Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[max1120]

That is all belief is, and therefore that is the most I can expect. Faith by definition is not founded in evidence.

Than you really can not say "god did it" you would have to say "I think god did it" or "I believe god did it". This would be more accurate and intellectually honest.

 

[SithDoughnut]

That is so odd. It's as if all the data points to a different universe than ours. Here on earth Christians do stuff to investigate and explore. Maybe you just hang with the wrong crowd?

Maybe I have. I've certainly found on here though that pretty much every rebuttal to an argument could be boiled down to 'Goddidit', with no further explanation.

That's possibly because in the context of a debate, any further speculation might not be based on evidence even by Christian standards, I'm not sure.

I don't want to derail this thread any further, so I made a thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436851/

I'd like it if anyone who was interested came and answered some of my questions.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can't he just let us know he is real?

See, now your the one not listening after I explained exactly how
he shows he's real. First altering of what I said, and now snow-blindness.


#2. God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.


Sure it's an instruction book. It needs to be internalized. Just do it.

 

[3sigma]

Sorry. I altered the question to fit the data I was prepared to give.

And you altered the Data you've already received to fit the conclusion that you are planning on having.

So we are both disqualified from a mutual examination of the data. I expected this, and recommend the only valid solution for cases such as this. Select your own data sources and draw your own conclusions. That's what I had to do.

You didn’t alter the questions at all. They remain exactly as they were. How does your God supposedly answer prayers? What process does it use? What is the underlying mechanism involved? What you did was evade those questions.

I haven’t altered any data for the simple reason that you are yet to provide any. Please provide some data by providing a detailed explanation of exactly how your God answers prayers along with some sound, objective evidence to support your claims. My only expectation was that you would evade the questions and, sure enough, you did. This constant evasive behaviour from Christians is one of the most annoying aspects of attempting to discuss anything with them. It seems whenever a question is asked for which you have no reasonable answer, you begin ducking and weaving and trotting out mealy-mouthed excuses. Rarely will a Christian provide a straight answer to those questions.

Neither of us is disqualified from examining any data you may provide, but first you have to provide some. And, no, making up your own data or selecting unsound, subjective evidence are not valid solutions.

I asked you how your God answers prayers and you stated that you “know exactly how it’s all done”. Was that a lie? If not then tell us what you claim you already know. Don’t think you are responding just to me. There are other readers here who may be yet to form a conclusion and who are waiting for you either to explain “exactly how it’s all done” or continue your evasive behaviour. The more evasively you behave, the more it looks like your statement was a lie.

 

[SkyWriting]

I spent years reading the instruction book, but that was all it was - an instruction book. A book telling me how to drive a car doesn't tell me how it works, likewise, a book telling me how to follow God doesn't tell me how he works.

If you say so....or not.
I've explained how you can experience how he works for yourself.
Now, as I answer your questions, I see a frantic attempt to redirect the
discussion to 10 new questions and even to a new thread.
All to evade the truth.

But how did he do it?
How did he tell the boat owner to go and make the detour?
How does this fit in to the concept of free will -
is God actually limited,
or does he just choose to be?
How limited is he?
If he isn't, then how does that fit in with the problem of evil?
Is he benevolent, or does he choose to be?
Is he forced to be a single type of God
or is he capable of deciding to not be benevolent whenever he chooses?
If he can change it, how does that affect him being 'all-loving'.

I gave you ALL the answers already.

 

[SkyWriting]

I asked you how your God answers prayers and you stated....

My Apologies Siggy,
Sith was on me for details as well.
I'll reprint.

Originally Posted by SithDoughnut
Could you do us a favour and tell us? I feel that God isn't going to pay much attention to me. I mean like the actual process, not the metaphorical stuff which is just a way of saying 'I'm taking a wild guess here'. What mechanisms does he use to answer prayers?
For one, Yes, He will answer you. He always does.
There are qualifiers, but you will have to learn what they are the hard way.
The easy way is already written out for you. Just read the instruction book again.

HOW does God accomplish miracles. I've experienced Him using two methods that often work together.

#1. He knows what you are going to need. So He makes preparations to provide you with what you need "ahead of time". So when you reach that particular point in time, your needs are met "seemingly instantly".

I first read about this in a true story of a person who felt he was being sent on a journey by the Holy Spirit. When he got to a river with no way to cross, he just prayed for God to do "Whatever". A boat appeared on the opposite side of the river and came across. The boat owner explained as they were crossing that he had felt that someone needed his boat so he made the hour trip down to the river.

#2. God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.

Those are two of the processes I've experience God using in my life.
I know of people's bones that have been healed by God and the x-rays show no breaks. But you know what? I don't believe it. It's virtually impossible for me to believe it because I wasn't there.

That's why I KNOW your intensive questioning about miracles won't work for you. That's WHY I evade the answers you seek. I believe God could heal bones, but I don't believe the story from an ex-girlfriend, because I didn't experience the situation myself.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is all belief is, and therefore that is the most I can expect. Faith by definition is not founded in evidence.

That's not the most common definition.
The most common definition could be based on experience, or reputation, or observational reality. (Coincidentally, also the simplest.)

1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

.

 

[SkyWriting]

...Don’t think you are responding just to me. There are other readers here who may be yet to form a conclusion and who are waiting for you either to explain “exactly how it’s all done” or continue your evasive behaviour. The more evasively you behave, the more it looks like your statement was a lie.

Don't bother speaking up for the imaginary people standing on the fence behind you. As if I care what your imaginary buddies think of me.

I don't claim to know what God is thinking about you do I? Get real.

 

[3sigma]

Sith was on me for details as well.
I'll reprint.

Yes, I read that when you responded to SithDoughnut, but I have the same problems with it that he has. Repeating it to me doesn’t fix those problems.

So when you reach that particular point in time, your needs are met "seemingly instantly".

How does your God supposedly meet one’s needs. What process does it use to suspend natural laws?

I first read about this in a true story of a person who felt he was being sent on a journey by the Holy Spirit. When he got to a river with no way to cross, he just prayed for God to do "Whatever". A boat appeared on the opposite side of the river and came across. The boat owner explained as they were crossing that he had felt that someone needed his boat so he made the hour trip down to the river.

In this unsupported testimonial, for example, how does your God communicate with the boat owner? SithDoughnut asked you the same question and you evaded it. Did your God call the boat owner on the phone, did it interrupt the programming on TV or the radio or did it send him a text and how did it accomplish any of those tasks from outside the observable universe? Please explain how your “God did it” and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.

I suspect you haven’t investigated that allegedly true story at all, but instead credulously took it at face value because it reinforced your comforting religious beliefs.

God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.

How does your God alter people’s prayers? Does it control their minds against their will? How does your God control people’s minds from outside the observable universe? Please explain what mechanism your God uses and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.

Again, I suspect you haven’t investigated this any further. In fact, I think you are just making up this nonsense as you go along.

You haven’t explained “exactly how it's all done” at all, even though you claimed to know that. All you’ve given us is baseless assertions about what your God did, not how your “God did it”. Please explain how your “God did it” and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.

Don't bother speaking up for the imaginary people standing on the fence behind you. As if I care what your imaginary buddies think of me.

I’m just telling you how it looks to other readers here when Christians constantly evade questions. You claimed to “know exactly how it’s all done”, but you evade every request for an explanation. The more you evade our requests, the more it looks like either that statement was a lie or you live in a world of make-believe (or perhaps both).

 

[SkyWriting]

What process does it use to suspend natural laws?

You aren't paying attention. He changes my thoughts to match is plans.
No natural laws are suspended.

How does your God alter people’s prayers? Does it control their minds against their will? How does your God control people’s minds from outside the observable universe?

Even my intention to match my will to His seems like my own effort. It's all very natural. It's at the exact moment that I choose to stop "making the effort" to accomplish something and turn over the result to Him, that my needs get met.

Sometimes its exactly what I had been looking for, and usually its far more
that I was expecting. But the timing that creates the instantaneous
answer, that's the miracle. The miracle is that He does it without breaking
any natural laws.

I suspect you haven’t investigated that allegedly true story at all, but instead credulously took it at face value because it reinforced your comforting religious beliefs.

I wasn't a believer at the time. And I didn't consider the story to have any merit other than a possible illustration of how God works. That's still my only purpose in repeating it.

In this unsupported testimonial, for example, how does your God communicate with the boat owner? SithDoughnut asked you the same question and you evaded it. Did your God call the boat owner on the phone, did it interrupt the programming on TV or the radio or did it send him a text and how did it accomplish any of those tasks from outside the observable universe? Please explain how your “God did it” and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.

Now you asking me to come up with background information from inside a story I heard 20 years ago. Your questions and requests seem to have the intended goal of me not answering them, rather than being from someone of sound mind. In fact you've basically stated that this is in fact your goal. So the questioning and experiment has been set up ahead of time with the intent of getting your expected outcome.

So like a "Scientist" to bias his efforts to achieve his desired outcome.

I’m just telling you how it looks to other readers here when Christians constantly evade questions. You claimed to “know exactly how it’s all done”, but you evade every request for an explanation. The more you evade our requests, the more it looks like either that statement was a lie or you live in a world of make-believe (or perhaps both).

Again with the imaginary fence walkers. And again more fanciful delusions about "other readers" and the thoughts you imagine them having. So all this self-talk about how the rest of the world is watching your conversation with another person is the "real world" for you? But then space and time do not exist independently of our consciousness. So maybe what's real to you is in your head.

You likely think your being rational. Christians don't run from you because you make sense. There's another answer.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So what it boils down to. is a difference in mindset.
for a christian god is the answer, and there is no need to put any more thought into it.
for a critial thinker, there must be a mechanisme by which it works, just like everything else.

and they try to find that out from the christian who doesnt have a answer outside of god-did-it, which is enough for a christian but not enough for a critial thinker. hench the arguement becomes "you dodged the question" and "you didnt like my answer" both are more or less right from the proper perspective it would seem to me.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what it boils down to. is a difference in mindset.
for a christian god is the answer, and there is no need to put any more thought into it.
for a critial thinker, there must be a mechanisme by which it works, just like everything else.

and they try to find that out from the christian who doesnt have a answer outside of god-did-it, which is enough for a christian but not enough for a critial thinker. hench the arguement becomes "you dodged the question" and "you didnt like my answer" both are more or less right from the proper perspective it would seem to me.

I guess you have it all figured out then : )

 

[3sigma]

You aren't paying attention. He changes my thoughts to match is plans.
No natural laws are suspended.

So you think an immaterial God controlling your mind from outside the observable universe doesn’t contravene any natural laws? That’s only part of it. The mere fact that you think an immaterial God is controlling your mind is reason enough not to trust what you say.

Again you evaded the question. How does your God control your mind?

Even my intention to match my will to His seems like my own effort. It's all very natural. It's at the exact moment that I choose to stop "making the effort" to accomplish something and turn over the result to Him, that my needs get met.

Sometimes its exactly what I had been looking for, and usually its far more
that I was expecting. But the timing that creates the instantaneous
answer, that's the miracle. The miracle is that He does it without breaking
any natural laws.

I have to say, the way you describe it makes it look as though your God didn’t do anything at all.

Your questions and requests seem to have the intended goal of me not answering them, rather than being from someone of sound mind. In fact you've basically stated that this is in fact your goal. So the questioning and experiment has been set up ahead of time with the intent of getting your expected outcome.

What on Earth are you talking about? I didn’t cause you to come up with that ridiculous story. When you tell someone a questionable story, a reasonable person will probably ask you to prove what you say is true. I expected you to evade my questions because for the last two years I’ve watched Christians here evade questions time and time again.

And again more fanciful delusions about "other readers" and the thoughts you imagine them having. So all this self-talk about how the rest of the world is watching your conversation with another person is the "real world" for you?

Actually, I think they are marvelling at your conversation rather than mine, but let’s ask them shall we? Are there any other non-believers here who have noticed a tendency for Christians to evade questions? What do you think of that evasive behaviour? Oh, I see one person has already noticed that tendency. I wonder how many others here have noticed.

You likely think your being rational. Christians don't run from you because you make sense. There's another answer.

There certainly are other answers. First, I think Christians run from questions about their beliefs because they can see they don’t have reasonable answers. Second, I think Christians run from questions about their beliefs because they don’t want to relinquish those comforting beliefs, which has proven to be the result when they examine them too closely.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If you say so....or not.
I've explained how you can experience how he works for yourself.
Now, as I answer your questions, I see a frantic attempt to redirect the
discussion to 10 new questions and even to a new thread.
All to evade the truth.

But how did he do it?
How did he tell the boat owner to go and make the detour?
How does this fit in to the concept of free will -
is God actually limited,
or does he just choose to be?
How limited is he?
If he isn't, then how does that fit in with the problem of evil?
Is he benevolent, or does he choose to be?
Is he forced to be a single type of God
or is he capable of deciding to not be benevolent whenever he chooses?
If he can change it, how does that affect him being 'all-loving'.

I gave you ALL the answers already.

You told me to read the Bible. The Bible does not answer any of those questions - I spent years looking for them. If I don't know anything about God, how can I be sure I'm following him? That's the issue I had when I was Christian, and it's the issue I have now.

I'm not derailing the thread - I'm on the topic exactly. 'Goddidit' is not an explanation but there appears to be one so I'm curious as to what it is.

 

[SithDoughnut]

See, now your the one not listening after I explained exactly how
he shows he's real. First altering of what I said, and now snow-blindness.

#2. God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.

The bolded phrase was what I was replying to. I'm not being snow-blind, I'm just wondering why he chooses to use such an unnecessarily complex method. If God relies upon belief, then showing that he exists doesn't do belief any good, as it turns belief into knowledge. If God doesn't require belief, why does he not show himself properly?

Sure it's an instruction book. It needs to be internalized. Just do it.

Instruction books tend not to explain much other than what the instructions are. "Believe in God" is a useless instruction unless I understand what God is, otherwise, how do I know I'm believing in the right thing?

 

[Doveaman]

The milky way is around 100,000 light years across. I cannot see how objects that are only separated by a few hundred light years are a problem.

It is the way Consensus Cosmology interprets (or misinterprets) red-shift that makes it a problem; if the red-shifts in the two objects differ, they shouldn’t be close, even if they appear to be close.

Then what is your explanation for galaxies having more gravity than their visible mass alone would predict?

Galaxies do not have “more gravity” than their visible mass alone would predict, and the fact that there is not enough visible mass to generate “more gravity” should falsify this flawed assumption.

Electromagnetism holds the galaxies together, as was demonstrated before.

Observational Evidence

• 1.1 Galactic rotation curves
• 1.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies
• 1.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
• 1.4 Cosmic microwave background
• 1.5 Sky Surveys and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
• 1.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
• 1.7 Lyman alpha forest
• 1.8 Structure formation

Since dark matter has not been verified to be real, you cannot just take an observation and claim dark matter did it. “God did it with electricity” makes more sense, because God has been verified to be real, and so has electricity.

Anomalous red-shift does not mean that our whole understanding of red-shift is thrown out the window.

It’s “anomalous” because inherent red-shift is ignored. Inherent red-shift changes the understanding.

Dark energy is an explanation as to why the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

And the idea of "expansion" is a result of a flawed interpretation of red-shift. The Universe is not expanding the way Consensus Cosmology says it is, because they do not take inherent red-shift into account when making their observations.

Could you please explain what you mean by "contradiction"?

Your quote: “the universe is acting in a manner that contradicts our understanding of gravity.”

That’s the contradiction, as well as a failed prediction in Big Bang cosmology; the universe is not acting the way Big Bang theory says it should, which effectively falsifies the theory.

Except for when we do have evidence?

Retrofitted observations is not evidence, it’s a modification of reality made to fit a dead hypothesis.

Measurements of the redshift-magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the Universe has been accelerating since the Universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the Universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy"...

Consensus interpretation of “red-shift” is flawed and therefore false, as Mr Arp demonstrated. The idea of an “expanding universe” is built upon this false premise, so that idea, too, is flawed and therefore false. Dark energy is a very poor attempt to cover up, or patch up, these many flaws so that people like you and me wouldn’t notice them.

Though I do think some of these data are intriguing, I find it amusing that mathematics has played a large role in formulating these constructs.

The mathematics is fine, just as long as it is backed up by the actual physics.

The "anomalous" red-shift objects are flying apart. How would you explain the observations?

They are flying apart, but not in the manner the Consensus says they are.The Consensus believes they are further apart than they really are, and that they should not be connected.

But it is obvious they are connected:

We have seen its effects. We can infer, based on the observations, that something is causing it.

If your interpretation of the observation is flawed (red-shift), then your “inference” will also be flawed (dark energy).

Except when he was right? Like the Theory of General Relativity.’

Einstein's “gravitational lenses” are out of focus and unnecessary.

They do see it as a sign of flaws within the theory.

No, they don’t. They see it as “anomalous” to the theory, but the theory remains sound.

The theory can change based on new evidence.

You mean the failed prediction can be exposed based on new evidence.

Kind of like how the Germ Theory of Disease changed when we discovered viruses, prions, and even genetic disease.

Yes, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, but Consensus Cosmology doesn’t.

There were problems in some of his equations, yet many of his equations have been verified through observation. Like gravitational lensing.

Nope. That idea developed because of the flawed interpretation of red-shift.

The high red-shift of the quasers is indicative that they are being "shot out" away relative to our perception of the phenomena.

Not according to the Consensus; they are too far away to be "shot out".

Gravity can affect the red-shift of an object:

The effect is very small but measurable on Earth using the Mossbauer effect and was first observed in the Pound-Rebka experiment...

What! Gravitational redshift was observed in an actual experiment! Huzzah!

What ever that “experiment” was, it doesn’t explain those "anomalous" objects above.

We like to call such instances "observational studies".

“Observational conundrums”, you mean.

So those "anomalous" red-shift objects disprove all of the other observations in support of an expanding universe?

They are no other observations that support an expanding universe, the expansion is determined by an interpretation of red-shift, a flawed interpretation.

What new explanations and formulas would you now provide to explain the other evidence that seemed to support the Big Bang?

Nothing supports the Big Bang, they are all retrofitted. According to the real evidence we observe, Big Bang never happened.

Consensus Cosmology likes to speak of “evidence” for Big Bang, but not about the many failed predictions and expectations of the Big Bang, starting with your quote: “The assumption was that eventually the collective gravity of the universe would start to slow expansion or even reverse it.”

They were wrong from the very beginning, it would seem.

Quick correction. They are considered "anomalous" under our current understanding of Big Bang cosmology.

This is because the current understanding is flawed. In Plasma Cosmology the observations are explained.

They do not fit the current Big Bang model,

They do not fit any Big Bang model that relies on a false interpretation of red-shift.

they do not falsify the entire theory.

Yes they do. Big Bang theory is based upon the exact opposite of the observations.

You really have no clue how science works do you?

Scientific Method:

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Dark matter and dark energy has never been through any observation or experimentation --- Failed.

Scientific Method:

An experiment is a cornerstone of the empirical approach to acquiring data about the world and is used in both natural sciences and social sciences. An experiment can be used to help solve practical problems and to support or negate theoretical assumptions. – Wiki.

Big Bang is filled with all kinds of unsupported theoretical assumptions --- Failed.

I think it is Consensus Cosmology who doesn’t have a clue how science works.

The term "anomalous" means "these observations cannot be explained using our current understanding of the universe. We need to make additional observations and see what happens".

In the mean time, the Big Bang is falsified until you can make sense of the observations. How about that?

Since you obviously know so much about this, predict what observations we could find if electromagnetic force holds galaxies together.

We could find galaxies being held together.

Stars are not electrically powered. Their energy comes from nuclear fusion. The electricity is caused by movement of conductive plasma, creating a dynamo.

That is what the Consensus says, but it is not what they have empirically demonstrated.

The magnetic field of a star is generated within regions of the interior where convective circulation occurs. This movement of conductive plasma functions like a dynamo, generating magnetic fields that extend throughout the star...

Do you have an actual working model of this “star” that is based on actual physics? Or is this just more assumptions?

By working model I mean:

Kristian Birkeland (above left) was a renowned Norwegian scientist and Nobel Prize nominee who set up observatories in the Arctic Circle to study the Aurora Borealis...

His theory that the aurora is due to ‘charged particle beams’ from the Sun has only recently been confirmed. Birkeland’s approach was largely experimental. He managed to reproduce sunspot behavior (inset) in his famous Terrella experiments where he applied external electrical power to a magnetized globe suspended in a near vacuum.

Significantly, his approach to science was broad, comprising observation and laboratory experimentation in addition to mathematical modelling. He was not content with a merely theoretical approach, despite having trained as a mathematician. - Electric Star.

Has your “nuclear fusion star” been verified by experiments, or are you just relying on more empty, unverified, unscientific assumptions?

Just because the Consensus said it is so doesn’t make it so, you know.

Like you, I am not one of the experts on the subject of Cosmology, and I am sure much of my understanding of it needs refining, but common sense tells me that empirical demonstrations that relies on basic principles found in Nature are far more believable than mere hypothetical assumptions that relies on dark, invisible, undetectable entities.

There are zero astronomical observations that support a universe held together by electromagnetism.

That’s because Consensus Cosmology does not recognize the electrical nature of the Universe, and they know nothing about electromagnetism in space, so they are all blind to the overwhelming evidence of it. That would explain the “zero astronomical observations”.

In Plasma Cosmology, the observations are everywhere.

So you really think that "anomalous" objects falsify all of the other observations we have made that verify our predictions?

Observations that are shoehorned into a dead hypothesis verifies nothing.

Those “anomalous’ objects are not the only things that falsified the Big Bang, the Big Bang’s many failed predictions and expectations also falsified it.

There seem to be no end to Consensus Cosmology coming across observations in space they didn’t expect, and expecting observations in space they can never come across.

 

[BananaSlug]

So... If the "electric universe" hypothesis is correct, why is the universe expanding?

From the website:
"Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance." Synopsis of The Electric Universe

So what if redshift was both a measure of distance and a measure of age?

How would "electrical universe" hypothesis account for observations of black holes that correlate with the mathematical formulas?

Einstein made the prediction that if his theory was correct, the gravitational force of an object in space would bend light. This observation was made after he developed his theory. If Einstein was wrong about general relativity, why was his prediction right, and how would the "electrical universe" explain it?

Here are some more gems from the website:
Stars are electrical “transformers” not thermonuclear devices. There are no neutron stars or Black Holes. We don't know the age of stars because the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them. Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements. We do not know the age of the Earth because radioactive clocks can be upset by powerful electric discharges.
DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. Synopsis of The Electric Universe

This whole website seems to smack of creationism, even if some of the ideas actually have merit.

 

[Nostromo]

Doveaman, why do you keep saying that science is wrong and some kind of evil ploy to mislead the people, and then wheel out your own 'scientific' evidence for your ideas?

 

[Doveaman]

So... If the "electric universe" hypothesis is correct, why is the universe expanding?

Families “expand” as more members are added to the family (great grand parents, grand parents, parents, children, grand children, great grand children, etc.) The Universe “expands” the same way as more galaxies are added. The Universe is expanding within space at a normal rate. It is not space itself expanding beyond light speed.

We need to rely on Nature for scientific guidance, and not dark matters.

From the website:
"Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance." Synopsis of The Electric Universe

So what if redshift was both a measure of distance and a measure of age?

How would "electrical universe" hypothesis account for observations of black holes that correlate with the mathematical formulas?

Mathemagic.

They are no “black holes”. No one has ever seen any. So if anyone told you they did, they would be lying, as "black holes" cannot be seen. That's why they are so "black".

The Big Bang is a gravity based model, but there is never enough gravity in the Universe to support the model (this fact alone falsifies the model), so they mathemagically create “black holes” and "dark matter" to produce all the gravity that does not exist in the Universe.

Einstein made the prediction that if his theory was correct, the gravitational force of an object in space would bend light. This observation was made after he developed his theory. If Einstein was wrong about general relativity, why was his prediction right, and how would the "electrical universe" explain it?

Mathemagic.

In a Plasma Universe, all types of light spectrums are expected, including red-shift. Many red-shifted objects are observed to be relatively nearby because of their inherent red-shift.

But Consensus Cosmology interprets red-shift as only indicative of distance. So when such objects appear to be nearby, General Relativity is invoked to create an ad hoc explanation to hide that fact. They call the ad hoc explanation "Gravitational Lensing".

This is just another example of a flawed interpretation of red-shift.

Here are some more gems from the website:
Stars are electrical “transformers” not thermonuclear devices. There are no neutron stars or Black Holes. We don't know the age of stars because the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them. Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements. We do not know the age of the Earth because radioactive clocks can be upset by powerful electric discharges.
DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. Synopsis of The Electric Universe

This whole website seems to smack of creationism, even if some of the ideas actually have merit.

That’s because God did it with electricity.

 

[SkyWriting]

Doveaman, why do you keep saying that science is wrong and some kind of evil ploy to mislead the people, and then wheel out your own 'scientific' evidence for your ideas?

You don't believe in supporting facts using the "opponents" preferred sources?