An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Mere "say so" ain't going to cut it. May just as well claim the mechanics of the internal combustion engine instill a god "experience."

FYI, whereas EM fields evidently can trigger a "God experience", no direct link between an internal combustion engine and a 'God experience' was ever established.

 

[Michael]

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]it appears that what you may be basing your god on is merely a construct of the brain. The sense of presence, and not any real presence. [/FONT]

No, you missed an important point. It's not simply a "construct of the brain". They directly tinkered with the brain waves externally with an EM field. Essentially what they demonstrated is a viable way for an electromagnetic field to interact directly with the human brain. In other words, they demonstrated a mechanism for a living electromagnetic organism to directly change the brain patterns of a human via an external energy input.

 

[Washington]

No, you missed an important point. It's not simply a "construct of the brain". They directly tinkered with the brain waves externally with an EM field. Essentially what they demonstrated is a viable way for an electromagnetic field to interact directly with the human brain. In other words, they demonstrated a mechanism for a living electromagnetic organism to directly change the brain patterns of a human via an external energy input.

What "living electromagnetic organism" is that?

 

[Michael]

What "living electromagnetic organism" is that?

The Universe.

 

[Washington]

FYI, whereas EM fields evidently can trigger a "God experience", no direct link between an internal combustion engine and a 'God experience' was ever established.

And just how has it been determined that this experience, whatever form it may take, is derived from a god?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What "living electromagnetic organism" is that?

God, obviously .

Even if EM fields are the root cause of conciousness, and even if EM fields are a viable way for God to interact with humans, and even if there is an EM field throughout the universe... that doesn't prove the universe is God. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and has no theoretical basis other than "Well, why not?".

 

[Michael]

And just how has it been determined that this experience, whatever form it may take, is derived from a god?

You mean besides the direct testimonies of untold numbers of humans since the dawn of recorded history?

 

[Washington]

The Universe.

Obviously you have far different definitions of "living" and "organism" than any reference book I've ever seen. Be aware that such redefinitions are very common among the fringe sciences, and only serve as obfuscations. No one who knows better will be taken in by them.

 

[Michael]

God, obviously .

Even if EM fields are the root cause of conciousness, and even if EM fields are a viable way for God to interact with humans, and even if there is an EM field throughout the universe... that doesn't prove the universe is God.

No, not "yet", but seeing as how it is a viable empirical theory, it's "could be" proven true over time.

It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and has no theoretical basis other than "Well, why not?".

Not true. It "predicts" that humans will always be overwhelmingly theistic and only a tiny minority are likely to label themselves "atheists".

It predicts that events in space are not simply "random". You're being a little shortsighted IMO.

 

[Michael]

Obviously you have far different definitions of "living" and "organism" than any reference book I've ever seen. Be aware that such redefinitions are very common among the fringe sciences, and only serve as obfuscations. No one who knows better will be taken in by them.

Actually, in this case 'living organism" is all related to 'current flow' and some form of quantum "awareness' that is the sum total of all the parts and energy flows.

What exactly is 'awareness'? Why do single cell animals "hunt" food? Is awareness intrinsic to the universe itself?

 

[RealityCheck]

The Universe.

Again, there is nothing useful in this. All you're doing at this point is word substitution - equating "the universe" with "God." If that's a comforting belief for you, that's fine. But it is not useful beyond yourself or any other individual that chooses to believe this. By your own admission, this belief doesn't actually further our knowledge of the universe or help us learn anything about the universe we did not already know.

 

[Washington]

You mean besides the direct testimonies of untold numbers of humans since the dawn of recorded history?

So it all comes down to wishful thinking, does it. Lacking the science to show the ancients you speak of any differently, their only recourse was to attribute the [FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]sense of presence to [/FONT]some supernatural being. But now that we know these same apparent sensations can be artificially generated in under scientific conditions we know better than to attribute them to the supernatural. But if you feel better calling the electromagnetic generating conditions in the universe, "god," be my guest; although, it's going to be a hard sell to anyone else.

 

[Michael]

Again, there is nothing useful in this. All you're doing at this point is word substitution - equating "the universe" with "God."

That's not the case. I'm also "predicting' that the universe itself is alive and aware and aware of humans. That's a bit more than simply word substitution. It's an entirely different sort of "cosmology theory".

If that's a comforting belief for you, that's fine. But it is not useful beyond yourself or any other individual that chooses to believe this. By your own admission, this belief doesn't actually further our knowledge of the universe or help us learn anything about the universe we did not already know.

When did I say that? Did you know the universe was alive?

 

[Michael]

So it all comes down to wishful thinking, does it.

Not at all. It all comes down to empirical physics and statistic fact. Why are humans overwhelmingly theistic? Dumb luck?

Lacking the science to show the ancients you speak of any differently, their only recourse was to attribute the [FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]sense of presence to [/FONT]some supernatural being. But now that we know these same apparent sensations can be artificially generated in under scientific conditions we know better than to attribute them to the supernatural. But if you feel better calling the electromagnetic generating conditions in the universe, "god," be my guest; although, it's going to be a hard sell to anyone else.

Well, the vast majority of the planet already believes in God. I don't have to really "sell' the basic concept of a creator. Many cultures consider Earth to be sacred. I really only have to "sell" the science behind an electric universe. That seems pretty doable.

 

[Washington]

Not at all. It all comes down to empirical physics and statistic fact. Why are humans overwhelmingly theistic? Dumb luck?

Because the unknown is frightening, particularly death, and there are those who take advantage of this fear by proffering a solution in the form of religion: "Do and believe what I tell you---of course you have to "pay" me for my efforts---and I will allay your fears and guarantee you a nice time after you die.

Well, the vast majority of the planet already believes in God. I don't have to really "sell' the basic concept of a creator. Many cultures consider Earth to be sacred. I really only have to "sell" the science behind an electric universe.

Indeed you do. Happy door knocking.

 

[Michael]

Because the unknown is frightening, particularly death, and there are those who take advantage of this fear by proffering a solution in the form of religion: "Do and believe what I tell you---of course you have to "pay" me for my efforts---and I will allay your fears and guarantee you a nice time after you die.

Ya, but that overly simplistic line of thinking doesn't adequately explain folks like me that gave up their birth religion, became and atheist for many years, came to peace with the concept of non existence, and abandoned that concept too. I'm afraid atheism simply didn't account for my life experience very well, particularly after becoming an atheist.

 

[Wedjat]

Well, I suppose it could be and probably would be a distributed system, but the "thinking circuits' could be buried in the core of the sun for all I know. I don't know why their would necessarily be a delay of decades from a direct effect on Earth.

In a dispersed system the speed of any effect would be limited by the speed of light. If some sort of clustered system could have effect on earth it would either have to be on earth or suffer a delay depending on it's distance.
If you don't really know where it is or how it's affects the earth then it's not really a workable hypothesis is it?

 

[Washington]

Ya, but that overly simplistic line of thinking doesn't adequately explain folks like me that gave up their birth religion, became and atheist for many years, came to peace with the concept of non existence, and abandoned that concept too.

And I wasn't addressing folks like you. I was replying to your question about people in general, "Why are humans overwhelmingly theistic?"

 

[Michael]

In a dispersed system the speed of any effect would be limited by the speed of light. If some sort of clustered system could have effect on earth it would either have to be on earth or suffer a delay depending on it's distance.

Well, the primary energy source of EM fields in our solar system is approximately 8 minutes away, max.

If you don't really know where it is or how it's affects the earth then it's not really a workable hypothesis is it?

Well, I can probably figure out a zillion ways to measure the EM effect of the sun on Earth. I can "predict" things about the behaviors of living organisms based on this theory. I can definitely demonstrate a host of EM processes in space. What exactly do I need to demonstrate or predict to make this a viable empirical theory in your opinion?

 

[Michael]

And I wasn't addressing folks like you. I was replying to your question about people in general, "Why are humans overwhelmingly theistic?"

Then again, how can you be certain that "fear" doesn't stop atheists from embracing the concept of a "creator"? Might some have a guilty conscious? Might some simply be afraid of being ashamed? It seems as through human emotions and human ego might be behind almost any belief system.