Disproving a Personal God with Science

[lightgigantic]

Is there any evidence of an agenda?

Actually it was your call you can disprove a personal god on the authority of science. Evidencing the claim of god's existence is a completely different question and perhaps not suitable for this thread (I can post you several such threads if you wish)

that With all our wars, diseases and such, I don't see it.

Why not?

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.

Are you falling back on the problem of theodicy or something different?
(Once again, several threads already there)

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.

Feel free to post such evidence because at the moment you are not making a whole lot of sense (although it does appear that you either didn't read the link or don't understand it)

So either a God is instituting a complex and mysterious undetectable agenda of mind control and hides his tracks...

mysterious?
undetectable?
Or do you mean outside current reductionist paradigms?

or people forget and remember thanks to evolution leading to a complex brain through well understood principles. Which explanation multiplies assumptions unnecessarily?

Given your intolerance of so-called mysterious things you seem to rely on them quite heavily to drive home your conclusion.

Anyway here is a practical example of what I mean - suppose a person desires to smoke a cigar : To empower such an act, god provides the memory and knowledge to grant it possibility (such as knowledge where a cigar retailer is, remembrance of where the money is to buy it or the mild narcotic effect etc) and forgetfulness that it impairs health (of course there are perhaps infinite ways an individual can be empowered to smoke a cigar through the agencies of remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness - this is but just one simple example) . If it fails to get a green light on any of those three, the individual is not capable of smoking a cigar.

This does not of course mean that god endorses the act (which leads us down to the utility of the material world as a sphere for the eternal living entity to partake of temporary pleasures in the guise of a temporary identity etc etc).

It merely shows how all activities, great and small, operate through the agency of a personal god - ie a god who interacts on an individual level with the living entity).

If you are trying to say that the brain's functions of memory, knowledge and forgetfulness have independence, you would have to establish all the necessary requirements for such functions - a task well, well, well beyond the wildest dreams of the "well understood (scientific) principles" you alluded to earlier .

 

[gmilam]

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"?

Seems a Thomas Jefferson quote is called for: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

It's obvious John (not Jesus) was using a metaphor when he said "God is light."

(BTW - the light from the moon is actually reflected light from the sun. The moon itself does not give off light.)

 

[Arioch]

If god is photons then that means that it couldn't have created the universe and obviously can't intervene in human affairs. Not only is this a god that no modern christian would recognize, it's a god that Jesus demonstrably didn't preach. Care to try again?

 

[Yazata]

It isn't my place to make your case for you, so go ahead.

The subject line of this thread reads:

"Disproving a Personal God with Science".

Whoever makes the assertion that the existence of a personal god can be disproved by science would appear to have the burden of proof. If that person wants other people to believe that some scientific theistic disproof exists, then he or she is going to need to be able to explain what that disproof is.

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.

Logically, A's inability to convince B of the existence of X doesn't disprove the existence of X.

 

[Arioch]

Logically, A's inability to convince B of the existence of X doesn't disprove the existence of X.

A's inability to provide supporting evidence for X when the evidence should be there is evidence that X doesn't exist.

 

[spidergoat]

The subject line of this thread reads:

"Disproving a Personal God with Science".

Whoever makes the assertion that the existence of a personal god can be disproved by science would appear to have the burden of proof. If that person wants other people to believe that some scientific theistic disproof exists, then he or she is going to need to be able to explain what that disproof is.



Logically, A's inability to convince B of the existence of X doesn't disprove the existence of X.

True, it doesn't disprove it absolutely, but in science, if all your reasons for something like a God can be shown to be illogical or false, there is no longer any logical support for the original hypothesis, and it can be dismissed as untrue beyond a reasonable doubt. A naturalistic hypothesis is automatically preferred to a supernatural one, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to have any observable effect.

 

[arfa brane]

It's obvious John (not Jesus) was using a metaphor when he said "God is light."

Is it really? Why is it obvious?

Isn't it obvious that you have no rational way to prove that metaphor was intended? That you are discounting any other possibility for no reason other than personal opinion? So you are just providing more evidence that claims of scientific debunking are demonstrably empty of substance, then?

 

[spidergoat]

If God is the same thing as light, then the terms are interchangeable and you can't derive any logical theology from photons. Photons don't care whether we live or die. Thus no personal God.

 

[Arioch]

@arfa brane --

God as photons is incompatible with every single thing that Jesus or Paul(whoever they really were) preached. Every single thing from intercessory prayer(Jesus said that anyone who is faithful will have their prayers answered) to eternal life and damnation is invalidated the instant you postulate that "God is light" is meant literally. So, assuming that they meant every other thing that they said, it is more than safe to assume that "God is light" is a metaphor. In fact it's the only rational conclusion one can come to.

Besides that, "God is light" sort of shoots the whole "creator of the universe" thing in the foot and then curb stomps it. Photons didn't exist "before" the big bang, therefore they couldn't have caused it. That, and then there's the fact that photons don't really have the ability to create anything....are you really sure that this is a road you want to go down?

 

[gmilam]

Is it really? Why is it obvious?

Isn't it obvious that you have no rational way to prove that metaphor was intended? That you are discounting any other possibility for no reason other than personal opinion? So you are just providing more evidence that claims of scientific debunking are demonstrably empty of substance, then?

Maybe because I've read it. You apparently haven't since you didn't even know who said it.

Need me to tell you where it is, or do you think you can find it on your own?

 

[sifreak21]

God>Science

i hope that is a joke

 

[Arioch]

@sirfreak21 --

I doubt it.

 

[SciWriter]

A's inability to provide supporting evidence for X when the evidence should be there is evidence that X doesn't exist.

Yes, for a personal and supernatural God who is supposed to be everywhere doing everything.

Only the natural is found; nothing super, extra, or beyond.

 

[arfa brane]

If God is the same thing as light, then the terms are interchangeable and you can't derive any logical theology from photons.

But that would mean assuming that what it says in the Bible is that God is photons of light, and it doesn't say that.

Who was supposed to have said "God is light" and why is that important? Why is it important that it be metaphor, and why is that the only rational conclusion?

Every single thing from intercessory prayer(Jesus said that anyone who is faithful will have their prayers answered) to eternal life and damnation is invalidated the instant you postulate that "God is light" is meant literally.

That looks like your personal opinion. You can't justify it, can you?

So like I claimed, you can't use any science to debunk even a small thing like "God is light", all you can do is think: "that must mean the same stuff that comes from candles", but there is no justification for thinking that, only your opinion.
Opinions don't count for much in scientific enquiry--but you know that, right?

 

[SciWriter]

If God were light, the He would would be restricted to only that. Besides, that, it's really just a a synonym, as in God is nature, too. The rose remains a rose by any other name.

Anyone knows that God is really magnetism.

 

[arfa brane]

If God were light, the He would would be restricted to only that.

What made you jump to that conclusion? It wasn't rationality, was it?

 

[SciWriter]

What made you jump to that conclusion? It wasn't rationality, was it?

You have limited and restricted God to being only light.

Anyone knows He is really electricity.

 

[SciWriter]

Furthermore, nothing supernatural is shown about light, so the natural stands intact.

 

[arfa brane]

You have limited and restricted God to being only light.

I have?
Where have I done that?

You aren't being rational, are you?

Furthermore, nothing supernatural is shown about light, so the natural stands intact.

Actually, nothing has been said that comes close to a rational statement, about what the Bible says about God and light.

So far, there have been a lot of assumptions in lieu of the scientific debunking. For instance, that any reference to God as light has to be metaphorical. The Bible doesn't say "God is metaphorical light", it says "God is light". So what could it mean?

 

[gmilam]

"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble."

Yup, metaphor... Fairly obvious.