An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

There was a time when electromagnetism was "dark energy".

So what?

Well, for starters, EM fields were never "dark energy" and they have always shown up here on Earth, unlike your "dark energy" that evidently does not. Bad analogy.

Where did I talk about god?

Um, the moment you engaged yourself in the thread?

Anyway, general relativity describes the motion of space-time including expansion and is a well supported theory.

Not "well supported" in the lab, just "well supported" in terms of mathematical *CLAIMS* that have never been physically demonstrated. When have you ever seen "space" expand in the lab?

General relativity allows for it.

GR "allows" for anything. That doesn't mean it should be stuffed full of magic.

We are working on detecting gravitational waves and that requires excruciatingly accurate instrumentation.

That wouldn't justify your faith in "dark energy" even if we do find them.

You have to let technology develop.

So am I free to apply that same logic to this thread too?

Again, there was a time when "EM fields" were black magic, but now you want to make them do all the work.

All that has changed is technology.

The problem with your claim is that while we may not have understood EM fields originally, they have always shown up here on Earth. You're comparing metaphysical dark apples to empirical oranges.

 

[Michael]

I'd wager most physicists are hoping it relates to a new fundamental force...something that would clue us in on how to construct a simpler model for things than the standard model.

Hope springs eternal with "true believers" who live on "faith".

Barring a wholly new force, some kind of alteration to the existing forces that simplifies the standard model would be nice as well.

EM fields are the only logical known force of nature that even has a remote shot at explaining the acceleration of a plasma universe. The rest is pure speculation because nothing like "dark energy" shows up in a lab, and based on your claim, it never will either. Talk about faith in things you can never empirically demonstrate.....

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, for starters, EM fields were never "dark energy" and they have always shown up here on Earth, unlike your "dark energy" that evidently does not. Bad analogy.

On the contrary, it might very well show up but be too weak to be measured with present technology.

Um, the moment you engaged yourself in the thread?

No, the moment I engaged in the thread I was talking about "dark energy" and your misunderstanding of what scientists are saying.

Not "well supported" in the lab, just "well supported" in terms of mathematical *CLAIMS* that have never been physically demonstrated. When have you ever seen "space" expand in the lab?

It makes accurate predictions for things observable in the solar system which Newtonian gravity got wrong.

I mean, I believe Jupiter exists even if I can't recreate a gas giant in the lab.

GR "allows" for anything. That doesn't mean it should be stuffed full of magic.

It just means it could be described by the present models.

That wouldn't justify your faith in "dark energy" even if we do find them.

Well you have not justified your "EM fields" which you keep saying are different than what everyone else understands by "EM field".

So am I free to apply that same logic to this thread too?

You are welcome to.

The problem with your claim is that while we may not have understood EM fields originally, they have always shown up here on Earth. You're comparing metaphysical dark apples to empirical oranges.

Like I said, the fields due to "dark energy" may well have always shown up on Earth and simply have been (and remain) somewhat below the ability of our technology to measure.

What you mean by "shown up" is "shown up as noticable on scales relevant to humankind". However, as humans aren't particularly special there is no reason to think that everything important shows up with sufficient strength at scales humans notice.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Hope springs eternal with "true believers" who live on "faith".

Physicists are generally of the belief that the fundamental laws of nature will turn out to be simple.

The standard model isn't exactly simple and has a large number of parameters not justified by the model itself.

EM fields are the only logical known force of nature that even has a remote shot at explaining the acceleration of a plasma universe. The rest is pure speculation because nothing like "dark energy" shows up in a lab, and based on your claim, it never will either. Talk about faith in things you can never empirically demonstrate.....

No they aren't, and you haven't shown how they could be.

 

[Michael]

On the contrary, it might very well show up but be too weak to be measured with present technology.

Consider all the "assumptions" that you're now making and ask yourself if you'd let me get away with that answer in this tread as it relates to the topic of God.

You don't seem to be sure *if* we might find it, you can't tell me where it comes from. You can't be sure if we need a new force of nature, or whether it's something like an EM field. You really can't tell me much about "dark energy" and you can't show me it even exists in an empirical test. That's a lot that you expect me to simply "take on faith" don't you think? How would I go about even empirically testing your theories?

No, the moment I engaged in the thread I was talking about "dark energy" and your misunderstanding of what scientists are saying.

Well, you're on a website devoted to God and posting to a thread related to an *empirical* (as in shows up in a lab) theory about God. You had to know the topic would come up.

It makes accurate predictions for things observable in the solar system which Newtonian gravity got wrong.

The term "prediction" is misleading. Guth "postdicted' a fit, and "dark energy" is a "gap filler" that was "postdicted" to fit too. There nothing "predicted" at all. The fact that the standard BB theory of the time failed to "predict" acceleration is how "dark energy" theory started.

I mean, I believe Jupiter exists even if I can't recreate a gas giant in the lab.

You aren't trying to claim it's made of matter and energy that I can't find on the periodic table or in an ordinary science experiment are you? You're welcome to scale any *demonstrated* type of mass or energy, but you can't just "make up" stuff without empirically verifying that it actually exists before I'll let you point at the sky and claim "my new thing did it".

Well you have not justified your "EM fields" which you keep saying are different than what everyone else understands by "EM field".

First off, I am *NOT* claiming they are "different" in any way. I'm simply noting that EM fields are known (empirically demonstrated in a lab) to accelerate plasma.

You are welcome to.

Then why do you reject God again? If that same logic works for me, then I can just call it "God energy", "God matter" and "Godflation", pilfer the necessary math, and viola, we have evidence that "God" exists.

Like I said, the fields due to "dark energy" may well have always shown up on Earth and simply have been (and remain) somewhat below the ability of our technology to measure.

Ditto on God energy. You must at least see how this argument seems shallow from the perspective of a skeptic don't you?

What you mean by "shown up" is "shown up as noticable on scales relevant to humankind". However, as humans aren't particularly special there is no reason to think that everything important shows up with sufficient strength at scales humans notice.

I don't really follow the logic. In that case we can easily just "pretend" that anything and everything exists and "pretend" it doesn't interact with us and "pretend" anything we want. What's the difference then between an "imaginary" (and false) idea, and empirical physics?

 

[Michael]

Physicists are generally of the belief that the fundamental laws of nature will turn out to be simple.

Inflation isn't "simple". It defies the laws of physics as we understand them because nothing causes "space" to expand in the lab, and matter cannot travel faster than light according to Einstein's theories. "Dark energy" isn't "simple". You can't even tell me where it comes from, or how to empirically "test" the concept in the lab.

The standard model isn't exactly simple and has a large number of parameters not justified by the model itself.

Yep. It requires so many "fudge factors" to make it work right, I call it the 'Gumby" theory. You can stretch it, bend it and even make gravity do "push me-pull you" tricks.

No they aren't, and you haven't shown how they could be.

Any demonstration of plasma acceleration with an EM field demonstrates that the EM field is capable of accelerating plasma. It is *YOU* that never showed that "dark energy" is capable of accelerating a single atom.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Consider all the "assumptions" that you're now making and ask yourself if you'd let me get away with that answer in this tread as it relates to the topic of God.

You don't seem to be sure *if* we might find it, you can't tell me where it comes from. You can't be sure if we need a new force of nature, or whether it's something like an EM field. You really can't tell me much about "dark energy" and you can't show me it even exists in an empirical test. That's a lot that you expect me to simply "take on faith" don't you think? How would I go about even empirically testing your theories?

What theory?

I've said a couple of times before that as far as I'm concerned "dark energy" is simply a convenient way of saying "some physical process that we don't know what it is and requires some change to our existing models".

You can't test for "some new process, I don't know what it is".

I don't know what it is. I simply gave reasons why it isn't unreasonable to suppose there might be a new force.

After all, of the 4 fundamental forces, 2 have only really been discovered in the last century or so.

I haven't offered a theory.

Neither have you.

Well, you're on a website devoted to God and posting to a thread related to an *empirical* (as in shows up in a lab) theory about God. You had to know the topic would come up.

Well I haven't said anything about god, but you keep talking to me like I have said something, and you don't like what I said.

The term "prediction" is misleading. Guth "postdicted' a fit, and "dark energy" is a "gap filler" that was "postdicted" to fit too. There nothing "predicted" at all. The fact that the standard BB theory of the time failed to "predict" acceleration is how "dark energy" theory started.

You have to provide a description of the phenomenon before you can provide an explanation.

You aren't trying to claim it's made of matter and energy that I can't find on the periodic table or in an ordinary science experiment are you? You're welcome to scale any *demonstrated* type of mass or energy, but you can't just "make up" stuff without empirically verifying that it actually exists before I'll let you point at the sky and claim "my new thing did it".

Why do you suppose that we've already seen everything there is?

It is more likely there is plenty going on that we haven't seen.

First off, I am *NOT* claiming they are "different" in any way. I'm simply noting that EM fields are known (empirically demonstrated in a lab) to accelerate plasma.

Then you should be able to use Maxwell's Equations to explain the phenomenon.

Then why do you reject God again? If that same logic works for me, then I can just call it "God energy", "God matter" and "Godflation", pilfer the necessary math, and viola, we have evidence that "God" exists.

Where did I say anything about God?

Ditto on God energy. You must at least see how this argument seems shallow from the perspective of a skeptic don't you?

Hey, you can call it "coffee energy" for all anyone cares.

I don't really follow the logic. In that case we can easily just "pretend" that anything and everything exists and "pretend" it doesn't interact with us and "pretend" anything we want. What's the difference then between an "imaginary" (and false) idea, and empirical physics?

It simply is a way of saying there is no reason to suppose that everything in the universe may be easily seen at our scales.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Inflation isn't "simple". It defies the laws of physics as we understand them because nothing causes "space" to expand in the lab, and matter cannot travel faster than light according to Einstein's theories. "Dark energy" isn't "simple". You can't even tell me where it comes from, or how to empirically "test" the concept in the lab.

Well, I don't even know what it is.

I'm still waiting for your theory to provide testable predictions.

Yep. It requires so many "fudge factors" to make it work right, I call it the 'Gumby" theory. You can stretch it, bend it and even make gravity do "push me-pull you" tricks.

Well, no. The constants are all measured in experiments.

We'd just prefer to predict them, rather than simply to measure them.

Any demonstration of plasma acceleration with an EM field demonstrates that the EM field is capable of accelerating plasma. It is *YOU* that never showed that "dark energy" is capable of accelerating a single atom.

A plasma is a sort of high-energy gas made of charged particles.

No one doubts an EM field would accelerate it.

I'm still waiting for the demonstration of plasmas on intergalactic scales and these giant EM fields that accelerate them.

...

I find it peculiar that you keep harping the need for specific testable and verifiable models for "dark energy" when you fail to provide anything of the sort for your view.

It sounds like a double standard to me.

I still say you are yourself providing a "dark energy" theory and just giving it a different name.

 

[Michael]

Dear 3Sig,

Here's a thread I started awhile back that relates to God and my own personal beliefs related to God. Since you seem to be so interested in discussing my beliefs about God, please post your comments here (after reading the thread please) and I'll be happy to respond to them. In the mean time please don't hijack other threads to discuss my beliefs about God. This thread has all the explanations.

 

[Michael]

Please provide some sound evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any of these statements is in accord with fact or reality. Please show us that you are telling us the truth.

What evidence might suffice? I am certainly not the only human being in the whole of human history to claim to commune with God.

FYI, I thought I try to tackle some of your other comments that were related to my beliefs in this thread.

I said prayer is nothing more than ritual hand wringing used to assuage fear. Look up the meaning of assuage. Here you are confirming that your meditation (or prayer) does assuage fear.

Er, no and no. Prayer in my experience has nothing to do with fear unless of course you chose to make it about that for some reason. Secondly my statements have nothing to do with praying or meditating in that last paragraph, they are simply an acknowledgment that I do not have full control of events on Earth, prayer or no prayer. You're so interested in twisting my words to suit your perceived ideas that you don't seem to be interested in an actual "conversation" related to *MY* beliefs, just you own beliefs.

I think this claim that virtually all of Christ’s original followers were put to death and often tortured for their beliefs is just another Christian myth. Please provide some sound evidence to support that claim. Please show us that you are telling us the truth.

Do you accept that the bible is a historic document that documents human activity? If not, why not?

As for Christians today, isn’t it true that many pray to ask their God for something?

Probably. So what? Do they always get it? Do they *never* get it?

Aren’t there many Christians who pray for God to cure a disease, prevent a natural diaster, protect them from harm and other things over which they have no control?

Did that protect Jesus from physical harm?

Oh please. Atheism doesn’t think it has all the answers. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods, nothing more. It’s religious believers who are often absolutely certain they are right and have any answer for every question, even though that answer may be something worthless such as “God did it”.

The fact you used the term "worthless" already presumes that no creator exists. How do you know that is true? What motivates you to "crusade" (evangelize your beliefs) on Christian websites? Your ego can't hide and claim you aren't out here promoting your own views as "gospel". You can't use terms like "worthless" and claim to "lack beliefs". You have opinions like everyone else, and you're so confident in your beliefs that you go out crusading and evangelizing them in cyberspace. Give me a break. You're not "without opinions".

Here's a great example from your own statements:

Religions promote ignorance by stifling curiosity and by rejecting the scientific method and the findings of science.

This is clearly a gross oversimplification. It's a great example of your "beliefs". It's false of course because not all religions stifle curiosity, even if some do. Even Catholics reject YEC, so I really fail to see how you'd even apply this comment to Christianity as a whole, but of course you applied it to *ALL* religions without respect to any sense of individuality. Your whole belief system seems to be predicated on oversimplified slogans and pure evasion about your own belief systems and how they influence your "beliefs".

This very thread demonstrates the antithetical view religious believers such as Doveaman, AoS and you take towards science. There are plenty of other examples here in these forums and elsewhere that, throughout history, religions have opposed science and hence promoted ignorance.

Individuals have various points of views and my views are not the same as his views. Now that you can read about my own views about God, how exactly is "my religion" guilty of any of the things you have claimed in this thread?

 

[Michael]

I come here for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I am interested to learn the various evasion tactics, fallacies, misapprehensions, misrepresentations and other rhetorical nonsense religious believers use so that I am better prepared to counter these in real life when I have the chance to prevent religions adversely affecting my life and the lives of others. Secondarily, it is amusing to watch religious believers squirm, duck and weave when asked to justify their unwarranted beliefs, but that amusement is tempered somewhat by the knowledge that they are probably using these same fallacious tactics on their children to shackle their minds as well.

FYI, this paragraph says volumes about your intent and your belief systems in general. Since you can't help but find fault in all forms of religious belief, you seek any excuse to find it. Does religion do no good whatsoever in your book?

 

[3sigma]

What evidence might suffice? I am certainly not the only human being in the whole of human history to claim to commune with God.

I’m asking you to provide sound evidence (evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your statement “everything in the universe is a part of God” is the truth. Can you do that? Can you even show that this God of yours exists? I don’t mean showing that the universe exists—that much is obvious—but simply calling the universe ‘God’ doesn’t mean anything. You’ve already admitted in this thread and the other thread that the universe hasn’t been shown to be aware, despite your insistence that it is aware in your OP so how are you going to prove that it is your God? Can you define your God any more coherently than simply saying everything is God? For example, what does or did your God do? Did it create the universe? If so then your God must have existed at a point when the universe didn’t exist so the universe can’t be your God.

You seem to place great stock in the fact that most people believe in a God of some sort despite a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. One simple explanation for that is that most people are insecure enough and credulous enough to allow their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.

Prayer in my experience has nothing to do with fear unless of course you chose to make it about that for some reason.

Really? So you don’t think people pray to quell their fears over something like a disease affecting them or one of their family, an impending natural disaster or something else over which they have no control?

Do you accept that the bible is a historic document that documents human activity? If not, why not?

Of course I don’t. The Bible is a collection of ancient stories—written mainly by unknown Iron Age authors—that are unsupported by sound evidence and, in some cases, contradicted by the facts. It is a self-serving religious text that encourages intolerance, cruelty and violence. That aside, I doubt that you can show any Bible verses that support your claim that “virtually all” of the apostles were put to death for their beliefs and often tortured to death.

So can you show me any sound secular evidence or even any Bible verses to support your claim or is it just another Christian myth?

Did that protect Jesus from physical harm?

Ah yes, answer a question with a question—another typical religious believer’s evasion tactic. I asked, aren’t there many Christians who pray for God to cure a disease, prevent a natural diaster, protect them from harm and other things over which they have no control? Please stop evading the question.

While we are on the topic of evading questions, how about answering my other questions about your beliefs being based on fear? Do you believe you have soul and that you will never really die? Do you have any sound evidence to support those beliefs?

The fact you used the term "worthless" already presumes that no creator exists. How do you know that is true? What motivates you to "crusade" (evangelize your beliefs) on Christian websites? Your ego can't hide and claim you aren't out here promoting your own views as "gospel". You can't use terms like "worthless" and claim to "lack beliefs". You have opinions like everyone else, and you're so confident in your beliefs that you go out crusading and evangelizing them in cyberspace. Give me a break. You're not "without opinions".

I said the answer “God did it” is worthless, not because I don’t believe your God exists, but because the unquestioning acceptance of that answer stifles further investigation. It is a worthless answer in our quest to discover the workings of the natural world. It explains nothing and predicts nothing.

I am an atheist. I simply lack belief in any gods. I have no religious beliefs. You are the one who holds unwarranted religious beliefs and I’m just asking you to justify them.

This is clearly a gross oversimplification. It's a great example of your "beliefs". It's false of course because not all religions stifle curiosity, even if some do. Even Catholics reject YEC, so I really fail to see how you'd even apply this comment to Christianity as a whole, but of course you applied it to *ALL* religions without respect to any sense of individuality.

I said religions, not all religions so no, not all religions stifle curiosity, but the two main religions, Christianity and Islam, certainly do. Over time, Christianity appears to have been the worst offender, though, recently, Islam seems to be doing its best to catch up.

Individuals have various points of views and my views are not the same as his views. Now that you can read about my own views about God, how exactly is "my religion" guilty of any of the things you have claimed in this thread?

You are a Christian, right? So Christianity is your religion, correct? Do you really need me to point out the ways in which Christianity has opposed science? Here are just a few examples. Right now, Christians are trying to have creationism taught in public school science classes to the detriment of children’s education. Christians oppose stem cell research. Christians reject the theory of evolution and all of the science supporting it. Why do Christians do these things? They do them due to the teachings of Christianity. Christianity opposes science.

FYI, this paragraph says volumes about your intent and your belief systems in general. Since you can't help but find fault in all forms of religious belief, you seek any excuse to find it. Does religion do no good whatsoever in your book?

What good does religion do? Well, it provides emotional comfort by quelling anxiety, but then so does Prozac. I can’t think of any good that religion does that couldn’t occur without religion, can you? Can you think of any good that only religion could achieve? However, I’m sure readers here can think of harm that could only be caused by religion. Sectarian violence is one example of harm caused by religions. Killing people for purely religious crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy are two more examples of harm that could only be caused by religions. So if there is no good that we would lose without religions, but there is harm caused only by religions then wouldn’t there be a net benefit to society if religions disappeared?

 

[Michael]

I’m asking you to provide sound evidence

Sound to whom? You or me? Define "sounds" and how that applies to say inflation for me.

(evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension)

Free from error? I can think of all sorts of "errors" to [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] about as it relates to standard cosmology theory. Who decides what an "error"' is, and what's the rule for determining it.

to prove beyond reasonable doubt

You'll again have to define "reasonable doubt". Who's reasoning are we talking about, yours, mine, the "consensus"? I have lots of doubts about inflation that I have articulated in these couple of threads. Are they "reasonable" in your opinion?

that your statement “everything in the universe is a part of God” is the truth. Can you do that? Can you even show that this God of yours exists?

Well, I can demonstrate the things I have demonstrated already in this thread. Did you happened to read any of them?

I think before I go into the whole speal, I'd at least like to know you've actually read the thread.

 

[Michael]

You are a Christian, right?

Right, but obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to me as it means to you.

So Christianity is your religion, correct?

No. I don't really have a "religion" in a formal sense. The closest thing you'll find is Universalist Christianity. It's not as limited as you seem to imagine.

Do you really need me to point out the ways in which Christianity has opposed science? Here are just a few examples. Right now, Christians are trying to have creationism taught in public school science classes to the detriment of children’s education.

Do *all* (including myself) "Christians" do this, or just your strawman group?

It's going to take awhile to deconstruct all your strawmen, so you might as well relax. I'll probably nibble at your post as the spirit moves me.

You'll have to get over your desire to lump me into some mythical brand of "Christianity" that you're all POD about. I'm not that kind of "Christian" evidently. I have no problem with empirical science, and if fact I'm more "conservative" about it than you are in all probability.

 

[Michael]

Really? So you don’t think people pray to quell their fears over something like a disease affecting them or one of their family, an impending natural disaster or something else over which they have no control?

You seem to assume that *ALL* prayer is related to fear or driven by fear. In fact your whole "show" here seems to be predicated upon pure oversimplification followed by liberal doses of verbal intolerance for anything you don't like. What's up with that? What kind of debate tactic is that?

I don't sit and pray for those things. I tend to meditate more than I pray and I tend to pray for enlightenment when I pray for myself. I guess you could argue that I'm afraid of ignorance.

Of course I don’t.

Then you're just another atheist "fundy", no better than the flip side theistic fundy that claims the whole book is "gospel". You can't reject the whole book (the most printed book in human history by the way) as a historical document and expect me to take you seriously.

 

[Michael]

In reference to: Did that protect Jesus from physical harm?
Ah yes, answer a question with a question—another typical religious believer’s evasion tactic. I asked, aren’t there many Christians who pray for God to cure a disease, prevent a natural diaster, protect them from harm and other things over which they have no control? Please stop evading the question.

I answered your strawman "question" already. I don't know of any "Christians" (personally) that actually believes that their prayers will protect them from all harm and all bad things that might happen to them in life. Most Christians I know assume that the world is here to teach them something about themselves or about the world. You're the only one insisting that that all prayer is fear driven and designed to somehow control the universe or something. There's nobody I know that prays like that.

While we are on the topic of evading questions,

The only one evading anything in our conversations is you. You ran from the questions about inflation and dark energy and you literally hijacked a thread to go on crusade against an individual belief system related to God. Get over your aggression and take that chip off your shoulder. You'll feel better when you do.

how about answering my other questions about your beliefs being based on fear?

Again with the fear thing?

Do you believe you have soul and that you will never really die?

I believe that this physical body will certainly die. I don't believe that awareness dies.

Do you have any sound evidence to support those beliefs?

Do past life history studies and near death experiences count as evidence? Who decides what is "sound" evidence?

I said the answer “God did it” is worthless,

That's part of your "belief system" by the way. It turns out that atheists have "beliefs" and hold beliefs just like theists.

not because I don’t believe your God exists, but because the unquestioning acceptance of that answer stifles further investigation.

How? In what way is investigation stifled in my "religion" as spelled out in this thread? You're still tilting at windmills of your own creation.

It is a worthless answer in our quest to discover the workings of the natural world.

How do you *KNOW* that God isn't a part of the natural world? You sure make a lot of assumptions about nature and about God for an atheist.

 

[Michael]

I am an atheist. I simply lack belief in any gods. I have no religious beliefs.

Actually, that's not true. You seem to hold the belief that all religious beliefs are bad, and you seem to think your own lack of experience is somehow more valid that the experiences of every other human being that ever lived. That quite a few "beliefs" you have going on there. How did you know this:

You are the one who holds unwarranted religious beliefs and I’m just asking you to justify them.

What exactly are my "religious beliefs" as you define them, and how do you know (with such certainty no less) that they are "unwarranted"?

 

[3sigma]

Sound to whom? You or me? Define "sounds" and how that applies to say inflation for me.
…
Free from error? I can think of all sorts of "errors" to [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] about as it relates to standard cosmology theory. Who decides what an "error"' is, and what's the rule for determining it.
…
You'll again have to define "reasonable doubt". Who's reasoning are we talking about, yours, mine, the "consensus"? I have lots of doubts about inflation that I have articulated in these couple of threads. Are they "reasonable" in your opinion?

I’m sorry, but if you don’t know by now what ‘sound’ means, what errors are and how to determine that you’ve made them or what ‘reasonable’ means then there is probably no point in continuing this conversation and it is no surprise that you believe the nonsense you do.

Well, I can demonstrate the things I have demonstrated already in this thread. Did you happened to read any of them?

Yes, I have now read all of your posts in this thread and the overwhelming impression they give is that you are credulous, evasive, lacking in critical thinking skills and impervious to reason. You apparently believe that your God is the universe and that the universe is alive and aware, but you have no sound evidence to support those beliefs. When asked to provide sound evidence, you behave evasively. You appear to base your beliefs on assumptions, false correlations, appeals to popularity and other logical fallacies. When those errors are pointed out to you, you fail to correct them. Again, there is probably no point in continuing this conversation with you.

Let me point out a few more errors on your part.

Do *all* (including myself) "Christians" do this, or just your strawman group?

I said Christians, not all Christians. Saying “Christians” (plural) just means more than one. You are the one creating the straw man. Besides, my point was not how many Christians oppose science, but that they do it due to the teachings of Christianity.

You seem to assume that *ALL* prayer is related to fear or driven by fear.

I said people pray to quell their fears. That doesn’t mean all prayer is to quell fears or even that all people pray to quell their fears. You are exhibiting a commonly seen tendency in religious believers to tend towards absolutes and extremes. You also evaded my question. I didn’t ask about your prayers; I asked if you thought other people didn’t pray for things like relief or protection from diseases, natural diasters or something else over which they have no control.

Then you're just another atheist "fundy", no better than the flip side theistic fundy that claims the whole book is "gospel". You can't reject the whole book (the most printed book in human history by the way) as a historical document and expect me to take you seriously.

I told you why I don’t think the Bible is reliable. It contains ridiculous stories that are plainly contradicted by reality. That you seem to think it is reliable even though it contains stories of talking plants and animals, a global flood that didn’t occur, someone coming back to life after being dead for days and grown men walking unaided on water makes me take you less seriously (if that’s possible). I note that you also can’t resist using another argument from popularity. Being the most printed book in human history doesn’t make the Bible any more reliable. It’s just a testament to people’s credulity.

I don't know of any "Christians" (personally) that actually believes that their prayers will protect them from all harm and all bad things that might happen to them in life. Most Christians I know assume that the world is here to teach them something about themselves or about the world. You're the only one insisting that that all prayer is fear driven and designed to somehow control the universe or something. There's nobody I know that prays like that.

There you go again, extrapolating to extremes. I didn’t say people pray to protect themselves from all harm and all bad things. I’m also not insisting that all prayer is fear driven. Talk about straw men. Just answer the question. Have you never heard of people praying for relief or protection from disease, natural disasters or something else of which they have no control? Let me ask you some more questions about this. Do you think prayer achieves anything other than providing emotional comfort to those praying. Do you think that if what people pray for comes to pass that it was as a result of their prayer being acted upon by your God, their God or any other god?

I believe that this physical body will certainly die. I don't believe that awareness dies.

Please provide us with some sound evidence to support your belief that awareness doesn’t die with your body. Do you really think that people’s unsupported hope that there is awareness after death has nothing to do with a fear of death? How would you feel if it was proved to you beyond all doubt that death is the complete and permanent end to your existence?

Do past life history studies and near death experiences count as evidence?

Of course they don’t count as sound evidence. Have they been tested and verified? When past life histories are investigated, they turn out to be false.

Why on Earth would you think that what someone reports seeing when his or her brain is malfunctioning is a reliable indicator of anything? Are you really that credulous? These people are near death. Their brains are starved of oxygen and dying. Besides that, they haven’t actually died. These are near death experiences not after death experiences. Please provide us with some sound evidence to show that people have had or could have after death experiences. Oh, and please don’t come back with some weak claim about someone who was declared clinically dead for a few minutes. I’m talking about someone whose body has died and begun to decompose. I’m guessing you hope your awareness will last beyond that.

How? In what way is investigation stifled in my "religion" as spelled out in this thread?

I can’t answer that for your “religion” which appears to be based on renaming the universe as God for no sound reason. However, mainstream Christianity certainly has been shown to stifle scientific investigation, as does Islam at the moment. If we all simply accepted “God did it” as the answer to every unknown and never investigated any further then we would all still be bashing rocks together and living in caves.

How do you *KNOW* that God isn't a part of the natural world?

I don’t know that. I just don’t believe it because there isn’t a single shred of sound evidence to show that it is part of the natural world. I’m willing to change my mind if you can produce enough sound evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real. If you cannot understand my position then ask yourself this question, “How do you know that Santa Claus isn’t a part of the natural world?”

You seem to hold the belief that all religious beliefs are bad, and you seem to think your own lack of experience is somehow more valid that the experiences of every other human being that ever lived.

This is another ridiculous straw man argument. Additionally, these wouldn’t be religious beliefs.

What exactly are my "religious beliefs" as you define them, and how do you know (with such certainty no less) that they are "unwarranted"?

It isn’t up to me to define them. You hold them so you need to define them to us. However, simply renaming the universe as God is meaningless. You would need to define your God more clearly by describing its capabilities and actions. For example, there is my earlier question, which you’ve evaded. Did your God create the universe? Does your God answer prayers?

You have given us some of your religious beliefs in this thread. For example, you [post=54129207]believe[/post] your God wants unconditional love and attention from us, that it loves us unconditionally, that there is a heaven and that awareness persists after death. None of those beliefs are warranted in the sense that there is no proof of the authenticity or truth of them. Your religious beliefs are unwarranted.

 

[Michael]

I’m sorry, but if you don’t know by now what ‘sound’ means, what errors are and how to determine that you’ve made them or what ‘reasonable’ means then there is probably no point in continuing this conversation and it is no surprise that you believe the nonsense you do.

Um, be specific. What exactly is it that I "believe" that believe to be "nonsense". Secondly, you'll have to accept that human interpretation is "subjective", not "objective". What might seem "sound" to me, might not seem sound to you personally. Then what?

Yes, I have now read all of your posts in this thread and the overwhelming impression they give is that you are credulous, evasive, lacking in critical thinking skills and impervious to reason.

Now that you've villianized me in every conservative way, how about being less evasive and a being a little more specific. Which of my statements did you take exception to and why.

You apparently believe that your God is the universe and that the universe is alive and aware, but you have no sound evidence to support those beliefs.

What is "sound" evidence to you personally? I have evidence that the universe is electrical in nature just like the human body. I have evidence that humans have professed to commune with God since the dawn of recorded human civilization. What exactly counts of "evidence"? What is "unsound" in my arguments?

When asked to provide sound evidence, you behave evasively.

Oh boloney. It's you that are being evasive. Your whole argument seems to be based on ridicule at this point. You'll have to get specific.

You appear to base your beliefs on assumptions, false correlations, appeals to popularity and other logical fallacies.

Which statements? Which beliefs? You can't just throw vague stones in my direction and expect me to take you seriously. How long is this thread? 50 pages? You've read it all, so surely you can be specific, right?

When those errors are pointed out to you, you fail to correct them. Again, there is probably no point in continuing this conversation with you.

So essentially your whole speal here is a personal "hit and run" tactic, more akin to trollish behavior than real conversation, is that it? Yawn.

Let me point out a few more errors on your part.

I said Christians, not all Christians. Saying “Christians” (plural) just means more than one. You are the one creating the straw man. Besides, my point was not how many Christians oppose science, but that they do it due to the teachings of Christianity.

Um, no. They do it for whatever "personal"" reasons they chose to do so, but it has nothing to do with the whole "religion" called "Christianity". Muslims do it too, even atheists go anti science sometimes, particularly when trying to control a nation of people. You're blaming a single religion for the sins of individuals. Most "Catholics" (largest single group of "Christians") for instance do not believe in YEC. How are they "anti-science"?

I said people pray to quell their fears. That doesn’t mean all prayer is to quell fears or even that all people pray to quell their fears. You are exhibiting a commonly seen tendency in religious believers to tend towards absolutes and extremes.

This comes from the guy that won't even recognize the Bible as a legitimate source of human history! You're the single hardest "fundy" that exists in atheism my friend.

You also evaded my question. I didn’t ask about your prayers; I asked if you thought other people didn’t pray for things like relief or protection from diseases, natural diasters or something else over which they have no control.

I'm sure they do. I'm sure they pray for a Mercedes too. So what? People pray for lots of things.

I told you why I don’t think the Bible is reliable. It contains ridiculous stories that are plainly contradicted by reality.

It contains historical fact too!
Hezekiah's Tunnel (BiblePlaces.com)

Nothing like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You're simply the atheistic flip side of "fundy".

That you seem to think it is reliable

I certainly think PARTS of it are reliable.

even though it contains stories of talking plants and animals,

Do Animals Talk?

a global flood that didn’t occur,

Well, a regional flood could certainly "seem" global to an isolated enough community. IMO whole story is ripoff of Gilgamesh.

someone coming back to life after being dead for days

Some people were dead for several days

and grown men walking unaided on water

I used to have a great picture of me "walking on a sandbar" in the middle of lake. It's a fun picture.

makes me take you less seriously (if that’s possible).

First of all, don't confuse *ME* with a book. I also didn't ask you if it was 100% reliable, I simply asked you if you accepted it as a valid historical human document. You went all "fundy" about it.

I note that you also can’t resist using another argument from popularity. Being the most printed book in human history doesn’t make the Bible any more reliable. It’s just a testament to people’s credulity.

It's a testament to the life of a man named Jesus too isn't it? What makes you more of an expert on God that say Jesus?

There you go again, extrapolating to extremes. I didn’t say people pray to protect themselves from all harm and all bad things. I’m also not insisting that all prayer is fear driven.

Well, then we seem to agree on that point.

Do you think prayer achieves anything other than providing emotional comfort to those praying.

There have been lots of studies showing the positive health benefits of prayer. Sometimes emotional comfort can be life altering.

Please provide us with some sound evidence to support your belief that awareness doesn’t die with your body.

The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest

Do you really think that people’s unsupported hope that there is awareness after death has nothing to do with a fear of death?

Well, I sure it's connected in some cases, but even atheists and trained psychologists have NDE's.

How would you feel if it was proved to you beyond all doubt that death is the complete and permanent end to your existence?

It wouldn't matter much to me personally to be honest. I came to terms with my mortality in my late teens, early 20's. I'm certainly not afraid of non existence.

I will get to the rest of your post after I take a break.

 

[Michael]

Of course they don’t count as sound evidence. Have they been tested and verified? When past life histories are investigated, they turn out to be false.

IMO that sounds remarkably like a YEC claiming that all carbon dating test and techniques are useless because of a couple isolated examples of botched experiments.

Amazon.com: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation: Second Edition, Revised…

Why on Earth would you think that what someone reports seeing when his or her brain is malfunctioning is a reliable indicator of anything?

Malfunctioning? Even atheists report meeting God. They change their lives as a result of these 'experiences'. Evidently they were "reliable" enough for the person having the experience to drastically change their beliefs and views as a result of the experience. You again sound like you're unwilling to consider any alternative other than your own. I showed you a published peer reviewed study that ruled out all the commonly suggested causes of these events. Do you have any published study to support your views, or is it more of a handwave sort of argument?

Are you really that credulous? These people are near death. Their brains are starved of oxygen and dying.

That option was already ruled on in that Lancet study. You're reaching for any excuse without actually citing anything published to support your claim. Hmmm.

Besides that, they haven’t actually died.

Nobody claimed that they did die! Lots of them however claimed to meet God, even atheists. They change their lives as a direct result of these experience. Why? (Don't handwave, show me a published paper).

I can’t answer that for your “religion” which appears to be based on renaming the universe as God for no sound reason.

There is "sound reason" to believe that the universe is electric, aware and aware of us.

I don’t know that. I just don’t believe it because there isn’t a single shred of sound evidence to show that it is part of the natural world.

That's like a bacteria claiming there isn't a shred of (local) scientific support that it's host is part of the natural world. Give me a break. What is it that supports life in your opinion?

I’m willing to change my mind if you can produce enough sound evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real.

Translation: I get to decide exactly what constitutes as "evidence" and of course none of it will be "sound" (even I can't produce any published work to support my opinions). Sounds positively closed minded from where I sit. A billion humans claim to have a relationship with something you don't believe exists.

Demonstrate for me that inflation is "real" or dark energy is "real". I need to understand your definition of "real" in terms of what is worth investigating in a open minded fashion.

However, simply renaming the universe as God is meaningless.

No, it's not "meaningless". It's meaningless to you perhaps, but not to me, and not to any pantheist. You're simply arguing by ridicule at this point without respect to anyone's position in particular except your own.

You would need to define your God more clearly by describing its capabilities and actions.

Why? What purpose would it serve?

[QUOTE[]for example, there is my earlier question, which you’ve evaded.[/quote]

I'm get of sick and tired of the evasion claims when it's clear you haven't even bothered to read through the thread. It's boring and immature behavior on your part IMO.

Did your God create the universe?

No, God *IS* the universe.

Does your God answer prayers?

Sure, but sometimes the answer is "no".

You have given us some of your religious beliefs in this thread. For example, you [post=54129207]believe[/post] your God wants unconditional love and attention from us, that it loves us unconditionally, that there is a heaven and that awareness persists after death. None of those beliefs are warranted in the sense that there is no proof of the authenticity or truth of them. Your religious beliefs are unwarranted.

When I see you respond to the NDE study I provided and the studies by Ian Stevenson *THEN* talk to me about "no proof". There is actually "no proof" of anything. One can only provide "evidence" to support or refute an idea. The concept of "proof" is entirely subjective. Is there "proof" that Guth didn't simple make up inflation? Is there "proof" that atoms are composed of things that include Higg's Bosons?