• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Has science merely disproved the notion of a personal god?

swilow

swilow

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
33,315
Location
Your double slit
In the debate between theists and atheists, it would seem that atheists, using science to describe the universe, have essentially disproven the Abrahamic traditional notion of a personal god that we humans can communicate with, supplicate, beg for assistance- and have that assistance provided. The universe and its physical laws seem to indicate that certain functionality is innate and rigid, and that no matter how hard we pray and how much we desire, the laws of physics will always remain immutable; no prayer has ever truly been answered.

An atheist says that this Abrahamic god does not exist. That leads many atheists to assume that NO god exists. But hasn't science merely disproved the notion of the personal, Abrahamic monotheistic god, an idea created under the misinterpretation of astronomical and physical constants? Has science begun to prove the existence (at least at some point) of a possible creative force, an instigator only? Proven indirectly through enunciation of immutable physical truth? Is science inadvertently providing us with a 'new' type of god? One that does not listen to us, or acknowledge us, but was, at the very least, present at the beginning of this?

I don't know, but a frustration with both theism and atheism has lead me to ponder these questions, and furthermore, to pose them also to you :) I don't know what I think personally....


:)
 
An atheist rejects all forms of theism, not just one conception of deity. Also, as has been said elsewhere, this subject is outside the scope of science, theological hypotheses cannot be falsified through observation or experimentation.

a possible creative force, an instigator only
Click to expand...

Aristotle's unmoved mover?

... 'new' type of god? One that does not listen to us, or acknowledge us, but was, at the very least, present at the beginning of this?
Click to expand...

Deism was popular in the 17th & 18th centuries, 'til David Hume kicked its ass (he also wrote the definitive rejection of the belief in miracles).


P..S. There is nothing new under the sun. As a PDer, you'll probably find that the Greeks dealt with anything you can think up. There are exceptions to this, but I would rather not speak of that abomination men call linguistic philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Science (and / or rationality + morality) has pretty much beat the shit out of Abrahamic religions..

When people say "science can not prove nor disprove the existence of God" I don't agree with it, but for arguments sake, ok sure.. But it can disprove those whacky books from which your God came.
 
Religions have it so easy. "We have a creator". Science "Look at all of God's toys". Math "God's language". Boom, nailed it.
 
You're logic is flawless realtalkloc!

Now.. who creates sand dunes? Volcanoes? Clouds?

Don't you dare say God.
 
realtalkloc said:
everything has a creator, you can't just create anything out of nothing, that is bullshit. science has not been able to refute the concept of God.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it in those words, but I agree with the sentiment behind those words. You can't just create something out of nothing.. nothing doesn't just suddenly become motivated to do something.
 
rickolasnice said:
You're logic is flawless realtalkloc!

Now.. who creates sand dunes? Volcanoes? Clouds?

Don't you dare say God.
Click to expand...

Winds, tectonic plates, clouds...Well clouds require a sacrifice of many goats...Why get angry if someone said "This is the process of God". It doesn't impede science to figure out how it works. This is the problem with atheists, they lack imagination.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
I kinda like the idea of a programmer..

A lot of equations found in physics points to a possibility.. It's as if the laws of nature are just that.. a mathematical equation or algorithm.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principal makes me wonder. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm also a fan of this theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Cosmological_natural_selection

The problem I have with people spouting the ol "Everything MUST have a creator, therefore God" is the ignorance involved.. This statement is a favourite among creationists, a hypothesis being "dressed up" as a theory which is poisoning peoples minds, IMO.

+ I never said I'd get angry :sus:
 
-=SS=- said:
I wouldn't say it in those words, but I agree with the sentiment behind those words. You can't just create something out of nothing.. nothing doesn't just suddenly become motivated to do something.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that most of what we consider as nothing is actually a whole heap of something. And in a possibly infinite universe the spontaneous arising of matter and complexity is simply inevitable.
 
I think it depends on a persons definition of "God". I personally feel like "God" IS everything that is all around us, the force that creates and destroys, that connects all living things, etc. and it doesn't have to be in opposition to science.
 
willow11 said:
It could be argued that most of what we consider as nothing is actually a whole heap of something. And in a possibly infinite universe the spontaneous arising of matter and complexity is simply inevitable.
Click to expand...

OK but if this nothing is actually something that still doesn't solve anything really.. that something still has been given an initial impulse or motivation to action. The second sentence is just sophistry, you're just reducing this impulse or motivation to an inevitability based on statistical probability, which doesn't work because infinity is not a number.
 
I like to take Carl Sagan's stance, like him I will never consider myself an atheist. By no means however would I consider myself a theist... I would say science has all eliminated the possibility of a personal God, but if evidence were to come along I would surely believe! Physics and Biology has shown there doesn't need to be a God to come up with all that surrounds us. Personally, I think Buddhism is the answer to man's need for connection with something larger than himself while maintaining a logical and fact based world view.
 
I hear you regarding atheism. There's a lot of room for belief in "something more" between it and the absolutist conceptions of Abrahamic belief systems. Then again, agnosticism is existentially dissatisfying in the extreme, which makes it difficult to get on board with. Still, it's the most defensible and healthiest for modern society.

I think the answer to your question is a qualified yes. Logical positivism failed. You have to start doing metaphysics at some point, like it or not, and perhaps that's where there's room for new transcendent notions to unfurl into a *much* softer and unexpected sort of theism.
 
Last edited:
ebola? said:
Positing a deity is not a hypothesis that can be disproven scientifically by definition.

ebola
Click to expand...

Ah, but can there be differences in thought patterns and behaviors who follow certain religions? Does this, if psychology is to be of any use, proof? So for instance a Buddhist who adheres to all its codes, is this not a psychical expression of a psychological presence of mind; which, would otherwise not exist? Is the proof in the negation itself? Are people only out to prove that deities are tangible?
 
I've even heard that some of us could be biologically wired to believe in a sort of "higher power". It's always been interesting to me that every culture that's every existed believed in a realm of spirit or deities, or a higher power of some sort but yet many are vastly different. Most are anthropomorphic in nature, all this to me seems that maybe in a large majority of humans our brains are hardwired to have some sort of religious or spiritual beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top