An Empirical Theory Of God

[3sigma]

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?
…
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.
…
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?
…
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.
…
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?

Okay, here are some specific examples from this thread demonstrating that you are credulous, evasive, lacking in critical thinking skills and impervious to reason.

Credulous means ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. You said [post=54129207]here[/post] that you believe your God wants unconditional love and our attention, that it loves us unconditionally and that there is a heaven. When asked how you arrived at those conclusions, you [post=54129841]claimed[/post] that Jesus helped you. You said [post=55224328]here[/post] that you don’t believe awareness dies, meaning you believe it continues after the body is dead. Now, what sort of evidence do you have to support those beliefs? Is it substantial or certain evidence or is it slight or uncertain evidence? You haven’t yet provided any substantial or certain evidence to support those beliefs. Please do so or accept that you are credulous.

Another example of your credulity is your readiness to believe that the Bible is reliable simply because it contains some historical facts. Many works of fiction contain historical facts, but they are fiction nonetheless. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mentions London, Birmingham and other real cities and countries in his stories, but that doesn’t mean The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a historical document or that Sherlock Holmes actually existed. Given that the Bible contains obvious nonsense and claims that are contradicted by reality, it just isn’t reasonable to trust it.

Yet another example of your credulity and lack of critical thinking is your apparent belief that because people have near death experiences then awareness persists after death.

[post=54173569]Here[/post] is an example of evasion where sandwiches asked you to provide independently verifiable evidence to support your idea and you evaded that request by demanding that he define what “independently verifiable evidence” means and by asking questions in return. Needless to say, you didn’t provide any such evidence. Sandwiches later [post=54174867]asked[/post] you to give your definition of inflation and, despite his repeated requests, you evaded him [post=54175123]here[/post], [post=54175945]here[/post] and [post=54176122]here[/post]. You never did explain what you think inflation is, even though you constantly attack it in an attempt to deflect criticism of your unsupported beliefs (a tu quoque fallacy, by the way and another example of a lack of critical thinking). Sandwiches asked you again for empirical evidence that God is the universe and again you [post=54176428]evaded[/post] him by asking him to define “empirical evidence”. We see this same pattern in your responses to me. I ask you for sound evidence to support your claims and you constantly ask me to define “sound”, “errors” or “reasonable”. I’ve defined sound several times and provided you with the dictionary meaning more than once, yet you ask me to define it again in the quote above. Like many other religious believers, you behave evasively when asked to justify your unwarranted beliefs.

These last two posts of yours contain further examples of evasion. I asked if you think that if what people pray for comes to pass then it was as a result of their prayer being acted upon by your God, their God or any other god? You evaded that question. I asked you to provide some sound evidence that people have had or could have after death experiences, but you evaded that request and continued on with irrelevant near death experiences. You believe that awareness persists after death so show us some sound evidence to support that belief. Show us that people have awareness after they’ve died and been cremated.

Your OP and the examples I’ve given above demonstrate your lack of critical thinking skills and that you are impervious to reason, but they aren’t the only examples. In your OP, you make these claims.

The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in “creation”. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale.

But further on in this thread you [post=54119487]admit[/post] that there is no proof that your God is the universe and in the “Faith in Science” thread, you [post=55214728]admit[/post] that there has never been any evidence to show that the universe is aware. In fact, you even [post=54170827]admit[/post] that your entire hypothesis has never been proven true. Believing something is true when it hasn’t been proven to be true and there is no evidence to show that it is true demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

For your beliefs to be worth considering, you need to do these things:

1. Provide some sound evidence supporting your beliefs*.
2. Develop some tests for your beliefs.
3. Apply those tests.
4. Show us the test results.

* Don’t just make ridiculous assumptions like the brain exhibits electrical activity and we are aware therefore because the universe exhibits electrical activity it must also be aware or use arguments from popularity like because most people believe in a God, it must be God communicating with the human race. A simple and more plausible explanation for that second observation is that most people are insecure enough and credulous enough to allow their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.

 

[Michael]

Okay, here are some specific examples from this thread demonstrating that you are credulous, evasive, lacking in critical thinking skills and impervious to reason.

Are you ever going to own your own opinions in this conversation, or do you rely absolutely on the personal put down? You may "believe" those things are true, but they apply to your and your beliefs just as much as mine. Come down off that high horse before you hurt yourself.

Credulous means ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

Do you believe in Lambda-CDM theory? Do you believe in particle physics theory?

You said [post=54129207]here[/post] that you believe your God wants unconditional love and our attention, that it loves us unconditionally and that there is a heaven. When asked how you arrived at those conclusions, you [post=54129841]claimed[/post] that Jesus helped you.

Is there a problem with that? If I said that Einstein helped me understand Gravity, would that be a "bad" thing in your opinion? Einstein was an expert on gravity. When I wanted to understand gravity, I studied his work. Alfven was an "expert" on MHD theory. When I wanted to understand MHD theory, I bought his books and read them. I read his papers too. Jesus was an expert on God. The same thing applies. If you want to know something about God, you might start with his writings. Do you have a problem with that logic?

You said [post=55224328]here[/post] that you don’t believe awareness dies, meaning you believe it continues after the body is dead. Now, what sort of evidence do you have to support those beliefs? Is it substantial or certain evidence or is it slight or uncertain evidence?

I would assert that *ALL* evidence is actually "slight and uncertain" to some degree. Do you believe in a Higgs Boson? If so, why? Do you believe in inflation? If so why? Don't be evasive now.

You haven’t yet provided any substantial or certain evidence to support those beliefs. Please do so or accept that you are credulous.

Then what you're calling "credulous" applies to virtually all "how did we get here" theories. So what?

Another example of your credulity is your readiness to believe that the Bible is reliable simply because it contains some historical facts.

You'll have to elaborate because I'm not personally one of those "The Bible is perfect" sort of individuals. FYI, your position here is actually far harder to justify in terms of science. Even the Jesus seminar (not all theists by the way) recognized that there was a valid historical figure called Jesus that walked the earth. You're in a "fundy" category all your own and you have zip in the way of a logical reason for rejecting the historical value of the Bible.

Many works of fiction contain historical facts, but they are fiction nonetheless.

When you get older you find out that even "history books" have "political spin" in them. So what? You can't reject everything written about Hitler because you personal read two different accounts of Hitler.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mentions London, Birmingham and other real cities and countries in his stories, but that doesn’t mean The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a historical document or that Sherlock Holmes actually existed. Given that the Bible contains obvious nonsense and claims that are contradicted by reality, it just isn’t reasonable to trust it.

This is absurdly illogical. Do you have any concept of where the NT books came from, or how the Bible was put together, or are you just "winging" this now?

Yet another example of your credulity and lack of critical thinking is your apparent belief that because people have near death experiences then awareness persists after death.

Well, if you're asking me if that's "optimal" evidence, I'd certainly say no, but it is "evidence" none the less. You simply "reject" it "credulously". Even "a little" evidence to support one's cause is better than none at all in my book.

[post=54173569]Here[/post] is an example of evasion where sandwiches asked you to provide independently verifiable evidence to support your idea and you evaded that request by demanding that he define what “independently verifiable evidence” means and by asking questions in return.

The only "evasion" going on here is you evading the real issues with underhanded debate tactics by attacking the individual rather than the argument and ignoring the complexities entirely.

You are I (any two individuals) are bound to have to clarify points during the thread. That's not being "evasive", that's called "communication". Your personal attacks simply demonstrate a lack of integrity on your part.

Do you believe in inflation? Yes or no? Do you believe it's any better supported than this theory of God? Yes or no? Why?

Needless to say, you didn’t provide any such evidence. Sandwiches later [post=54174867]asked[/post] you to give your definition of inflation and, despite his repeated requests, you evaded him [post=54175123]here[/post], [post=54175945]here[/post] and [post=54176122]here[/post]. You never did explain what you think inflation is,

I have clearly stated on numerous occasions that I think it is a ad hoc gap filler, make belief nonsense created by the imagination of Alan Guth. That's what *I PERSONALLY* think inflation is. What do you think it is?

even though you constantly attack it in an attempt to deflect criticism of your unsupported beliefs (a tu quoque fallacy, by the way and another example of a lack of critical thinking).

You evidently missed the whole point of the thread. I was comparing a "big picture" concept of God with a "big picture" theory of the universe, in this case Lambda-CDM theory. I was demonstrating (and I'll be happy to demonstrate to you) that in comparison to Lambda-CDM theory, God theory is light years more "scientific" in terms of empirical physics. Inflation isn't real. It's fictional. It was created by a single individual. It had no scientific precedence. It was "made up" from day one. Is that clear enough for you in terms of my position on "inflation", or have I evaded something somehow?

 

[Michael]

I'm getting tired of all the unwarranted accusations and I'd like you to commit to a position. Do you believe that the theory promoted by cosmologists called "Lambda-CDM theory" is any more "scientific" or enjoys any more empirical support than the theory of God that I have spelled out in this thread? Yes? No? Maybe so? Explain.

 

[Michael]

Your OP and the examples I’ve given above demonstrate your lack of critical thinking skills and that you are impervious to reason, but they aren’t the only examples. In your OP, you make these claims.

Emphasis mine. FYI, this is the single most sleazy and fallacious debate tactic in the book. You are attacking the individual rather than the material. This debate "method" of yours is entirely devoid of intellectual integrity. You can't attack me in a scientific debate, just the topic, the ideas, and the *evidence* presented. You aren't doing that. You're peddling sleaze by attacking the individual. That's a pitiful debate tactic and it will have no effect on me whatsoever. You won't "win" anything that way and you're only fooling yourself you you think any differently.

But further on in this thread you [post=54119487]admit[/post] that there is no proof that your God is the universe and in the “Faith in Science” thread, you [post=55214728]admit[/post] that there has never been any evidence to show that the universe is aware.

Emphasis mine. Quote me on the bolded parts or I will have to assume you're employing the fallacy known as a "strawman", or simply lying about what I said.

I have to tel you 3Sig, you're not off to a good start if you think that this is an "honest" debate. Your whole "game" (and that is what it is) is about "personal attack", and "personal put down". That isn't scientific. That isn't logical. That's an emotional reaction on your part. If you don't like something I've presented, rebutt it with real empirical evidence, a paper, a book, something. You won't demonstrate anything to me by acting like two year old and relying on the sleaziest tricks in the book.

 

[3sigma]

I'm getting tired of all the unwarranted accusations and I'd like you to commit to a position. Do you believe that the theory promoted by cosmologists called "Lambda-CDM theory" is any more "scientific" or enjoys any more empirical support than the theory of God that I have spelled out in this thread? Yes? No? Maybe so? Explain.

And I’m sick and tired of your evasion. I’ve made no claims about Lambda-CDM theory, inflation, dark energy or the Higgs boson because I’m not familiar enough with any of them to have a valid opinion about them one way or another. Consequently, I haven’t formed a belief in them. However, this thread isn’t about my views on those subjects. This thread is about your Empirical Theory of God, your claims in your OP and your secondary claim that awareness persists after death.

If you don't like something I've presented, rebutt it with real empirical evidence, a paper, a book, something.

The simplest rebuttal to your claims is that you are yet to provide any sound evidence supporting them. In your OP, you made these claims.

The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in “creation”. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale.

You also made this claim.

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

For those beliefs to be worth considering, you need to do these things:

1. Provide some sound evidence supporting your beliefs.
2. Develop some tests for your beliefs.
3. Apply those tests.
4. Show us the test results.

Don’t just make ridiculous assumptions like the brain exhibits electrical activity and we are aware therefore because the universe exhibits electrical activity it must also be aware or use arguments from popularity like because most people believe in a God, it must be God communicating with the human race. A simple and more plausible explanation for that second observation is that most people are insecure enough and credulous enough to allow their need for emotional comfort to override their reason. Don’t try to use near death experiences as evidence that awareness persists after death. Provide us with sound evidence showing that people have awareness after they have died and been cremated.

Stop the evasion and provide evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension to show that your beliefs are the truth. If you don’t provide any sound evidence to support those claims then I’m done with this farcical conversation.

 

[Michael]

And I’m sick and tired of your evasion.

And I'm sick and tired of the childish personal attacks. We're even. You need a chill pill or something. For whatever reason you've decided to make every debate "personal" as though every scientific viewpoint is "personal". Let's see if you answered any of my questions or whether you evaded them completely, shall we?

I’ve made no claims about Lambda-CDM theory, inflation, dark energy or the Higgs boson because I’m not familiar enough with any of them to have a valid opinion about them one way or another.

So essentially you're going to evade my direct questions when it suits you. Just out of curiosity, what makes you an "expert" on God exactly? Why go on 'crusade' over a single topic when you have a whole universe of metaphysical entities to choose from?

Consequently, I haven’t formed a belief in them. However, this thread isn’t about my views on those subjects. This thread is about your Empirical Theory of God, your claims in your OP and your secondary claim that awareness persists after death.

So here we go. You're going to simply ignore the fact that all scientific beliefs can be accused of exactly what you're going to accuse me of in this thread, is that it?

The simplest rebuttal to your claims is that you are yet to provide any sound evidence supporting them. In your OP, you made these claims.

The same can be said for inflation, or that nifty new "dark energy" that suddenly rose to fame. What is the standard of evidence for any scientific discussion?

You also made this claim.


For those beliefs to be worth considering, you need to do these things:

1. Provide some sound evidence supporting your beliefs.

I did that with a published paper on NDE's that was published in the Lancet. You provided me with handwave accusations that were scientifically ruled out in the paper I cited. You provided no published rebuttal. Do you know how the scientific debate process is supposed to work, or is that "trash the messenger" style of debate your only claim to fame?

1. Develop some tests for your beliefs.

Well, in a sense I provided you with some "tests", some of which showed a direct correlation between EM influences and what humans described as "spiritual' experiences. That would be something this theory "predicts".

1. Apply those tests.

What "tests" did you apply to your handwaves about the causes of NDE's? You seem real quick to toss around accusations and real slow to abide by your own advice. I provided you with published work. What did you provide me with other than a few "personal opinions"?

1. Show us the test results.

You mean like the fact that the vast majority of the planet are theists, and only about 4-5% of humans label themselves "atheists"? You mean like those atheists that report meeting God during NDE's?

Don’t just make ridiculous assumptions like the brain exhibits electrical activity and we are aware therefore because the universe exhibits electrical activity it must also be aware

First of all I didn't say it MUST be aware, but this theory predicts an "electrical universe". There's plenty of corroborating evidence to demonstrate that it is electromagnetic in nature, much like a human brain. What physical process gives rise to consciousness if not electrical energy flowing through persistent "structures"?

or use arguments from popularity like because most people believe in a God, it must be God communicating with the human race.

Well, the fact you personally got 'left out" can't be considered the "be all, end all' of human experience, can it?

A simple and more plausible explanation for that second observation is that most people are insecure enough and credulous enough to allow their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.

What a great generalization to explain why only four percent of the population fancies themselves to be the greatest intellect in the universe, so great it has no need to explain "creation", not in terms of science or religion. You're one of a kind evidently. You don't understand Lambda theory, so what do you know about how we got here anyway?

Don’t try to use near death experiences as evidence that awareness persists after death. Provide us with sound evidence showing that people have awareness after they have died and been cremated

That was the whole point of the afterlife studies I provided and you handwaved away at.

Stop the evasion and provide evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension to show that your beliefs are the truth. If you don’t provide any sound evidence to support those claims then I’m done with this farcical conversation.

Stop with the personal assault and stick to the topic. If we're going to compare this particular theory to any "scientific" theory, current cosmology theory is a natural place to start. In terms of "evidence", what "where did we come from" theory doesn't rely on 'questionable' evidence from the perspective of a skeptic?

 

[3sigma]

If we're going to compare this particular theory to any "scientific" theory, current cosmology theory is a natural place to start.

Okay, that’s it. I give up. If you’ve convinced yourself that your Empirical Theory of God is a valid scientific theory then don’t bother posting it on a Christian website. Publish your research in peer-reviewed cosmology journals where real cosmologists can examine it and put it to the test. Then come back here and tell us how that worked out for you.

 

[Michael]

Okay, that’s it. I give up. If you’ve convinced yourself that your Empirical Theory of God is a valid scientific theory then don’t bother posting it on a Christian website. Publish your research in peer-reviewed cosmology journals where real cosmologists can examine it and put it to the test. Then come back here and tell us how that worked out for you.

Translation: You can't handle an actual "scientific" debate on this topic and since I took away your one debate trick (personal attack), you're going to high tail it out of here now.

FYI, you evaded every single direct scientific question I put to you. You provided no empirically justifiable way to compare scientific "how did we get here" types of theories. You provided *nothing* constructive to this conversation, just accusations that turned out to be projections of your own behaviors on others. You don't have a clue about how the universe came to exist or how you got here, but somehow you've decided there is no "creator" anyway, evidently based on the illusion that your own personal *LACK OF* experiences is somehow the "be-all-end-all" of all possible human experiences.

 

[lucaspa]

“The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in “creation”. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale.

So far, I haven't seen any demonstration of any circuits of the universe. In the brain you have connections between adjacent neurons. The depolarization of the membrane of one neuron causes the release of chemicals at the endplate that react with protein receptors on an adjacent neuron causing its membrane to depolarize.

The actions in the brain are not "electromagnetic" so much as electrochemical.

Awareness is therefore an intrinsic feature of the universe.

This conclusion, therefore, is unwarranted. The electromagnetic engery -- photons -- in the universe do not act at all like the electrochemical reactions in the human brain. Since your argument is based on analogy and your analogy is in error, your conclusion does not follow.

God is the sum total of everything that exists in nature and every physical thing in the universe.

That's a belief. As people have pointed out, it's the belief of pantheism. If you had stated it as a belief, I would not have any problems, but you have stated it as "fact".

The various exchanges of electromagnetic energy inside the brain provide “awareness” with a place to reside and function.

That's the fallacy. The exchange is not "electromagnetic energy", but rather electrochemical. It does not involve the exchange of photons but instead the movement of ions into and out of cells.

From the electrical discharges we observe in our own atmosphere, to the electrical discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere, to electrical discharges that generate solar wind, to high speed “cosmic rays” all the objects in space are bathed and electromagnetic energy.[/qutoe]

BUT, there are no receptors of this energy that then pass it on to specific locations. Yes, we are all bathed in the CMB but that radiation is omidirectional with no ability to convey information or do work (in the thermodynamic sense).

As we look further out into space we find that all galaxies have strong electromagnetic fields. We find evidence of “Birkeland currents” in very large structures over vast distances of spacetime.

All of these pieces of empirical evidence point us toward the possibility that everything around us is a part of a living being called God.

Unfortunately, the existence of plasma and strong electromagnetic fields does not point to the possibility of everything around us is part of a living being. There are not connections with the electromagnetic fields. As you noted, each galaxy has one, but it is not connected to nor influence the field of any other galaxy. Changes in the field of one galaxy do not cause a change in the field of another galaxy corresponding to the depolarization of one neuron causing the depolarization of an adjacent neuron. Until you have those connections, you don't have a "theory". You have, at most, a speculation. But it is a speculation contradicted by the available data, so what you have is a falsified speculation.

 

[Michael]

So far, I haven't seen any demonstration of any circuits of the universe.

Let's tackle that issue and the electrochemical issue head on then.

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in constellation of Orion
Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "slinky" they describe is called a "Birkeland current". The current flow through the orion nebula creates a magnetic field around the nebular that "pinch" the current flow into "filaments" that form a very distinctive helix shape in plasma.

The actions in the brain are not "electromagnetic" so much as electrochemical.

How isn't the solar wind process an "electrochemical" process in your opinion?

 

[Michael]

That's a belief. As people have pointed out, it's the belief of pantheism. If you had stated it as a belief, I would not have any problems, but you have stated it as "fact".

Ok.

That's the fallacy. The exchange is not "electromagnetic energy", but rather electrochemical. It does not involve the exchange of photons but instead the movement of ions into and out of cells.

I guess I'll have to wait to get your response on the solar wind question. It seems to me that the solar wind is composed of 'chemicals' moving a million miles an hour. How is that not an electrochemical transfer?

BUT, there are no receptors of this energy that then pass it on to specific locations.

That's simply untrue. Cosmic rays hit suns, they hit planets, they are "received"/absorbed by every physical thing in space.

Yes, we are all bathed in the CMB but that radiation is omidirectional with no ability to convey information or do work (in the thermodynamic sense).

From the perspective of a single neuron, the input may look pretty "omnidirectional" in some sense, but that doesn't mean that the chemical transfers convey no intelligence!

Unfortunately, the existence of plasma and strong electromagnetic fields does not point to the possibility of everything around us is part of a living being.

Of course it does. You can't simply rule out that possibility because you don't personally like it.

There are not connections with the electromagnetic fields. As you noted, each galaxy has one, but it is not connected to nor influence the field of any other galaxy.

Chandra Press Room :: Chandra Observes Cosmic Traffic Pile-Up In Energetic Quasar Jet :: November 6, 2000

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - "Death Star" Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy (12/17/2007) - Introduction

Galaxies do in fact interact electromagnetically via what is euphemistically called a "jet" from a "black hole.". The jets are light speed "current flows" of moving charged particles that sometimes string many galaxies together.

Changes in the field of one galaxy do not cause a change in the field of another galaxy corresponding to the depolarization of one neuron causing the depolarization of an adjacent neuron.

Again, that seems to be speculation on your part based on incomplete information. Let's talk about circuits in space first and establish/agree that that they exist in space and then we'll get into this neuron communication process.

 

[3sigma]

You provided no empirically justifiable way to compare scientific "how did we get here" types of theories.

I suggested that you publish your research in peer-reviewed cosmology journals so that it can be compared to other scientific theories by real cosmologists. Have you done that? If not, why not? If so, what was their response? Are there any credible scientists who believe your Empirical Theory of God?

 

[Michael]

I suggested that you publish your research in peer-reviewed cosmology journals so that it can be compared to other scientific theories by real cosmologists. Have you done that? If not, why not?

I guess it hasn't really been a high priority to me I suppose. I thought it might be a good idea to see how things went in a real debate first. Frankly I'm quite pleased at how well it's held up to scrutiny thus far.

In terms of attempting to "publish" the work in mainstream astronomy oriented publications, the real "resistance" would probably have nothing to do with the concept of God or awareness, but rather to the whole concept of electricity in space. EU theory is akin to a mainstreams version of satan I'm afraid. They have an aversion to all things 'electrical' in space. It's "magnetic" yada, yada, yada, never "electromagetic" yada yada yada.

It is an interesting idea however.

 

[3sigma]

I guess it hasn't really been a high priority to me I suppose. I thought it might be a good idea to see how things went in a real debate first. Frankly I'm quite pleased at how well it's held up to scrutiny thus far.

If you’ve never published any research in peer-reviewed cosmology journals then it is unlikely that any real cosmologists have ever seen or heard of your “Empirical Theory of God” (unless they happen to be reading this thread) so it follows that no real cosmologist actually believes it. So this isn’t a valid scientific theory if no one in the relevant field believes it or has even heard of it.

Regarding your research. Have you ever actually done any? When I say research, I don’t mean assumptions or idle speculation based on some books or web sites you may have read. I mean have you tested your “theory” by making actual observations or performing actual experiments specifically designed to falsify your “Empirical Theory of God”? Has anyone ever made such observations or performed such experiments?

How would you test your “theory”? You claim “The universe is alive and aware”. How would you test that? The way we test whether something is aware of its surroundings is by poking it in some way. We provide an external stimulus and watch for a reaction. What surrounds the universe? What is there outside it? How are you going to provide an external stimulus to the universe and watch its reaction? How are you even going to detect a stimulus that is external to the universe?

 

[lucaspa]

Let's tackle that issue and the electrochemical issue head on then.

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in constellation of Orion
Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "slinky" they describe is called a "Birkeland current". The current flow through the orion nebula creates a magnetic field around the nebular that "pinch" the current flow into "filaments" that form a very distinctive helix shape in plasma.

The diagram doesn't show any endpoints to the helix. Where are the receptors?

How isn't the solar wind process an "electrochemical" process in your opinion?

Because there isn't a set of ions flowing from outside to inside a membrane. What you have is a set of charged particles ejected from the sun. You don't have another "side".

 

[lucaspa]

I guess I'll have to wait to get your response on the solar wind question. It seems to me that the solar wind is composed of 'chemicals' moving a million miles an hour. How is that not an electrochemical transfer?

The solar wind is electrons and protons. Not "chemicals" because chemicals are entire atoms. Also, where is the membrane?

That's simply untrue. Cosmic rays hit suns, they hit planets, they are "received"/absorbed by every physical thing in space.

But those aren't specific receptors, are they? It's just what the photons happen to run into. And, there is no corresponding specific action from whatever they hit, is there? In the brain, the neurochemicals react with specific receptors, and then the receptors cause the depolarization of the next neuron. Cosmic rays striking earth, for examply, do not cause the emission of specific cosmic rays to the next planet.

As I said, your speculation is based on the Argument from Analogy and the analogy doesn't work.

From the perspective of a single neuron, the input may look pretty "omnidirectional" in some sense, but that doesn't mean that the chemical transfers convey no intelligence!

No, from the perspective of a neuron, the input is very directional. The input is coming along the axis of a particular dendrite. It is not coming from all sides of the cell.

Of course it does. You can't simply rule out that possibility because you don't personally like it. ... Galaxies do in fact interact electromagnetically via what is euphemistically called a "jet" from a "black hole.". The jets are light speed "current flows" of moving charged particles that sometimes string many galaxies together.

This has nothing with my likes and dislikes. The possibility is falsified because the network doesn't exist. Let's take your examples. A "jet" is non-specific, compared to the specific release of neurotransmitters:
"The energy emitted from the jet in 3C273 probably comes from gas that falls toward a supermassive black hole at the center of the quasar, but is redirected by strong electromagnetic fields into a collimated jet. "

Are the fields directed in a particular direction in order to react with a neighboring galaxy? NO! The second link provides an example where a neighboring galaxy just happened, by chance, to be in the path of the jet. It is the only one found. If there was a linkage like in the brain, then every jet would be aimed at a galaxy and, what's more, there would be a mechanism to track the recipient galaxy. What's more, what's the response of the receiving galaxy? Is it sending a jet to a third galaxy? NO! There is no specific network like is found in the brain.

Let's talk about circuits in space first and establish/agree that that they exist in space and then we'll get into this neuron communication process.

You are the one that initiated the neuron communication process. You said in the OP: "Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale."

You said explicitly that the "circuits" of the universe were analogous to the circuits in our brains. The analogy has to be accurate for your conclusion to be accurate. The analogy is not accurate. What is happening in the larger universe, by the data you have been providing, is nothing like what happens in our brains. You can't duck now and say "circuits exist in the universe, now we will compare them to the circuits in our brains". You already made the comparison the basis of your conclusion. If the comparison does not exist, then your conclusion does not exist.

By empircal testing comparing what happens in the universe to what happens in our brains, your empirical theory is falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

I guess it hasn't really been a high priority to me I suppose. I thought it might be a good idea to see how things went in a real debate first.

Debate isn't how you establish truth. Debate is a sport and what you find out is who is a better debator. Exposing the idea to people who try to knock holes in it is how we establish truth.

Frankly I'm quite pleased at how well it's held up to scrutiny thus far.

As far as I can tell, it's never been held up to scrutiny. It appears that you never even studied how the "circuits" of the brain work before you made your analogy. All you've done is look for support. That's not what you are supposed to do. You are supposed to look to see how you can refute/falsify the idea.

In terms of attempting to "publish" the work in mainstream astronomy oriented publications, the real "resistance" would probably have nothing to do with the concept of God or awareness, but rather to the whole concept of electricity in space. EU theory is akin to a mainstreams version of satan I'm afraid. They have an aversion to all things 'electrical' in space. It's "magnetic" yada, yada, yada, never "electromagetic" yada yada yada.

Submit and find out. See what the reviewer's comments are. You do realize that "electrical" means the exchange of electrons, right? The reason it's "electromagnetic" is because light is electromagnetic radiation -- photons, not electrons.

 

[Michael]

Debate isn't how you establish truth. Debate is a sport and what you find out is who is a better debator. Exposing the idea to people who try to knock holes in it is how we establish truth.

Well, exposing the concept to skeptics was the whole purpose of the thread. In my experience, public debate usually cuts to the chase and exposes the "holes" in the concept being debated.

As far as I can tell, it's never been held up to scrutiny. It appears that you never even studied how the "circuits" of the brain work before you made your analogy.

That's not so. I have studied the activities of the human brain, although I'm clearly not the world's foremost leading expert on the topic. What is very clear is that "electrical circuits" are an integral part of "conscious" systems. You didn't seem to appreciate the chemical transfers taking place in space from my perspective. I suppose we all have our strengths and weaknesses and nobody is an "expert" on every possible topic.

All you've done is look for support. That's not what you are supposed to do. You are supposed to look to see how you can refute/falsify the idea.

I've very intentionally let the skeptics play the role of falsifying the theory, and I have intentionally tried to refute such attempts. That isn't to say I haven't tried to falsify the theory myself in the past. It just that I want to get other opinions from other perspectives. You for instance have one set of criteria which you take exception to. Others seem to focus on different parts of the same topic. What makes it interesting from my perspective are the various perspective and how they subjectively interpret the same data.

Submit and find out. See what the reviewer's comments are.

Which publication would you suggest I submit the idea to anyway, and why? Do you think their comments would be all the radically different than what has been stated in this thread by the "skeptics" of the concept?

You do realize that "electrical" means the exchange of electrons, right?

Yes. You realize that the sun constantly moves electrons from it's surface to the heliosphere, right?

The reason it's "electromagnetic" is because light is electromagnetic radiation -- photons, not electrons.

The EM field is pretty well studied here on earth. The problem is that the influences of the EM field are not currently recognized for what they are. The mainstream still presents all these events involving moving charged particles as "magnetic" events rather than "electromagnetic" events. In fact the mainstream cosmology publications have a strong aversion to publishing anything related to 'circuits" in space. Since they can't easily measure electrical current, and can only easily measure the magnetic fields created by these currents, they simply 'dumb down" the process to "magnetism". That aversion to electrical energy in space would probably prevent many mainstream cosmology publications from publishing the work, not to mention the notion that these circuits might give rise to awareness on a macroscopic level.

 

[Michael]

The solar wind is electrons and protons. Not "chemicals" because chemicals are entire atoms.

The solar wind includes entire atoms, including helium and other materials.

Also, where is the membrane?

That's "membranes" (plural) There's a plasma membrane at the heliosphere and another one around the Earth called a "magnetosphere". Plasma was actually named "plasma" by Irving Langmuir who was captivated by it's "cell like" properties. He compared it's behaviors to the behaviors of human blood. Plasma physics has always been closely linked to biological-like processes.

But those aren't specific receptors, are they?

Aren't they? The heliosphere acts as a "receptor" for energy does it not? The magnetosphere acts as a receptor of electrical energy too does it not? Does it not "focus' that energy in highly specific and unique ways depending on the body in question?

It's just what the photons happen to run into.

There are more than just "photons" flying around in space.

And, there is no corresponding specific action from whatever they hit, is there?

If the particles in question are "charged" there sure is.

I'll complete the response after I catch up a bit at work.

 

[sandwiches]

The solar wind includes entire atoms, including helium and other materials.

That's "membranes" (plural) There's a plasma membrane at the heliosphere and another one around the Earth called a "magnetosphere". Plasma was actually named "plasma" by Irving Langmuir who was captivated by it's "cell like" properties. He compared it's behaviors to the behaviors of human blood. Plasma physics has always been closely linked to biological-like processes.

Aren't they? The heliosphere acts as a "receptor" for energy does it not? The magnetosphere acts as a receptor of electrical energy too does it not? Does it not "focus' that energy in highly specific and unique ways depending on the body in question?

There are more than just "photons" flying around in space.

If the particles in question are "charged" there sure is.

I'll complete the response after I catch up a bit at work.

Everything you mentioned can said about water in shower. The shower is a neuron and it transmits signals to my head, which acts as a receptor because it receives the water. My hair is the membrane, I guess. Nonsense.

Your fallacy is that of arguing from analogy. Just because something behaves or looks like something , doesn't mean is the same. For instance, water flows in rivers throughout earth, just like electrons flow through our brains. Doesn't mean rivers form a brain. There's specific things missing from that analogy, much as from your system to make it a brain.

For instance, in our nervous system, signals (codified messages) travel from one neuron to another. If stars are neurons, then we should be able to discern specific, discernible messages being received and then the exact same message being retransmitted by stars. And no, random matter and energy entering and being expelled by stars is not the same.