Does Scientific Method Prove God's Nonexistence?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

As long as you are intellectually unwilling to acknowledge that there are supportive reasons

Moderator cut: deleted

You think god exists - you think god has a mind - intellgience - or turned itself into a human to visit us - or that there is a continuation of human consciousness after the body and brain die - then you have to back those claims up. Not me.

And you have not done so. Even a little.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I acknowledge your obsession with the many BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . especially the Abrahamic. But they have NOTHING to do with the issue of EXISTENCE of God.

So you keep saying but it is just distraction. You have not backed up - in any way - either the existence of god - _or_ - the attributes you assign it. All you do is when someone questions you on one - is shift the conversation to the other. Dodge - dodge -dodge is your modus operandi on the site.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is a entirely scientific issue

Great. Then lay out scientifically what you mean by "god" and lay out scientifcally what you think backs up the claim this defined thing exists. All ears. Moderator cut: deleted

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

They want the ability to claim that their position is the most logical position and to conclude there is no God . . . without having to provide any support for the conclusion. They pretend it isn't a conclusion.

Ah ur usual straw man game here. No we do not conclude there is no god. You just pretend we do because it is easier for you to attack the words you place in our mouth - than attack our position.

Our conclusion is that there is no reason to think there is a god. Does that mean there is one? No. It just means there is nothing at all to base the idea there is one on. Moderator cut: deleted

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There is an inscrutable and ineffable reality that is ubiquitous in scope and power that is responsible for the existence of and establishes and controls everything about our reality. It has the qualities that justify calling it God

So it is all big and awesome so you feel you want to use the word "god" to describe it. Lovely - but you are just labeling. You are not actually saying anything at all. You could just as easily subjectively decide to call it porridge. Or Pie. Or Mush. Or any word that tickles your brains linguistic centre.

But calling something god does not make it god. It is just a word. Like any other word. So it is worth asking what you are actually doing or saying because simply putting a word on your own awe at the universe is certainly not engaging in the debate the thread is about.

This thread is about using science to discuss the existence of god. If all you are doing is arbitrarily picking _something_ or in this case picking _everything_ and giving it the _label_ god then that is really conversation over - but you have added nothing to the actual thread topic.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Of course there is a Source of our reality . . . you just don't think it qualifies as God. I have no idea what you think it qualifies as, however.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The current evidence points to a single ubiquitous Source . . . what you would title "Nature" . . . but I title God based on the "Godness" of its attributes relative to us.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The mere existence of God is what establishes the environment we call reality with all its parameters and constraints. God need do nothing but exist and have requirements for maintaining that existence for things to be as they are.
We will never remove the subjective from human experience . . . but that includes everything including science. But the brain is clearly sensitive to field phenomena . . . with EM fields being the only measurable ones we know about to date. However, the similarity of the brains' interpretation of the experience in the presence of an artificial EM field to the experience in a deep meditative state without any artificial EM field present suggests that the brain responds to fields . . . measurable or not. To me this suggests that detecting the presence of God in the universal field is a function of our brain. Obviously it can be fooled into detecting the presence of God in the presence of an artificial EM field . . . but that just makes the real thing more plausible . . . not less.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Without thinking about thinking and what it is phenomenologically you will never understand my views. Reality is the result of a universal field. We do not know all the attributes of this universal field because 95+% of it is not measurable (non-baryonic) by current technology. What is measurable is called the Higgs field. Consciousness is a field phenomenon that is unmeasurable by current technology. I see the universal field as consciousness and our consciousness as part of it and residing within it . . . not in our physical brain . . . which just produces it. Reality as a consciousness field essentially means our reality exists in the "mind of God," period. That primitive view was too simplistic and saw everything as the willful judgments and actions of God . . . it did not include the existential distinctions in my view . . . that remove the need for willful decisions about everything. God's very existence and the requirements thereof establish the constraints and operational parameters of our reality. My hypotheses are based on current science, are plausible and are theoretically testable . . . when we develop the technology and understanding of consciousness as a phenomenon to do so.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Consciousness is NOT like all the other attributes of reality atheists absurdly use in their futile attempt to employ the composition fallacy to discredit my view. Consciousness is an endemic part of the existence of every other attribute of reality . . . because without it . . . awareness of and distinctions among attributes can not even exist. This is just one of the many philosophical issues surrounding consciousness that my adversaries seem not even to be aware of. The major difficulty seems to be that they are using the capability to consider reality and cannot sufficiently detach their thinking about reality from thinking about thinking about reality.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God is NOT a logic problem . . . so non-belief in God can NOT be logical. God is a brute fact premise problem . . . you know the premises that start logic syllogisms? Gldn understands just fine . . . he just has no problem with logical fallacies because they do not ensure falsity. He can live with that. Can you live with your preference for a "No God" brute fact premise having nothing to do with being logical?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I fully admit that my certainty derives from my experiences . . . but until you experience it for yourself . . . I have no expectation that you will credit it. I am unable to explain the "knowing" that occurs because it is unlike anything intellectual. It is more direct than that. It is not that I think God exists. It is not that I believe God exists. It is not that I am convinced God exists. It is that I "KNOW" God exists.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Atheists want the ability to claim that their position is the most logical position and to conclude there is no God . . . without having to provide any support for the conclusion. They pretend it isn't a conclusion. This mealy-mouthed, wimpy sophistry is unbecoming of any intellect . . . let alone those who pretend to pride themselves on their logic and rationality.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Ah ur usual straw man game here. No we do not conclude there is no god. You just pretend we do because it is easier for you to attack the words you place in our mouth - than attack our position.
Our conclusion is that there is no reason to think there is a god. Does that mean there is one? No. It just means there is nothing at all to base the idea there is one on.<snip>
So it is all big and awesome so you feel you want to use the word "god" to describe it. Lovely - but you are just labeling. You are not actually saying anything at all. You could just as easily subjectively decide to call it porridge. Or Pie. Or Mush. Or any word that tickles your brains linguistic centre.

More Moderator cut: deleted words designed to dodge providing "one shred or reason NOT to believe" our reality is God. You acknowledge its awesome and ubiquitous attributes and responsibility for our very existence . . . but offer no reason NOT to believe that qualifies it as God relative to us. Justify the rationale that would support calling it porridge, or pie or mush!!! That should be entertaining. You make these outrageous claims without any supporting rationale and refuse to justify them. That is what is wimpy, mealy-mouthed sophistry . . . NOT my legitimate claim that it qualifies as God relative to us puny creatures.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Perhaps you would like to help him by providing the rationale for his absurd porridge, pie and mush claims. I could use the laughs.

You have been given the rationale more times that I can remember. You have dismissed it out of hand and insisted on your rhetorical trick of slapping the 'God' label on reality when the reasons for not doing so have also been explained.

You can laugh, sneer or insult, as you please, but it doesn't matter. We don't mind what you choose to believe and you have no church and no followers worth worrying about. All that matters is that you have produced no credible reason for us to accept what you say as valid.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

More Moderator cut: Orphaned words designed to dodge providing "one shred or reason NOT to believe" our reality is God.

Adressing your points is dodging now? Or are you just calling everything dodging in order to dodge yourself. The latter seems to be the case.

The word for reality - is reality. If you want to call it _god_ then you are simply changing the word but you are saying nothing - adding nothing to the topic of this thread - and just getting steadily more irate as you go.

Does the scientific methods prove God's nonexistence is the topic of the thread. If you simply want to label something that exists _god_ then clearly the answer is "no" because the thing you have thus labelled exists.

But that is not the topic of the thread - regardless of how angry and irate this clearly makes you.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You acknowledge its awesome and ubiquitous attributes and responsibility for our very existence

Of course I do. The universe is large and mindbendingly complex. It is awesome. From our perspective unique. From many of our perspectives it is beautiful. And many many other words I could use too.

But they are all subjective reactions to it. I feel no compulsion to say "It is awesome therefore lets call it god" or "it is complex and hard to understand and comprehend therefore I want to call it god".

You just have a fetish for the word and you are applying it and justifying that application in retrospect to yourself. Little else and little more.

But even if we grant your language play there - nothing about that label in any way supports your claims relevant to this thread - or your other claims on this forum - that this god is intelligent. Thinking. Conscious. Moral. That after lives exist. That human consciousness can exist seperate from the brain. That the human gave birth to itself in human form to pay us a visit. Or any of that.

The thread - as I keep having to remind you - is about whether science proves gods non existence and once again if you simply want to slap the label _god_ on to anything that inspires awe in you then that has nothing to do with this thread - and nothing to do with science. It is purely linguistic. It starts in linguistics - ends in linguistics - but says next to nothing at all. And could not be further from being on topic than it is.