one to explain scripture in a way comprehensible to hearers conditioned by time, place and circumstances, while yet completely preserving the integrity of scripture


Thus I have given an indication of what are the qualities of this knowledge, the person seeking knowledge, the person applying this knowledge and the person who has attained perfection by this knowledge, particularly as it applies to vedic inquiry

Of course, how the run-of-the-mill person can figure out who a "qualified person in disciplic succession" is, is a mystery - given that all kinds of people claim to be qualified, and given that there is no objective source of scripture, but instead all sources of scriptures are part of those (presumed) disciplic successions.

It's a simple logical problem of self-referentiality, but so far, I have not seen a single theist acknowledge it.

 

[wynn]

Its the folly of being over zealous I guess.

No, it's the folly of sharing one's intimacy with people who don't appreciate it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course religions have a clientele:
1. those who were born into the religion and who thus default to it;
2. those who were not born into the religion, but whom God has chosen to be members of that particular religion and summoned them (this is an option we must acknowledge at leas theoretically);
3. people who are psychologically weak and who give into manipulation; people who take to a religion in an act of self-rejection.

None of those are relevant if they are of the attitude you expressed earlier

I contend that a religion is a self-referential and closed system that is inaccessible to those outside.

In fact, you yourself have argued as much here at the forums all along:
Key thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085

points number 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 don't float with your notion that it is all self referential.

Of course, how the run-of-the-mill person can figure out who a "qualified person in disciplic succession" is, is a mystery - given that all kinds of people claim to be qualified, and given that there is no objective source of scripture, but instead all sources of scriptures are part of those (presumed) disciplic successions.

If you can determine that the solution lies within scripture its not a mystery.

If there was no objective sense to it you wouldn't see a general consensus on saintliness ("all kinds of people" .... hardly).

 

[lightgigantic]

No, it's the folly of sharing one's intimacy with people who don't appreciate it.

Declaring "all theists make straw man arguments" is the voice of intimacy?