Disproving a Personal God with Science

SciWriter said:
What they make up about a Trinity is of no concern.
Click to expand...
According to your rules of predisposition, you mean?
Whether I want God or not to be the cause, God is not shown to be, but other mechanisms are.
Click to expand...
So, you've managed to reach a conclusion without any hint of scientific enquiry, or any kind of enquiry except dismissal of an hypothesis, or rather, the substitution of one hypothesis with another?

So yet more evidence that scientific debunking is devoid of substance, then?
 
spidergoat said:
If God is indistinguishable from normal brain activity, then it's a non-testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Unless someone reports their experience of God, which scientists are unable to distinguish from normal brain activity. What can science do with "the evidence"? Dismiss it as non-empirical? Suggest to the subject they go on a course of anti-psychotic drugs, and measure their brain activity again?
 
spidergoat said:
Yes, I'm talking about my belief in empiricism. To say your arguments are all outside that framework is to say they aren't supported by evidence, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.
Click to expand...
No

Actually what this thread is about is you trying to disprove a personal god on the authority of science.

At the moment you are trying to turn it around into "prove god on the authority of science", which is a request plagued by a host of logical inconsistencies.

Trying to suggest that scientific disproof occurs on the level of rendering a hypothesis untenable/unaccomplishable is simply soft headed since the progressive path of science is clearly illustrated to the contrary.
 
It's quite simple really, if God exists...he did a horrendous job at convincing his own creation that he exists...

I mean I understand Astrophysics, Psychology, Number theory, Music theory, Politics, good ettiquette, Marketing tactics, Morality, human nature, mother nature how I exist, why things happen the way they do, women! (far more difficult than it should be), I'm in good shape and loving life...

...but what I don't understand is why I need a God that punishes his creation to eternal damnation, after HE gave them their intelligence, HE gave their curiosity, HE gave their "proclivity" to disbelieve...does all this with indisputable omnipotence, and yet, me being as smart and polite, moral, and successful as I am...am still NOT capable of taking the word in the Bible as anything more than a wonderful mythology built by our ancestors... am still NOT capable of committing acts of violence/murder (and I don't even worry about going to hell if I did!)...am still NOT capable of feeling "hopeless" and NOT capable of believing I'm purposeless without God's plan...and lets not forget about the Jews the Muslims, the Hindis, the Buddhists, the aboriginal tribes, the millions and millions of people throughout the history of the world who were not given the opportunity to read or even HEAR about the bible... they went straight to hell right?...or God just gives them a lucky break because his omnipotent plan allows for a HUGE percent of error...that error mostly being generated by the fact that "His Word" is in a book written by man vs. in actual reality....
 
Oh an my above post fits for ANY religion that requires specific practices and beliefs...if you just believe there is SOMETHING that created the universe then GOOD for you...if you believe that something has emotions like humans, gets angry like humans, wants to be loved like humans... even in the most infinitesimal way...you've got some strange beliefs that are irreconcilably incompatible with existence...
 
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
Oh an my above post fits for ANY religion that requires specific practices and beliefs...if you just believe there is SOMETHING that created the universe then GOOD for you...if you believe that something has emotions like humans, gets angry like humans, wants to be loved like humans... even in the most infinitesimal way...you've got some strange beliefs that are irreconcilably incompatible with existence...
Click to expand...
so you don't have problems with religious perspectives that don't establish hell as eternal?
 
arfa brane said:
According to your rules of predisposition, you mean?
So, you've managed to reach a conclusion without any hint of scientific enquiry, or any kind of enquiry except dismissal of an hypothesis, or rather, the substitution of one hypothesis with another?

So yet more evidence that scientific debunking is devoid of substance, then?
Click to expand...

The Trinity stuff was a predisposition to having God.

You don't know the mechanics that science has shown? Time to learn, a st is available to you. You must become your own research assistant.
 
arfa brane said:
Unless someone reports their experience of God, which scientists are unable to distinguish from normal brain activity. What can science do with "the evidence"? Dismiss it as non-empirical? Suggest to the subject they go on a course of anti-psychotic drugs, and measure their brain activity again?
Click to expand...

They can think of anything they happen to think of.
 
SciWriter said:
You don't know the mechanics that science has shown? Time to learn, a st is available to you. You must become your own research assistant.
Click to expand...
No, I don't know the mechanics. Are you saying science can tell me what I'm experiencing--someone has figured out what consciousness is?

Or are you just thinking of anything you can think of?
 
arfa brane said:
No, I don't know the mechanics. Are you saying science can tell me what I'm experiencing--someone has figured out what consciousness is?

Or are you just thinking of anything you can think of?
Click to expand...

Start with the ear, but don't start with some Trinity thing, for there is nothing there.
 
But what is this exercise supposed to prove, or disprove? What light, pun intended, can it hope to shed on the question of consciousness?

Hasn't it been done already? Isn't it true that no matter what experiment you do to investigate the senses, there is no data that correlates unequivocally with consciousness? It remains something we simply can't measure, in any way, except for asking someone if they're awake, say.
 
spidergoat said:
That's the logical fallacy. You can't be both outside the realm of this world and have an effect on it. As soon as you do something, that effect is observable and comes into the realm of science.
Click to expand...

... and it is observed as being of-this-world.
Ie. even if something "from the other world" were to interfere with "this world", "we in this world" would necessarily perceive it as being "from this world".


spidergoat said:
Yes, I'm talking about my belief in empiricism. To say your arguments are all outside that framework is to say they aren't supported by evidence, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

Unless you grant LG the exceptional status of "being from the other world", and simultaneously grant yourself (and some others, for peer review) the exceptional status of being able to perceive and communicate with someone "from the other world," everything he says here is still part of "this world" - since we are reading it here, "in this world."



spidergoat said:
If God is indistinguishable from normal brain activity, then it's a non-testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

With methods and tools "from this world," how could we possibly distinguish "things from this world" from "those form the other world"?
We cannot.

Indeed, the hypothesis, as it is formulated, is not testable.
But that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that it is impossible to know God.
 
SciWriter said:
We want to look for truth without any predispositions trying to skew the search.
Click to expand...

In that case, we start with nothing and hope to be left with something.


!


Air-vibrations coming upon and ear and turning to sound in the brain does not mean God.
Click to expand...

Who suggested that this be the case?


The fact that we have dreams shows there is a model for a re-presentation of reality in the brain. When asleep, the input is purely internal.
Click to expand...

This is not definitive. Has it never happened to you that you had a dream that involved a sound - a sound that actually came from the environment?
 
Signal said:
In that case, we start with nothing and hope to be left with something.
Click to expand...

We find where the truth leads, whether to God or not God.


Signal said:
Who suggested that this be the case?
Click to expand...

Me, it doesn't mean that God did it.


Signal said:
This is not definitive. Has it never happened to you that you had a dream that involved a sound - a sound that actually came from the environment?
Click to expand...

Yes, a few times, so I'll change it to largely internal.
 
Try what? To be to be without predispositions?
That try itself would be a predisposition.
 
Signal said:
Try what? To be to be without predispositions?
That try itself would be a predisposition.
Click to expand...

I don't purposely withhold findings because they might point to God. Yazata even thought my "We only see the insides of our heads" took away from atheism.

Too much love or hate for an idea can get in the way of the search for truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top