Disproving a Personal God with Science

[Crunchy Cat]

The idea is that God is not only in charge of new memories and new knowledge - but of all memories, all knowledge:

In charge? That is not the concept that is in question.

Which makes the whole issue of talking about choosing a religion so much trickier.
If God is the one from Whom come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, then a person has little choice about anything, including religion.

I agree, it's a "supremely" stupid idea.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is your claim that 'God' injects new memories in people, new objective knowledge in people, and forcibly causes people to forget things?

Its the claim that god controls action through the agencies of knowledge, remembrance and forgetfulness.

So its more a case of "all" rather than "new".

 

[wynn]

In charge? That is not the concept that is in question.

Being in charge is an act of interaction.

I agree, it's a "supremely" stupid idea.

I didn't say it was stupid.

 

[lightgigantic]

And we're back to Which religion is the right one.

In the city here, I have within walking distance, at least these:
- several Catholic churches,
- a Protestant church,
- a Mormon chapel,
- a Hare Krishna meeting place,
- a Shambhala center,
- a Jewish synagogue,
- a yoga place that also organizes lectures on "spiritual topics",
- a Jehovah's Witnesses meeting place,
- I am sure the local Muslims have a meeting place too, but I don't know about that one,
- a Born Again Christian meeting place.

then you have a lot of options

Within a week, one can meet proselytizers of most of them in the street downtown, or at least they have public advertisements.

Which one to choose, and by what criteria, given that each of them has their own ideas about how people are supposed to come to the right religion?

well if they are in line with Mother Theresa I guess you can scratch them off the list

I posted this earlier, you didn't comment on it, but I'd like you to:

MindOverMatter earlier posted a link to Fr. Barron here.
Look what he says in his comments on Religious Drifters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YyOGz3XQ-w&feature=related

Esp. at 3.33 he criticizes the idea of choosing a religion; that choosing a religion is about one's ego finally being in command.

And then he talks about how in the Bible, it is God who does the choosing, God summons certain people. He says that "the voice of God is sovereign over our choices" and quotes Jesus - "It is not you who have chosen Me, it is I who have chosen you." He notes that this is the difference between biblical religion and the cultural religion of today.

Then if that's what one sincerely believes then the decision making process has finally been solved ... although if that is what he truly believes its kind of pointless for him to talk about it ... unless of course he has a few ego issues himself, wanting others to choose him as a special something or other.

Mind you there is a similar concept in vedic literature - it talks about three types of perfected souls, two of which are relevant to conditioned life - one who achieves perfection through practice (sadhana) and the other by mercy (krpa), the later being representative of god - or even his pure devotee's- free will). It doesn't really elaborate much on krpa-siddhi since there is nothing one can do to catalyze it

If God is the one who chooses people, then why do theists proselytize?

Good point.

I would ask them the same question.

Why do theists angrily hold it against people if they don't join their particular religion?

kannistha, madhyama and uttama - we've been there before ...

Why do theists present the whole situation as a matter of the individual having to choose the right religion somehow?

probably because they are towing something in the line of sadhana siddhi (even if it goes by a different name)

The argument could be made that proselytizing is conducive merely to "the cultural religion of today" - but it does not invoke a biblical religion.

which quickly becomes pointless dialogue at best (since if it is solely and wholly about god's decision making, what can some yabbering conditioned or even chosen soul hope to achieve) or ego driven mania at worst (ie a rude thrust for social esteem of the "chosen one's")

I do not see my dislike for Mother Theresa as a criterion of "I know who is saintly and who isn't."

well you did just say you don't consider her saintly, didn't you?

I am well aware that my dislike for her is contrary to popular opinion.

Then if you are alternatively convinced that saintliness is affirmed by popular opinion, you are falling back on yet another knowledge based claim about saintliness, aren't you?

I also allow for the possibility that my dislike may be misplaced, and she indeed is saintly, it's just that I, due to my fallenness do not see it.

then you have yet another knowledge based issue to fall back on, namely taking on board your fallen nature as some how short of saintliness.

I find your comment to be very strange. You seem to think that a personal like or dislike counts for "knowing who knows."

On the contrary your comments about saintliness are strange since you propound that there is absolutely no way to approach the term, yet in the next paragraph talk about who you don't consider saintly (contrary to public opinion) or how in what specific ways you don't esteem yourself with the folds of saintliness, etc etc

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Being in charge is an act of interaction.

Being in charge is an act of self assignment or 3rd party assignment.

I didn't say it was stupid.

You did. You said it's tricky to make a choice when choice is not an option. That is stupid.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Its the claim that god controls action through the agencies of knowledge, remembrance and forgetfulness.

So its more a case of "all" rather than "new".

What is the intent of controlling all action through knowledge, rememberance, and forgetfulness?

 

[wynn]

Then if that's what one sincerely believes then the decision making process has finally been solved ... although if that is what he truly believes its kind of pointless for him to talk about it ... unless of course he has a few ego issues himself, wanting others to choose him as a special something or other.

Yes ...

Mind you there is a similar concept in vedic literature - it talks about three types of perfected souls, two of which are relevant to conditioned life - one who achieves perfection through practice (sadhana) and the other by mercy (krpa), the later being representative of god - or even his pure devotee's- free will). It doesn't really elaborate much on krpa-siddhi since there is nothing one can do to catalyze it

Sadhana does seem to be "cultural religion."

For me, the issue is that upon joining a church, any church, one has to believe and vow that said church is divine and infallible, that it is the one and only, or at least the best path to God.

That is a vow that I do not find easy to make.

It doesn't make sense to me to believe that The Absolute Truth could be arrived at via one's personal likes or dislikes, or by a decision-making process like listing and assessing the pros and cons.

Good point.

Okay. Then I am asking you:
1. Why do you proselytize?
2. If God is the one who chooses people, then why do you proselytize?

kannistha, madhyama and uttama - we've been there before ...

And the argument can be made that due to my fallenness, my vision is inaccurate.

For example, most theists often strike me as upset, angry, hostile. I am not eager to follow or worship someone whom I perceive as upset, angry, hostile. In fact, I find it repugnant to do so.

But I cannot go around the possibility that my vision is inaccurate. Which leaves me to consider that in order to do right by God, I may have to do things I find repugnant.
A devotee (now a TP) even told me that I will have to do things I find repugnant, in order to do right by God.

which quickly becomes pointless dialogue at best (since if it is solely and wholly about god's decision making, what can some yabbering conditioned or even chosen soul hope to achieve) or ego driven mania at worst (ie a rude thrust for social esteem of the "chosen one's")

Well, yes.

well you did just say you don't consider her saintly, didn't you?

No, I don't consider her saintly. But that is just my opinion. If it is the objective truth, that I do not know.

Then if you are alternatively convinced that saintliness is affirmed by popular opinion, you are falling back on yet another knowledge based claim about saintliness, aren't you?

But I am not convinced that saintliness is affirmed by popular opinion.

then you have yet another knowledge based issue to fall back on, namely taking on board your fallen nature as some how short of saintliness.

Yes.

On the contrary your comments about saintliness are strange since you propound that there is absolutely no way to approach the term, yet in the next paragraph talk about who you don't consider saintly (contrary to public opinion) or how in what specific ways you don't esteem yourself with the folds of saintliness, etc etc

I presented several aspects to the issue, as I see them.
I find it strange not to do so.



Are you a practitioner of sadhana siddhi? Is that why we are having these talks?

 

[wynn]

LG - do look at this:

Being in charge is an act of self assignment or 3rd party assignment.

Or the result of a democratic process where a leader is elected.

You did. You said it's tricky to make a choice when choice is not an option. That is stupid.

I said:

Which makes the whole issue of talking about choosing a religion so much trickier.
If God is the one from Whom come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, then a person has little choice about anything, including religion.

If God is the one from Whom come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, that makes the whole issue of talking about choosing a religion so much trickier.

I said one has "little choice", I didn't say one has no choice.

Here, we would need to clarify how the decision-making process takes place, what is required for it.

Even if God is in charge of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, that needn't mean He is in charge of a person's will. Will being an important component of decision-making, next to remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.

 

[arfa brane]

Correction, you can see and hear the claims. Not the actual claimed phenomenon. What you should be asking is why do the claims exist in the first place.

I'm sorry, but you can see and hear what I've been talking about, anyone can.
But a scientist can't use measurements to observe what I, or you, can see and hear. Anyone who claims that science can look inside someone's mind and measure their experience is lying, this is not possible. It's like saying you can read someone else's mind.
Ok, we have quite sophisticated devices these days, but let's be honest, the level of detail hardly begins to approach mind-reading.

All religions make very specific claims of god.

And why should I or you, or anyone, believe these claims? Isn't a direct experience, that you can call whatever you like, a better deal than some words in a book?

My advice for what it's worth is to believe in 'God' if you value how you feel more than actual truth.

You're saying how I feel, and what I experience isn't actual truth, instead I have some kind of choice? I can rationalise my experience, I can tell myself it isn't real, I don't feel good, or relaxed or happy, those are all just psychological and not "actual truth"?
So what, then, do you think truth is? Is it like a bunch of hard cold facts that you can verify experimentally?

 

[lightgigantic]

What is the intent of controlling all action through knowledge, rememberance, and forgetfulness?

empowering the pursuit of desire within the confines of what one deserves (IOW playing out the results of karma vs freewill of the individual)

 

[Arioch]

@arfa brane --

Nonetheless, it does work. For me.

Sigh

You've never done a thought experiment before, have you?

Then why does it "look" like light, why is it bright, and why does it seem to emanate from somewhere?

Because that's the way your brain is interpreting the false signals. It's using your sensory cortex to interpret signals which did not originate from your sense organs. Simple, parsimonious, no god necessary. I've already given you the most parsimonious explanation of this, if you choose to delude yourself into thinking that the explanation is bogus then that's on you, but you'd be embracing immorality by doing so.

If all you want to do is argue in circles, you're doing a really good job.

I'm not arguing in circles. I'm explaining to you in explicit detail why you're wrong. You're the one, with your games of semantics and your red herrings, who's making us tread this old ground again. If you would just accept the fact that "god is light" could not have meant literal light then we could move on, but you refuse to accept no matter the evidence and no matter the logic. You'd give Kent Hovind and Ken Ham a run for their money in the closed minded category.

Well, now suppose you want your ability to listen to the sound of your breathing independently verified. You want a scientist to look inside your brain and record the neural responses, then say, make a audio tape as conclusive proof that the neurons are responding to the sound.

I told you, I'm done with your red herrings. If you don't know what a red herring is the go look it up! GFE.

And I'm still waiting to see what the topic actually is. It doesn't seem to be about disproving something after all. So what is it?

I've already disproven your contention about god literally being light. If you're having particular difficulty remembering the topic then go and read the first post again. You have to be willing to do some of your own research you know.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Or the result of a democratic process where a leader is elected.

I agree; however, I would have grouped that in with 3rd party assignment.

I said:


If God is the one from Whom come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, that makes the whole issue of talking about choosing a religion so much trickier.

I said one has "little choice", I didn't say one has no choice.

Here, we would need to clarify how the decision-making process takes place, what is required for it.

Even if God is in charge of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness, that needn't mean He is in charge of a person's will. Will being an important component of decision-making, next to remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.

Correct, and you also stated the following before that:

The idea is that God is not only in charge of new memories and new knowledge - but of all memories, all knowledge:

Put them together and all exercises of human memory and all human knowledge content are direct eminations of this particular 'God'. If you take the approach that you can make a decision then you have effectively generated new knowledge of making a particular decision all on your own. That would violate the rule of all knowledge emenating from this particular 'God'. As that could not be, it means that choice isn't an option.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm sorry, but you can see and hear what I've been talking about, anyone can.

If you are referring to mind-generated experiences then you are possibly correct (it depends on the experience and if another person's specific brain is capable of generating a similar type of experience).

But a scientist can't use measurements to observe what I, or you, can see and hear. Anyone who claims that science can look inside someone's mind and measure their experience is lying, this is not possible. It's like saying you can read someone else's mind.
Ok, we have quite sophisticated devices these days, but let's be honest, the level of detail hardly begins to approach mind-reading.

You are correct.

And why should I or you, or anyone, believe these claims? Isn't a direct experience, that you can call whatever you like, a better deal than some words in a book?You're saying how I feel, and what I experience isn't actual truth, instead I have some kind of choice? I can rationalise my experience, I can tell myself it isn't real, I don't feel good, or relaxed or happy, those are all just psychological and not "actual truth"?
So what, then, do you think truth is? Is it like a bunch of hard cold facts that you can verify experimentally?

Truth is when an idea or notion in your mind matches actual reality. If you have experiences that don't match actual reality then they don't qualify as truth. What is truth of course is that you had specific experiences.

 

[wynn]

Put them together and all exercises of human memory and all human knowledge content are direct eminations of this particular 'God'.

If God is the Supreme Being, then everything emanates from Him anyway.

If you take the approach that you can make a decision then you have effectively generated new knowledge of making a particular decision all on your own. That would violate the rule of all knowledge emenating from this particular 'God'. As that could not be, it means that choice isn't an option.

I take it you are of the view that God's omniscience and human free will are mutually exclusive?

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat went to a religious school where he had to recite (under threat of punishment) religious texts every morning, even though he didn't believe them.
That sort of pressure tends to alienate people from religion early on.

Ah, no. That was a secular public school where I was gently encouraged to repeat "one nation under God", which I refused to do. I was always interested in religion, but I was always an agnostic.

 

[arfa brane]

I've already disproven your contention about god literally being light.

I don't care what it's called. I can see it.
I was seeing quite a lot of it last night before I fell asleep, and again this morning before I got up.

You haven't disproven anything except that you cannot possibly experience what I experience personally, or detect it with scientific instruments. Instead, it makes a lot more sense that you can experience your own thoughts, maybe that's all you have at the moment. But I'm also quite sure you can experience this inner light and sound yourself--I can't do that for you and nor can anyone else, because it's part of you, not me.

Because that's the way your brain is interpreting the false signals.

It isn't the way your state of mind is interpreting what I'm saying, because you're really just stuck in it, and you've managed to convince yourself you're right? Even though there is no way you can prove you are, nor can you prove that I'm "interpreting false signals". That's probably a little frustrating for you, I imagine.

It doesn't matter if you believe me, and fairly obviously you don't. But that's not a problem for me. My advice however, is to stop taking yourself so seriously.

 

[arfa brane]

Truth is when an idea or notion in your mind matches actual reality. If you have experiences that don't match actual reality then they don't qualify as truth. What is truth of course is that you had specific experiences.

That looks almost like a tautology.
If I'm looking at a sunset, the reality is when the idea of looking at a sunset matches the reality of looking at a sunset?
If I have a specific experience, how do I tell that it's actual reality? What is actual reality?

Can I really "actually" see anything, or hear anything? Can you? Can you prove that what you see or hear is actual reality? How would you prove it?
Do you need to prove to anyone except yourself that you can see and hear? Have you ever told anyone else about something you saw, and did they believe you, or couldn't you really "actually" tell? Did it matter to you if they believed your story?

 

[wynn]

Ah, no. That was a secular public school where I was gently encouraged to repeat "one nation under God", which I refused to do. I was always interested in religion, but I was always an agnostic.

Okay. But that doesn't change my point about how aggressive debate is not conducive to producing positive change in people.

 

[spidergoat]

Why not? It only seems aggressive since both sides are entrenched in their position. And yet many are becoming atheist, and many convert to religions.

 

[wynn]

And how many of them are happy?