Asperger's/Autism; a spiritual condition?

Post Reply New Topic

...basically science can't disprove the existence of God then?

I'm not "playing dumb" or being arrogant, but, that really just whittles down to semantics doesn't it? Because the point still stands that, as you put it, "one cannot disprove the proposition 'God exists'", regardless of a lack of empirical content.

So even "at best", in the eyes of those who don't believe in God, the proposition that He exists can't be disproven, just as much as it can't be proven?

ruveyn, there's the thing, nobody is disagreeing with the dependence of qualia on physical causes. The issue is that this dependence does not mean that qualia are themselves material, but rather are non-physical. We can argue about how qualia emerge from atoms, but the issue is that qualia are not themselves atoms, thus if Democritus is right, then he is right despite our first person perceptions.

Well, the "not even wrong" comment pretty much sums up the scientific stance on the God proposition: it's not just that science can't disprove God's existence, it's that as far as rational investigation is concerned there is no content to the proposition whatsoever. It's completely vacuous.

There is no proof that emotions exist other than the reactions that people have from them and maybe the brain scans where we see certain parts of the brain become active during certain emotional responses. Emotions are not tangible. They are not atoms. Maybe they are a sort of energy though.

The same can be true for people undergoing a spiritual experience. I think it was Dussel who pointed out that a certain region of the brain becomes more active during a mystical sort of experience. The spirit that we feel and call God is probably not tangible and may not be up of atoms.

Most of the universe is empty space right? At least that is how we see it. It does seem like all that empty space would be unnecessary if that is all it really is.
Every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe.

But the gaping holes that I spoke of earlier, ie the origins of the universe and so on.. they pose questions that science can't answer, so regardless of whether the proposition that God exists can be proven or disproven, or even has any "empirical content", doesn't just discredit the notion of God outright.

Was it the existence of Babylon that was cast in the same light? I'm not sure but I think it was existence of Babylon that so-called intellectuals disputed because there was nothing but the testimony of the bible as evidence of it, up until the remains were found?

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not sure which biblical place it is, but I'm sure someone reading this will clarify it for me quite soon and in quite a direct manner if I'm mistaken...

Thanks warface

Yeah, thanks warface. That is such a funny name.

There are some pretty profound posts here.

I like the fact that even though there is fundamental disagreement... there are things said in debates like this that truly make me pause for thought . Profound is definetly the best way to describe it.

I think that goes towards saying us aspies might not agree on much, if anything at all a lot of the time lol, and I may not even agree with the evolution theory.. but we're capable of contributing so much in the way of observation, thought and ideas .

The burden of proof lies with the one who asserts the existence of something. If you say X exists, then produce evidence for the existence of X.

ruveyn

Right, this is it though isn't it.. I - believer - assert/state/propose that the cause of the universe coming in to existence is a God and that said God continues to be the metaphysical force behind the continued existence and sustenance of the universe He/She/It created.. the proof being the effects of that cause, namely, the existence of the universe, and the continued sustenance of it..

And your - disbeliever - response, just like other athiests who rely upon science, logic and reason is to not only not being able to disprove said proposition, but you're unable to offer an alternative to said proposition.

Going back to what was said earlier, the proposition that there is a God, in itself does not have any "empirical content", but, it still stands that you cannot offer an alternative reason for the origins of existence and continued sustenance of it. Fine, you can offer explanations for almost everything in between and you can even make a song and dance about how your ability to come to such conclusions far outweighs the importance of those "little" gaping holes you havn't quite managed to explain..

But the proposition is still there, it hasn't been disproven and no alternative has been offered to explain the phenomena that I claim said God is the cause of.

The issue is what is considered valid evidence. I can support any proposition with an evidence, and you can argue that whatever my evidence is, it is an invalid evidence. Do we just come to blows?

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them."

Maybe this constant barrier of dialogue that has cropped up for centuries amongst all manner of individuals, trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, is simply the result of the fact we're not capable of reasoning about such a matter with complete clarity.

As a believer, I'd say that was part of the plan ..

Valid evidence is empirical and can be supported by independent third parties. That is why scientific experiments have to replicated by independent parties before the results are accepted. Evidence has to be empirical and objective to be taken seriously. Eyewitness evidence is accepted only if multiply cororberated by independent witnesses. Since eye-witness has no material component it is the lowest grade of evidence.

ruveyn

Be that as it may ruveyn, how can man's reasoning and rationale be able to fathom the very idea of God with the utmost clarity when we have minds that are trapped within what Kant would call "conceptual schemes". If this framework of reasoning and logic that is called consciousness has come into existence completely independant of us, by "controlled evolution" (if that's what would make more sense to the hardcore Darwinists) - and the source of said consciousness is God, how can we possibly understand that God with any real degree of accuracy? Using any method of reasoning or logic that we as humanity, have?

Would you be able to remember what being born was like until you witnessed another birth? No. And our awareness of just what a birth looks like or the very fact that it takes place is because we can witness it. But even if we couldn't, it still happened, because we're still here.

So, logic is not good evidence for anything, right? If this is so, then how can we have any valid evidence, if the real evidence ends up being an interpretation of our facts? Not only that, but your statement on what valid evidence is, is not self-evident, this means you have to have evidence for it. The issue is that the proper criterion for evidence is not a matter that involves ANY empiricism. Therefore, I would argue that your own stance on valid evidence has no necessary truth to it. Unless you prove it true, I do not think it must be universally accepted. Particularly given, that for an individual person, their evidence for something is rarely empirical, and only supported by third parties of questionable independence(independence is hard to determine absolutely anyway, as the notion of worldview is inescapable for the most part). If you cannot account for just belief despite not seeing the empirical evidence(have you seen an experiment on relativity or quantum physics?), then I would argue that your standard suffers a significant problem. In any case, I think you are just trying to reinvent, the Vienna school.

Only if they intend to prove it. Otherwise, there is no burden.