Disproving the existence of God

[immortal]

I recently watched the documentary series "Through The Worm Hole with Morgan Freeman" in Science Discovery Channel. One interesting thing I found was the work of Dr.Michael Persinger and his God Helmet. If out of body experiences can be induced on people at request whenever we desire to have it then if in someway get to know those minute complex stimulations of the temporal lobes in the brain which induce the experience of a personal god then it will be proved beyond doubt that "Man created God" rather than the other way around.

 

The point is people who claim that Man created God should back up their claim with an evidence showing that the experience of a personal god is no more than just a mere hallucination occuring at the temporal lobe of the brain rather than taking up the logical default position and dismissing the existence of God outside of science straight away.

 

The attitude has to change that the existence of God can be disproved and science shouldn't back away saying that the burden of proof is on people who claim that he exists. Scientists should take this field seriously just the same way how they take smashing atoms in particle accelerators seriously looking for truth and testing their models.

 

If neuropsychologists can repeatedly induce feelings or experiences of a personal god whose body is covered with gems and pearls eminating blue and red radiant light out of it irrespective of time and place then the theists should have to change their views and put their belief systems to the test. What if we could put the God helmet on Pope and induce a feeling of presence of god in him?

 

On the contrary if science fails and if there is a method which repeatedly allows one to expereince and communicate with a personal god at some point in time then it must be assumed that our reductionist approach is wrong and that there is something real outside of science. Its a great challenge on us and lets put our belief systems to test and evade blind faith.

 

Wiki - God_helmet and the Discussions Page

Neurotheology with god in mind

 

This is your Brain on God

 

 

[iNow]

Define god.

[Fuzzwood]

Why should we disprove the existence of god, let them prove he exists. The normal way of science is that the entity that makes a claim, has to prove said claim. NOT the other way around.

[ajb]

A logicians proof goes a bit like this:

 

Let us make the assumption that God exists. Then their exists at least one proof that God exists. As this is such a proof we have established the existence of God. QED

 

 

[Fuzzwood]

That is circular reasoning, and as so fails as a proper proof.

[immortal]

Define god.

 

I cannot universally define the term 'God' but what I can do is that I can specifically define the concept of God to every inch of it with in a group of people whose knowledge of God is consistent, specific and completely coherent. By consistent I mean God is experienced as a person and it is the same person who will always appear in the experience every time one has it. His characteristics are specific, it doesn't vary from one experience to another experience between different persons, he always appears the same way across centuries of time. These experiences are coherent, they are not random and the data can be passed on from generation to generation which leads to increase in knowledge in a person.

 

It is this kind of knowledge which will go on to produce many of the major religious belief systems in the world which some might call it a cancer in their minds so if in some way neurologists can reproduce those similar experiences at request it would convince the theists that their great great almighty or the personal god is nothing but a hallucination occuring in their Brains. In simple words given this specific knowledge about the personal god can they really reproduce the same experience having those specific characteristics of God on request. If they can then the existence of God is disproved and it would convince the theists to change their view and this would be the end of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should we disprove the existence of god, let them prove he exists. The normal way of science is that the entity that makes a claim, has to prove said claim. NOT the other way around.

 

Then it should be accepted that those individuals who claim that Man created God are basing those claims on blind faith with out any evidence what so ever and it would put them on the same pool as a theist who goes by faith rather than empirical evidence.

 

Also science should address this phenomena and provide a model or an explanation for these spiritual experiences and not back away from it. The end result on whether science can model such experiences or not might go on to decide on the existence of god. Such a model do serve some purpose it will radically change the worldview of billions of people or it will give us some insights to explore a all new world.

 

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

I cannot universally define the term 'God' but what I can do is that I can specifically define the concept of God to every inch of it with in a group of people whose knowledge of God is consistent, specific and completely coherent. By consistent I mean God is experienced as a person and it is the same person who will always appear in the experience every time one has it. His characteristics are specific, it doesn't vary from one experience to another experience between different persons, he always appears the same way across centuries of time. These experiences are coherent, they are not random and the data can be passed on from generation to generation which leads to increase in knowledge in a person.

 

People hallucinate all the time, religion has been shown to bring about these hallucination in people who believe strongly enough but the god they see or see evidence of is always the god they are worshiping whether it is Yahweh or Allah, or Krishna or Anubis, this indicates to me that god is in their mind and when god answers you are talking to your self. As far as i know no new knowledge has ever come from religion.

 

It is this kind of knowledge which will go on to produce many of the major religious belief systems in the world which some might call it a cancer in their minds so if in some way neurologists can reproduce those similar experiences at request it would convince the theists that their great great almighty or the personal god is nothing but a hallucination occuring in their Brains.

In simple words given this specific knowledge about the personal god can they really reproduce the same experience having those specific characteristics of God on request. If they can then the existence of God is disproved and it would convince the theists to change their view and this would be the end of religion.

 

No it wouldn't, god like experiences can indeed be induced by magnetic fields applied to the correct portion of the brain, this is dismissed out of hand by believers if in no other way than saying it is a trick of Satan.

 

Then it should be accepted that those individuals who claim that Man created God are basing those claims on blind faith with out any evidence what so ever and it would put them on the same pool as a theist who goes by faith rather than empirical evidence.

 

I disagree, if indeed there was only one religion or if all religions said the same thing you would have a point but the plethora of religions, nearly all of them contradicting each other is pretty good evidence they are all man made, especially since they seem to be composed of the beliefs and morals of the time period they were made up in. I wouldn't say it is absolute proof but it is a working hypothesis.

 

Also science should address this phenomena and provide a model or an explanation for these spiritual experiences and not back away from it. The end result on whether science can model such experiences or not might go on to decide on the existence of god. Such a model do serve some purpose it will radically change the worldview of billions of people or it will give us some insights to explore a all new world.

 

I think you are being exceedingly naive about that, the teaching of Christianity actually says that evidence that contradicts god must be ignored and not believed.

[immortal]

People hallucinate all the time, religion has been shown to bring about these hallucination in people who believe strongly enough but the god they see or see evidence of is always the god they are worshiping whether it is Yahweh or Allah, or Krishna or Anubis, this indicates to me that god is in their mind and when god answers you are talking to your self. As far as i know no new knowledge has ever come from religion.

 

That doesn't prove that god is in their brain unless you reproduce those experiences on request. I know a few things about gods they don't appear to you unless you surrender to them so obviously Buddha won't appear to me when I have completely surendered myself to Jesus and worshipping only him. Its too soon to come to your logical conclusion when an alternative interpretation exists and therefore there is a necessity to reproduce those experiences and test it for ourselves.

 

 

No it wouldn't, god like experiences can indeed be induced by magnetic fields applied to the correct portion of the brain, this is dismissed out of hand by believers if in no other way than saying it is a trick of Satan.

 

An intellectually honest theist should change his belief system when evidence is provided to him. Now given my specific characteristics of god if you can induce a feeling of presence of this god in my brain having those same specific characteristics I will be obliged to change my belief system when it is put to test.

 

I disagree, if indeed there was only one religion or if all religions said the same thing you would have a point but the plethora of religions, nearly all of them contradicting each other is pretty good evidence they are all man made, especially since they seem to be composed of the beliefs and morals of the time period they were made up in. I wouldn't say it is absolute proof but it is a working hypothesis.

 

That is what I want the scientific community to do to test that working hypothesis, if we can some how reproduce those experiences on request then it will be a great evidence that they are all man made. I agree that science has tested most of the religious claims again and again and found nothing but I want science to test this particular hypothesis because its results might have some strange outcomes.

 

I think you are being exceedingly naive about that, the teaching of Christianity actually says that evidence that contradicts god must be ignored and not believed.

 

Then those advocating that are not true Christians, those teachings are from radical fundamentalists and extremists who misinterpret the scriptures and completely misunderstand it. No word of God advocate such extreme view and I am very much happy to put my belief system for a lab test.

[iNow]

I cannot universally define the term 'God'

In which case the process of disproving it cannot even begin. Once your definition is in place and accepted by all parties, we can seek to falsify it, but not until.

 

so if in some way neurologists can reproduce those similar experiences at request it would convince the theists that their great great almighty or the personal god is nothing but a hallucination occuring in their Brains. In simple words given this specific knowledge about the personal god can they really reproduce the same experience having those specific characteristics of God on request. If they can then the existence of God is disproved and it would convince the theists to change their view and this would be the end of religion.

I undesrtand what you're getting at, but belief is about faith, not evidence. Simply showing believers evidence of this won't generally change their beliefs... maybe for a small handful, but most will just rationalize it away and continue believing as they see fit.

 

Also, FWIW... Everything we experience is just a "hallucination occurring in the brain."

 

Also science should address this phenomena and provide a model or an explanation for these spiritual experiences and not back away from it. The end result on whether science can model such experiences or not might go on to decide on the existence of god. Such a model do serve some purpose it will radically change the worldview of billions of people or it will give us some insights to explore a all new world.

There are models in place, and a great number of researchers who DON'T "back away from it." Yet, there are still billions of people who ignore their work because it conflicts with their beliefs. Again, belief is not about evidence, but faith.

 

An intellectually honest theist should change his belief system when evidence is provided to him.

Do you know what intellectually honest theists are called? They're called "atheists."

[Moontanman]

That doesn't prove that god is in their brain unless you reproduce those experiences on request. I know a few things about gods they don't appear to you unless you surrender to them so obviously Buddha won't appear to me when I have completely surendered myself to Jesus and worshipping only him. Its too soon to come to your logical conclusion when an alternative interpretation exists and therefore there is a necessity to reproduce those experiences and test it for ourselves.

 

So you admit that there are other gods than Jesus if you surrender your self to them? In some churches God or angels appearing to people is quite consistent and happens every Sunday, often more than one person claims to be able to see them...

 

An intellectually honest theist should change his belief system when evidence is provided to him. Now given my specific characteristics of god if you can induce a feeling of presence of this god in my brain having those same specific characteristics I will be obliged to change my belief system when it is put to test.

 

An intellectually honest theist, I guess we have different definitions of intellectually honest? I apologize for that remark, i know several theists on this forum that are intellectually honest within the bounds of their belief system, i should not have suggested all were intellectually dishonest....

 

 

 

That is what I want the scientific community to do to test that working hypothesis, if we can some how reproduce those experiences on request then it will be a great evidence that they are all man made. I agree that science has tested most of the religious claims again and again and found nothing but I want science to test this particular hypothesis because its results might have some strange outcomes.

 

How can we put that hypothesis to the test, the hypothesis is that there are so many conflicting ideas of god they have to be man made, how can that be tested?

 

Then those advocating that are not true Christians, those teachings are from radical fundamentalists and extremists who misinterpret the scriptures and completely misunderstand it. No word of God advocate such extreme view and I am very much happy to put my belief system for a lab test.

 

Quite the contrary, that was, in the not too distant past, what main stream Christianity said about evidence the bible was wrong in any way.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Moontanman

[immortal]

In which case the process of disproving it cannot even begin. Once your definition is in place and accepted by all parties, we can seek to falsify it, but not until.

 

A possible universal definition of God might come from Cosmotheology avoiding the conflicts existing in traditional religions.

 

I would like to stick with the Immanuel Kant's definition of Cosmotheology

Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), the most influential philosopher of the late Enlightenment, coined the term in his best-known work, The Critique of Pure Reason, considered one of the greatest contributions to Western philosophical thought. But Kant's definition of cosmotheology was narrow, referring to a specific form of what he called "transcendental theology," a method human beings must use to discern theological concepts because, according to Kant, reason alone cannot prove God's existence.

 

The theory is this that every living being is inherently connected with the cosmic universe. There is a whole new spectrum of light having some weird properties which is the main cause for the existence of this universe and it is this same spectrum of light existing in every living thing is responsible for the survival and the intelligent behaviours exhibited by such entities. So this new light having weird geometry is called as God. This takes a Top-bottom approach of the cosmos and avoids the reductionist approach.

 

The claim is that this single entity(new light) is responsible for simulating those spiritual experiences of Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or what ever among different cultures of people. So if in some way neurologists show that those spiritual experiences are simulated by the brain and establish that their Gods only exists in their minds indicating that Man created God then the above theory will be disproved and intellectually honest theists will be obliged to change their views and belief systems on submission of such an evidence.

 

 

I undesrtand what you're getting at, but belief is about faith, not evidence. Simply showing believers evidence of this won't generally change their beliefs... maybe for a small handful, but most will just rationalize it away and continue believing as they see fit.

 

Also, FWIW... Everything we experience is just a "hallucination occurring in the brain."

 

There are models in place, and a great number of researchers who DON'T "back away from it." Yet, there are still billions of people who ignore their work because it conflicts with their beliefs. Again, belief is not about evidence, but faith.

 

Even religion evolves over the years and paradigm shifts do happen it is not stringent as it was in the past.

Frank Parkinson on cosmotheology

 

 

The great revolution in cosmology that began with discovery of the galactic

redshift is our awareness that we live in an expanding universe. Its vital

importance to theology lies in the reasonable assumption that the more

cosmology reveals about the processes of creation, the more it will reveal about

the nature of the creating power. Since this information became available to

theology less than a century ago, cosmotheology marks a significant advance in

the evolution of religion, for it is based solidly on empirical observation. Thus it is

a prime example of the kind of fact-based theology which Arthur Peacocke has

recently argued must be a new standard for authentic religion. Religion, he says,

must "become truly open theologically" and theologians need "frankly to infer

the best explanation of the data - and not build theological castles in the air

based on historically unsupported events ... and on outdated metaphysical

systems." [5] To his argument I would add that this is the first time in history that

intellectual honesty, which is an essential in science, has been taken as a

defining criterion of religion. Until now honesty in religion has always been

subordinated to the founding principles of the so-called "faith community". From

this perspective - and is there any other for the genuine seeker of truth today? -

cosmotheology becomes not one option among many but a universal moral

imperative, making all other creation myths obsolescent.

 

Do you know what intellectually honest theists are called? They're called "atheists."

 

 

Moontanman said,

 

"An intellectually honest theist, I guess we have different definitions of intellectually honest? I apologize for that remark, i know several theists on this forum that are intellectually honest within the bounds of their belief system, i should not have suggested all were intellectually dishonest...."

 

We indeed have a conflict over the definition of intellectuall honesty. Theists have a strong reason for holding a theistic view and the same is for the atheists. Theists believe in theism because of the personal encounters that they have with god and considerably affects his conduct and his thought process. True religions arise in this way from a small group of handful people who have some real consistent knowledge about the gods, I don't think it is a crap. So assuming that intellectually honest theists are equivalent to atheists is quite unfair, there is a distinction between the two and we can draw clear logical line between those two.

 

So you admit that there are other gods than Jesus if you surrender your self to them? In some churches God or angels appearing to people is quite consistent and happens every Sunday, often more than one person claims to be able to see them...

 

No, I don't believe in any gods unless I see them for myself therefore neither I believe in Jesus nor I believe in Buddha but I doesn't claim that they do not exist since I don't have enough knowledge about them.

 

How can we put that hypothesis to the test, the hypothesis is that there are so many conflicting ideas of god they have to be man made, how can that be tested?

 

We can certainly test that hypothesis there are certain religious systems in which the knowledge of the gods are accessible and they have described him with full detail to every inch of it. They are not talking about unicorns or horse feathers and its not crap. So if we could reproduce those experiences in our labs then those belief systems will be destroyed.

 

Quite the contrary, that was, in the not too distant past, what main stream Christianity said about evidence the bible was wrong in any way.

 

I doesn't want to defend any religious claims. I want to test those belief systems and christianity is not the only religion of the world so your consistent premise that those claims have been tested again and again is not quite right since there are other more powerful knowledge models in other religions which have to be tested yet.

[Moontanman]

I doesn't want to defend any religious claims. I want to test those belief systems and christianity is not the only religion of the world so your consistent premise that those claims have been tested again and again is not quite right since there are other more powerful knowledge models in other religions which have to be tested yet.

 

 

Can you name those other religions and give some examples of those powerful knowledge models?

[iNow]

assuming that intellectually honest theists are equivalent to atheists is quite unfair, there is a distinction between the two and we can draw clear logical line between those two.

We seem to disagree. My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

[A Tripolation]

We seem to disagree. My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

 

Oh. Hey. I guess we've never met before. My name is Tripolation and I believe in a deity. I can offer no proof of his existence, it is just a personal belief of mine.

 

Really. Sometimes the theist bashing gets incredibly carried away in this forum. It's uncalled for.

[Moontanman]

Oh. Hey. I guess we've never met before. My name is Tripolation and I believe in a deity. I can offer no proof of his existence, it is just a personal belief of mine.

 

Really. Sometimes the theist bashing gets incredibly carried away in this forum. It's uncalled for.

 

 

I said I was sorry , sometimes i automatically assign religious and creationist with the same definitions. They are not the same thing, the fact is that most scientists are believers in some sort of god or gods, most scientists are Christian, with a smattering of Muslims and Hindus and other smaller religions. It was unfair of me to suggest that all theists are intellectually dishonest and again i apologize for it...

[iNow]

Faith [math]\ne[/math] Intellectual Honesty

 

 

Really. Sometimes the theist bashing gets incredibly carried away in this forum. It's uncalled for.

Theists simply don't get the deference they demand. You don't seem to mind when relativity deniers get "bashed" or when climate change deniers get "bashed" nor when expanding earth proponents get "bashed." Stop asking for your beliefs to be respected. Stop asking for special deference. Stop asking for double standards to be applied. Theists are not being bashed. They're being treated the same as everyone else.

 

I guess when you're not used to your comments and beliefs being challenged or being criticized it can seem like bashing. Oh well.

Edited January 8, 2012 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

Theists simply don't get the deference they demand. You don't seem to mind when relativity deniers get "bashed" or when climate change deniers get "bashed" nor when expanding earth proponents get "bashed." Stop asking for your beliefs to be respected. Stop asking for special deference. Stop asking for double standards to be applied. Theists are not being bashed. They're being treated the same as everyone else.

 

I guess when you're not used to your comments and beliefs being challenged or being criticized it can seem like bashing. Oh well.

 

The critical difference you fail to understand is that THEISTIC beliefs cannot be tested in a scientific manner. The claims they make cannot be FALSIFIED. Nor do intellectually honest theists say that their beliefs carry any weight in the scientific realms.

 

All of the examples you mentioned above are TESTABLE ideas that run contrary to mainstream science. In what world does belief in an omnipotent deity fall under the dimension of science? Congratulations on the best false comparison I've seen in a long time, iNow.

[iNow]

The critical difference you fail to understand is that THEISTIC beliefs cannot be tested in a scientific manner. The claims they make cannot be FALSIFIED.

Which is precisely the reason why intellectually honest people cannot by definition choose to hold those beliefs. The only way to believe such things is to live in a state of cognitive dissonance where you apply double standards and hold evidence as the standard for some things yet not others, and it stinks of hypocrisy. If they cannot be tested, and cannot be falsified, then there is no "intellectually honest" reason to believe such things.

 

 

All of the examples you mentioned above are TESTABLE ideas that run contrary to mainstream science. In what world does belief in an omnipotent deity fall under the dimension of science?

Psychology? Sociology? Neuroscience? Anthropology? Group evolution? Want me to keep going?

Edited January 8, 2012 by iNow

[Moontanman]

We seem to disagree. My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

 

 

I have to disagree with this, i think it is possible to be less than objective in one part of your life and still be totally honest in other aspects.

 

I personally believe that Ann and Nancy Wilson Rock Band Heart are the best entertainers on the planet, I will admit if pressed that others may not agree and in fact some might even assert that they are not even worthy of the name entertainers, but to me it is irrelevant, it is honestly what I believe. As long as I recognize and admit it's is my belief and don't feel the need to convince others my belief is absolute truth I see no problem with it.

[iNow]

What you've described, though, Moontanman, is a preference... not a belief. You can prefer vanilla over chocolate, but you cannot say "even though there is no reason and no evidence, I think vanilla comes from a god named beanie-goo who lives on the 8th planet" if you hope to remain intellectually honest.

 

There's a difference between preference and belief. You cannot believe things with zero evidence and zero ability to be falsified and still call yourself intellectually honest.

[Moontanman]

The critical difference you fail to understand is that THEISTIC beliefs cannot be tested in a scientific manner. The claims they make cannot be FALSIFIED. Nor do intellectually honest theists say that their beliefs carry any weight in the scientific realms.

 

I have to ask, because I consider you to be one of the most reasonable theists on this forum, "Doesn't it bother you that your beliefs cannot be tested? Not to mention that this idea of non test ability is false... If you are a Christian, the book that guides your beliefs is not some subjective idea, it is the actual written words of God as dictated to humans. That book makes major assertions that are demonstrably false, do not these falsifications count? Sorry had to ask....

 

What you've described, though, Moontanman, is a preference... not a belief. You can prefer vanilla over chocolate, but you cannot say "even though there is no reason and no evidence, I think vanilla comes from a god named beanie-goo who lives on the 8th planet" if you hope to remain intellectually honest.

 

There's a difference between preference and belief. You cannot believe things with zero evidence and zero ability to be falsified and still call yourself intellectually honest.

 

 

But what is a preference if not a belief? Or more correctly is that not the origin of belief? I bet I could organize a small group of people who would wholeheartedly agree with me, and possibly an even wider group of people who would agree some what but still claim to believe because they like to listen mostly to Heart and so on down, ultimately isn't this what religion really is, a fan club?

Edited January 8, 2012 by Moontanman

[A Tripolation]

Doesn't it bother you that your beliefs cannot be tested?

 

Not really, because the answers that religion provides me are answers that science will never be able to have, due to the nature of the questions. Either I take the answers from some form of religion or I believe that the questions are meaningless and without substance. I tend towards the former.

 

Not to mention that this idea of non test ability is false... If you are a Christian, the book that guides your beliefs is not some subjective idea, it is the actual written words of God as dictated to humans. That book makes major assertions that are demonstrably false, do not these falsifications count? Sorry had to ask....

 

I don't mind being asked. The existence of a God, such as a God like the Judeo-Christian one that transcends all of reality, is unfalsifiable. That's what I mean by that.

 

Is the Bible falsifiable? Certainly. And this is why I know there are translation errors (statistical probability), bias errors (Council of Nicaea, King James, etc), incompleteness (unmentioned deuterocanonical texts, the Apocrypha), and the question of the authors of the various texts in the anthology (many, if not all, of the texts in the New Testament were written AFTER the named Authors had passed. The OT is rife with author credibility). All of these things lead me to believe the Bible is the work of flawed men. It is not the complete word of God. But it is the closest thing we have, in my opinion.

 

I reject many notions of the Bible as the work of primitive man. The OT is violent and bloodthirsty. Genesis is a fairy-tale. The entity that I believe in, Jesus, is a monumental figure in all three Abrahamic religions, and is accepted as a historical figure that existed. His divinity is what is in question. And I believe He was divine. Again, that is a personal opinion I have made after thinking over the situation for many a year.

Edited January 8, 2012 by A Tripolation

[immortal]

Can you name those other religions and give some examples of those powerful knowledge models?

 

 

There are many extinct religions in this world whose practical knowledge have been lost over time because the religious sects failed to pass on their cultural ideas and doctrines to their future generations due to various other cultural influences on them or other natural causes. We can not rule out the possibility of an extinct civilization who might have been more advanced than us, who might have had a different approach in studying the natural world around them. The common attitude is that the ancient earth was a dark age and the picture we have in our minds are people following pseudoscience and other foolish practices and thinking that they were less intelligent than us and lacked any real knowledge. I think this attitude has to change as we discover and explore more about those civilizations and reconsider our position on such civilizations.

 

There are many extinct civilizations like those and we do often find some new information or a new discovery about them every now and then and one such religious sect with whom I have developed some interest and researched is the ARYAN religion. It is the Aryas who discovered the Vedas and the Upanishads and what is left today is a few disorganized rituals and pseudoscientific practices in the name of Hinduism giving us a picture of horse feather stories and extreme view points hiding the actual truth from our eyes.

 

Aryas were sun worshippers and to them sun is not just a star at the centre of the solar system it is also a personal god existing in every biological entity responsible for organisms intelligent behaviour and self organisation. (Note- I am not advocating Intelligent Design here and opposing evolution by NS since proponents of ID make baseless arguments against a well established body of evidence that already exists for evolution)

 

Aryas have a complete different set of models and it has nothing to do with the scientific models and these models can be tested. They describe their personal god in detail and there are various yogic methods to test such a knowledge. One such method which I adopted was a set of breathing exercise called as Surya Namaskara. The link provides information about the sequence of steps that has to be performed. Since many people perform it for different reasons, some people in the west might perform it to keep themselves healthy and fit while our purpose is to actually communicate with him and take this very seriously so we need some additional preparation before performing it.

 

We need to do it with the right frame of mind because the outcome of our experiment depends on how we approach it. So we need to assume that he exists and pray the following words in the beginning.

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

It means that the truth is hidden behind God's complex geometry of light rays and those light rays are preventing us from seeing him clearly and the ultimate truth so we should plead him to remove those impeding light rays and show us the path of righteousness.

 

There are many verses from the scripture and each verse can be tested and its validity can be empirically verified by subjective experiences. An example of such experiences can be found in books by a scholar named Devudu Narasimha Shastry who has extensively studied the Aryan culture. I have an english translation of one of his book named Mahabrahmana.

Introduction

Appendix

Chapters61-65

Chapters66-70

(chapters 65 to 67 are important please read them.)

 

So he should appear to us at some point in the same way as he has appeared across centuries of time and hence such a knowledge is repeatable and empirically verified.

 

This is what happened after I performed it for almost one year so it should be performed under guidance and not mess up with the gods by performing it in a wrong way.

 

 

The main argument I want to make is that where I do acknowledge the scientific method in discovering new real knowledge it is not the only method that exists to know the truth. So science will be nothing more but a religion if it suppresses other valid methods of knowledge enquiry and say that nothing real exists outside of science and suppress free thinking. If we have to take Cosmotheology seriously then according to one of its principle we need to be open to new conceptions of God and the cosmic order.

 

 

 

We seem to disagree. My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

 

How so? I have a strong intellectual reason to believe in theism so why don't science address this phenomena and see whether man created god or not instead of backing away from the challenge because even I want to enjoy my life and not abide by the word of God.

I have consistently criticized people who oppose evolution by natural selection and I have also attacked scholars who mix religion and science and try to interpret scientific models in terms of religion in other threads. The universe indeed seems to be a paradox and more we have explored it the more is the evidence that it defies our logical minds and it is appearing in different ways depending on the choice of method we are adopting to measure it.

[Moontanman]

Not really, because the answers that religion provides me are answers that science will never be able to have, due to the nature of the questions. Either I take the answers from some form of religion or I believe that the questions are meaningless and without substance. I tend towards the former.

 

This is a major disconnect for me, what questions do you mean?

 

I don't mind being asked. The existence of a God, such as a God like the Judeo-Christian one that transcends all of reality, is unfalsifiable. That's what I mean by that.

 

But, any effects he has on reality should be testable but as far as can be tested there is no supernatural influence anywhere....

 

Is the Bible falsifiable? Certainly. And this is why I know there are translation errors (statistical probability), bias errors (Council of Nicaea, King James, etc), incompleteness (unmentioned deuterocanonical texts, the Apocrypha), and the question of the authors of the various texts in the anthology (many, if not all, of the texts in the New Testament were written AFTER the named Authors had passed. The OT is rife with author credibility). All of these things lead me to believe the Bible is the work of flawed men. It is not the complete word of God. But it is the closest thing we have, in my opinion.

 

What about other more ancient writings about god or gods? How do they fit in, are they just as deserving of worship as yours?

 

I reject many notions of the Bible as the work of primitive man. The OT is violent and bloodthirsty. Genesis is a fairy-tale. The entity that I believe in, Jesus, is a monumental figure in all three Abrahamic religions, and is accepted as a historical figure that existed. His divinity is what is in question. And I believe He was divine. Again, that is a personal opinion I have made after thinking over the situation for many a year.

 

 

If you invalidate the OT doesn't leave the NT kind of twisting in the wind? Not to mention Jesus's own support of slavery and other extreme laws of the old testament?

 

There are many extinct religions in this world whose practical knowledge have been lost over time because the religious sects failed to pass on their cultural ideas and doctrines to their future generations due to various other cultural influences on them or other natural causes. We can not rule out the possibility of an extinct civilization who might have been more advanced than us, who might have had a different approach in studying the natural world around them. The common attitude is that the ancient earth was a dark age and the picture we have in our minds are people following pseudoscience and other foolish practices and thinking that they were less intelligent than us and lacked any real knowledge. I think this attitude has to change as we discover and explore more about those civilizations and reconsider our position on such civilizations.

 

There are many extinct civilizations like those and we do often find some new information or a new discovery about them every now and then and one such religious sect with whom I have developed some interest and researched is the ARYAN religion. It is the Aryas who discovered the Vedas and the Upanishads and what is left today is a few disorganized rituals and pseudoscientific practices in the name of Hinduism giving us a picture of horse feather stories and extreme view points hiding the actual truth from our eyes.

 

Aryas were sun worshippers and to them sun is not just a star at the centre of the solar system it is also a personal god existing in every biological entity responsible for organisms intelligent behaviour and self organisation. (Note- I am not advocating Intelligent Design here and opposing evolution by NS since proponents of ID make baseless arguments against a well established body of evidence that already exists for evolution)

 

Aryas have a complete different set of models and it has nothing to do with the scientific models and these models can be tested. They describe their personal god in detail and there are various yogic methods to test such a knowledge. One such method which I adopted was a set of breathing exercise called as Surya Namaskara. The link provides information about the sequence of steps that has to be performed. Since many people perform it for different reasons, some people in the west might perform it to keep themselves healthy and fit while our purpose is to actually communicate with him and take this very seriously so we need some additional preparation before performing it.

 

We need to do it with the right frame of mind because the outcome of our experiment depends on how we approach it. So we need to assume that he exists and pray the following words in the beginning.

 

 

There are many verses from the scripture and each verse can be tested and its validity can be empirically verified by subjective experiences. An example of such experiences can be found in books by a scholar named Devudu Narasimha Shastry who has extensively studied the Aryan culture. I have an english translation of one of his book named Mahabrahmana.

Introduction

Appendix

Chapters61-65

Chapters66-70

(chapters 65 to 67 are important please read them.)

 

So he should appear to us at some point in the same way as he has appeared across centuries of time and hence such a knowledge is repeatable and empirically verified.

 

This is what happened after I performed it for almost one year so it should be performed under guidance and not mess up with the gods by performing it in a wrong way.

 

 

The main argument I want to make is that where I do acknowledge the scientific method in discovering new real knowledge it is not the only method that exists to know the truth. So science will be nothing more but a religion if it suppresses other valid methods of knowledge enquiry and say that nothing real exists outside of science and suppress free thinking. If we have to take Cosmotheology seriously then according to one of its principle we need to be open to new conceptions of God and the cosmic order.

 

 

 

 

 

How so? I have a strong intellectual reason to believe in theism so why don't science address this phenomena and see whether man created god or not instead of backing away from the challenge because even I want to enjoy my life and not abide by the word of God.

I have consistently criticized people who oppose evolution by natural selection and I have also attacked scholars who mix religion and science and try to interpret scientific models in terms of religion in other threads. The universe indeed seems to be a paradox and more we have explored it the more is the evidence that it defies our logical minds and it is appearing in different ways depending on the choice of method we are adopting to measure it.

 

 

First of all the things you are linking to are highly disputed, second exactly what knowledge has been gained by any of this stuff? Don't make me read three novels to find out, what is specifically is this knowledge and can it be confirmed in any other way and of what use is this knowledge?

[iNow]

My larger point is that you cannot reasonably and in good faith remain a theist if you are intellectually honest.

I have to disagree with this, i think it is possible to be less than objective in one part of your life and still be totally honest in other aspects.

 

I personally believe that Ann and Nancy Wilson Rock Band Heart are the best entertainers on the planet, I will admit if pressed that others may not agree and in fact some might even assert that they are not even worthy of the name entertainers, but to me it is irrelevant, it is honestly what I believe.

What you've described, though, Moontanman, is a preference... not a belief.

But what is a preference if not a belief?

The distinction is probably more subtle than I was thinking at first, and I don't think my previous argument was all that strong, so I'm not inclined to belabor this.

 

I'll just say I think it's a bit different to believe that a given band is the best ever than to believe that an invisible sky dictator is watching over us and judging us for thought crimes, and that one version of this ethereal sky pixie is in any way more compelling than some other version of omnipotent bully accepted by people on the other side of the planet or throughout the history of humankind.

 

 

When I say you cannot be an intellectually honest theist, it's because it requires you to approach the world with a double standard. When you get to the root of theistic belief, believers have nothing but their personal faith to support it. They may rationalize, and pick and choose facts or historical evidence to prop up those beliefs, but it's really just faith and nothing else when you strip away the distractions.

 

However, this is wildly inconsistent when you think about it for even a brief moment. Somehow faith is all that it takes to believe what they want to believe, yet they reject the beliefs of others who also use faith to believe something different. It's not faith they prize, it's the ability to continue holding their personal beliefs despite the lack of (and often contradictory) evidence or ability to falsify them. More so, they don't use faith to accept things in the material realm... They rely on (and generally mandate) evidence for everything. They approach the entire rest of the world in the exact same way I'm proposing they approach their beliefs. Yet... they suspend this requirement for evidence or falsifiability when it comes to their personal beliefs... they carve out an exception for their belief, even though they don't do this anywhere else in their lives, and even though the faith of someone else is not a good enough reason to accept differing beliefs.

 

This is a hypocritical double standard, and this is why I say you cannot be an intellectually honest theist. You can be an intelligent theist. You can be a thoughtful theist. You can be a well-read, mostly logical, reasonable theist... but you cannot be an intellectually honest theist if you continue to hold your extraordinary beliefs without (not even extraordinary evidence, but without) even a single shred of evidence whatsoever.