Disproving a Personal God with Science

So, in an attempt to sum up the play:

We have a claim that science can disprove a personal God, but no practical arguments in actual writing that seem to even approach this.
We have that someone wants to believe they can tell someone else what they can and can't experience, even though there is no known way to tell what someone else is experiencing. Perhaps this last point is why everyone who has had anything to say about the subject appears to want to keep experiencing their own particular philosophy (i.e. "thinking the same thing") in regards to whether a proof exists or not.

The problem with moving the goalposts, is that there aren't any goalposts to move.
All we have really is a bunch of different opinions, some not so well-formed, and none of which advance any kind of resolution in the slightest.

Perhaps because "the question" isn't about what you think, but about what you experience. I think until that little dilemma is somehow resolved (and I have no idea how, and I don't think anyone does), the question is moot. But science has no disproof, and I haven't seen anyone post anything like a theory. I think it's a bit silly to even think that people can sort out the question on an internet forum, and look where we are now.

Is anyone yawning yet?
 
SciWriter said:
There were a whole bunch in one post of mine, mostly by Victor Stenger.
Click to expand...
No, there weren't. Not a single clue from Victor about where to look, how to look, or what to look for, inside someone's personal experience. So no disproof of a personal anything, let alone God.

Victor Stenger has no idea how to determine what someone else is experiencing, except by using the same methods we've been using, that is, by asking questions.
In fact, Victor Stenger can only look inside one mind, his own. Same result for everyone.
 
arfa brane said:
So, in an attempt to sum up the play:

We have a claim that science can disprove a personal God, but no practical arguments in actual writing that seem to even approach this.
We have that someone wants to believe they can tell someone else what they can and can't experience, even though there is no known way to tell what someone else is experiencing. Perhaps this last point is why everyone who has had anything to say about the subject appears to want to keep experiencing their own particular philosophy (i.e. "thinking the same thing") in regards to whether a proof exists or not.

The problem with moving the goalposts, is that there aren't any goalposts to move.
All we have really is a bunch of different opinions, some not so well-formed, and none of which advance any kind of resolution in the slightest.

Perhaps because "the question" isn't about what you think, but about what you experience. I think until that little dilemma is somehow resolved (and I have no idea how, and I don't think anyone does), the question is moot. But science has no disproof, and I haven't seen anyone post anything like a theory. I think it's a bit silly to even think that people can sort out the question on an internet forum, and look where we are now.

Is anyone yawning yet?
Click to expand...

It is an epistemological question. They are known to be hard.
 
arfa brane said:
No, there weren't. Not a single clue from Victor about where to look, how to look, or what to look for, inside someone's personal experience. So no disproof of a personal anything, let alone God.

Victor Stenger has no idea how to determine what someone else is experiencing, except by using the same methods we've been using, that is, by asking questions.
In fact, Victor Stenger can only look inside one mind, his own. Same result for everyone.
Click to expand...

'Twas about the God who is everywhere doing everything, the God of theism. Comments?
 
SciWriter said:
'Twas about the God who is everywhere doing everything, the God of theism. Comments?
Click to expand...
Well, there is a comment I can think of: I don't personally have any experience of such a thing.

Is the God of theism different than a personal God, or don't you really know? I sure don't, but I don't care either.
 
Arfa,

“Some mystics and believers tend to regard feelings and sensations as showing the presence of God.”

“Ah, as you have shown, that is an unwarranted conclusion, and unethical when preached as truth.”

“Through brain science, which some may not care about, we note that the brain makes something of its neurological inputs through its neurology, this often colored by the actions of the chemicals of neurotransmitters that regulate brain traffic and heighten or lower feelings, newness, moods, and sensations. These are molecular events, as we note from observations of the actions of serotonin and dopamine on their varied receptors.”

“Good, something actual, for we all have feelings and sensations. Please continue.”

“Some mystics and believers consider only their states of being, and these states of being are blind to the neurological states beneath. They have a “second story” but know nothing of the first floor. They may even disregard science and never get informed of the externals found, relying only on their internals.”

“They tend to neglect anything contrary to what they want their states of being to represent, which they say is God.”

“They do, and they believe their own thoughts, feelings, and sensations simply because they have them, as gospel even. perhaps arriving via a mysterious force.”

“This doesn’t lead to or mean God.”

"Sensation, sensation, sensation."
 
arfa brane,
Science need not disprove that personal experience represents true or real phenomenon.
 
spidergoat said:
Science need not disprove that personal experience represents true or real phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that say: "Science can not disprove that personal experience represents true or real phenomena".

If you mean to say that because there is no known way to correlate personal experience with scientific reality (whatever that might be), then science can safely ignore the "problem", or tell itself there isn't one? In that case, WTF is this thread really about? I'm intrigued.
 
Last edited:
SciWriter said:
“Some mystics and believers consider only their states of being, and these states of being are blind to the neurological states beneath. They have a “second story” but know nothing of the first floor. They may even disregard science and never get informed of the externals found, relying only on their internals.”
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah.
Neurological states, blah, blah. Disregard science, blah blah.

I can't see much logic in your quote. How is a "state of being" blind to neurological states? Blah, blah?
Are you now postulating that experience is independent of neurological states?
 
arfa brane said:
Blah, blah, blah.
Neurological states, blah, blah. Disregard science, blah blah.

I can't see much logic in your quote. How is a "state of being" blind to neurological states? Blah, blah?
Are you now postulating that experience is independent of neurological states?
Click to expand...

No. As said, dependent on, but unknowing of.

You seem like a fine example of not considering cognitive science.
 
SciWriter said:
No. As said, dependent on, but unknowing of.

You seem like a fine example of not considering cognitive science.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that experience depends on an underlying neurology--a neurological state?
And if you have an experience, you don't know--are "unknowing"--about this underlying neurological state?

What could that possibly have to do with cognitive science? You mean, you don't "think" your neurons into action when you experience anything?
 
What rubbish. Cognitive science is the study of the human (and also animal) process of "thinking", isn't it?

So postulating an unknown or unexperienced "underlying" process, if you want do do any science, means explaining what it's supposed to mean, first of all, then publishing some research that supports the theory. Otherwise it amounts to something like: "the mind works in mysterious ways" or something. It says almost nothing.

But you're just pulling ideas out of the aether, aren't you? As if you have some kind of argument. You've got nada.
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Shouldn't that say: "Science can not disprove that personal experience represents true or real phenomena".

If you mean to say that because there is no known way to correlate personal experience with scientific reality (whatever that might be), then science can safely ignore the "problem", or tell itself there isn't one? In that case, WTF is this thread really about? I'm intrigued.
Click to expand...

Science can prove that some experiences relate to real phenomenon, but it does not have to disprove that religious experiences are real because personal testimony is not reliable evidence in science. So, using religious experiences as proof of God is not valid. Thus the default position of scientific naturalism prevails.
 
arfa brane said:
What rubbish. Cognitive science is the study of the human (and also animal) process of "thinking", isn't it?

So postulating an unknown or unexperienced "underlying" process, if you want do do any science, means explaining what it's supposed to mean, first of all, then publishing some research that supports the theory. Otherwise it amounts to something like: "the mind works in mysterious ways" or something. It says almost nothing.

But you're just pulling ideas out of the aether, aren't you? As if you have some kind of argument. You've got nada.
Click to expand...

And then go to neurology and the rest of the brain sciences. Or not.
 
spidergoat said:
Science can prove that some experiences relate to real phenomenon, but it does not have to disprove that religious experiences are real because personal testimony is not reliable evidence in science.
Click to expand...
But your personal testimony, in lieu of any actual science, is reliable? Perhaps, in your mind it is.
So, using religious experiences as proof of God is not valid. Thus the default position of scientific naturalism prevails.
Click to expand...
I have this experience which I have absolutely no need to label; if it is religious or spiritual doesn't matter in the least. I am not a member of any organised religion except by birth--I'm Christian in name only. The experience has not compelled me to join a religion, or check that it corresponds to something spiritual. It has nothing to do with concepts.

I have no need nor do I have any desire to "prove" that my experience has anything to do with your version of God. I did however, want to demonstrate that your original claim is based on nothing more than your opinion.
 
Last edited:
SciWriter said:
I don't think you will pass your exams or even learn any science.
Click to expand...
I'm doing ok. About to sit a midterm algebra test next Monday, I should pass, given my assignment average is 93%. And on Tuesday I have a discrete logic and computational theory test. Turing machines and all that. Unfortunately my assignment grade is the same as the class average, a B. Oh the shame!
Oh yeah, forgot to mention I have a B.Sc.

But back to your vague post about neurology: what did you mean, or can't you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top