An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Everything you mentioned can said about water in shower.

Um, not unless it's an "electrical" process taking place between ionized particles traveling anywhere from say a million miles an hour (solar wind) to say the speed of light (cosmic rays). Your comparison doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. I'm comparing one electrical process (inside the brain) to another electrical discharge process taking place in space. You're comparing water flow to electrical circuits. Your analogy makes no sense IMO.

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.

The comparison of circuits to showers is what is "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.

I am not trying to actually compare "water flow" to electrical circuits. That seems to be your gig. Although in all honesty, the H in MHD theory is all related to "hydrodynamics" so there is indeed a density aspect to the theory. You'll have to move into the concept of "electrical circuits" however is you're going to talk about consciousness and awareness. Awareness seems to be directly related not simply to "water flow", but due to "circuits" *and* chemical transfers. The universe is electrically active, whereas your water is not necessarily electrically active. Something more that mere chemicals is necessary to give rise to awareness and there is a direct relationship between awareness and the flow of energy through "structures" in the animal brain. In fact awareness is *NOT* limited to simply a single type of brain, but virtually every brain in "operation".

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.

It's certainly not "random". In fact the sun has very distinct 11 year cycles that are directly related to it's 22 year magnetic field rotation. There's certainly a series of discernible patterns of energy going on out there.

What makes you think that energy transfers between stars are "random" in any way?

 

[Michael]

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

They are at the ends of the helix. It's not clear from the paper in question that they actually isolated the electrical endpoints, just the "pattern" of electrical energy called a "Birkeland current".

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".

On the contrary. It's called a "heliosphere" in terms of solar wind particles and it's called "other suns" in terms of cosmic rays. In fact in those "jets" of light speed charged particles can string galaxies together. There's really no limit the number of "circuits" that might be flowing between the structures of spacetime, but one thing is quite certain, every sun emits charged particles at high velocity.

 

[Michael]

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)

Well, I haven't actually published anything on *THIS* particular theory, so that it's a pretty good bet that it is not something that most folks have read much about.

so it follows that no real cosmologist actually believes it.

Does "accuracy" or validity have anything to do with popularity, and if so, how do you justify labeling yourself an atheist?

So this isn’t a valid scientific theory if no one in the relevant field believes it or has even heard of it.

Well, is "inflation" a "theory" of a hypothesis? Who cares what you call 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.

Well, doesn't research start with learning from the folks? First you seem to insist the work is published and in the next breath you sort of rule out the whole publishing world in terms of "research". What is up with that?

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?

I did provide some links to studies done on Buddhist monks during meditation. IMO that type of study is on the right track, but it requires a lot of funding. If you're willing to fund the research, I'm willing to do such experiments.

How would you test your “theory”? You claim “The universe is alive and aware”. How would you test that?

I would do something along the lines of the Buddhist study that looked at brainwave activity during meditation, but I would want to measure the EM fields on the OUTSIDE of the brain, not just the brain. If there is interaction between the EM fields of the universe and the human brain, that would be the most productive way to start to look for it IMO.

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.

Most folks call that "prayer" or "meditation" by the way.

What surrounds the universe? What is there outside it?

Beats me. We can only see a tiny sliver of the physical universe anyway, so how would I ever be able to "know" what is outside of 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?

IMO your totally on the wrong track. Humans have been reporting about having a living relationship with a living entity since the dawn of recorded human civilization. If you're going to "prod" the universe your best "tool" is the human brain, and we should be looking for the physical EM link near the human brain, not "outside the physical universe". It's not even rational to expect to be able to "prod" the universe from the outside from our vantage point, so what's the point in trying to "test" the idea that way?

 

[3sigma]

If you're going to "prod" the universe your best "tool" is the human brain, and we should be looking for the physical EM link near the human brain, not "outside the physical universe". It's not even rational to expect to be able to "prod" the universe from the outside from our vantage point, so what's the point in trying to "test" the idea that way?

The point is to test whether the universe is “aware” of its surroundings. You claim that “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 claim this cosmic brain is “alive and aware”, but aware of what, exactly. What is your brain aware of? It is aware of its surroundings. So how are you going to test whether the universe is aware of its surroundings? If you say it isn’t possible to test that then it isn’t looking good for your “Empirical Theory of God”, is it? It isn’t a theory if it can’t be tested.

You claim that the Sun and the stars are analogous to neurons in the brain, Are you “aware” of every single neuron within your brain? Do you know when each one dies (at your age, you’ve probably lost quite a few already)? If the Sun is analogous to a neuron then we humans—being nine orders of magnitude smaller than the Sun—are analogous to carbon nuclei. Do you know or care when any particular carbon atom in your brain combines with oxygen and is expelled from the body as carbon dioxide?

The entire human race is analogous to an invisible speck of carbon in a single neuron in your hypothetical cosmic brain so do you think this cosmic brain God of yours knows or cares whether you or anyone else lives or dies?

 

[JagDragon]

I received an email a while ago, and I'm quite entertained by this idea:

> He brooded in darkness and there was no one else.
> Not a voice, not a whisper. Not the touch of a hand. Not the warmth
> of another heart.
> Darkness.
> Solitude.
> Eternal confinement
> where all was black and silent and nothing stirred. Imprisonment
> without prior condemnation. Punishment without sin. The unbearable
> that had to be borne unless some mode of escape could be devised.
> No
> hope of rescue from elsewhere. No sorrow or sympathy or pity in
> another soul, another mind. No doors to be opened, no locks to be
> turned, no bars to be sawn apart. Only the thick, deep sable night in
> which to fumble and find nothing.
> Circle a hand to the right and
> there is nought. Sweep an arm to the left and discover emptiness
> utter and complete. Walk forward through the darkness like a blind
> man lost in a vast, forgotten hall and there is no floor, no echo of
> footsteps, nothing to bar one's path.
> He could touch and sense
> one thing only. And that was self.
> Therefore the only available
> resources with which to overcome his predicament were those secreted
> within himself. He must be the instrument of his own
> salvation.
> How?
> No problem is beyond solution. By that thesis
> science lives. Without it, science dies. He was the ultimate
> scientist. As such, he could not refuse this challenge to his
> capabilities.
> His torments were those of boredom, loneliness,
> mental and physical sterility. They were not to be endured. The
> easiest escape is via the imagination. One hangs in a strait-jacket
> and flees the corporeal trap by adventuring in a dreamland of one's
> own.
> But dreams are not enough. They are unreal and all too brief.
> The freedom to be gained must be genuine and of long duration. That
> meant he must make a stern reality of dreams, a reality so contrived
> that it would persist for all time. It must be self-perpetuating.
> Nothing less would make escape complete.
> So he sat in the great
> dark and battled the problem. There was no clock, no calendar to mark
> the length of thought. There were no external data upon which to
> compute. There was nothing, nothing except the workings within his
> agile mind.
> And one thesis: no problem is beyond solution.
> He
> found it eventually. It meant escape from everlasting night. It would
> provide experience, companionship, adventure, mental exercise,
> entertainment, warmth, love, the sound of voices, the touch of
> hands.
> The plan was anything but rudimentary. On the contrary it
> was complicated enough to defy untangling for endless aeons. It had
> to be like that to have permanence. The unwanted alternative was
> swift return to silence and the bitter dark.
> It took a deal of
> working out. A million and one aspects had to be considered along
> with all their diverse effects upon each other. And when that was
> done he had to cope with the next million. And so on . . . on . . .
> on.
> He created a mighty dream of his own, a place of infinite
> complexity schemed in every detail to the last dot and comma. Within
> this he would live anew. But not as himself. He was going to
> dissipate his person into numberless parts, a great multitude of
> variegated shapes and forms each of which would have to battle its
> own peculiar environment.
> And he would toughen the struggle to the
> limit of endurance by unthinking himself, handicapping his parts with
> appalling ignorance and forcing them to learn afresh. He would seed
> enmity between them by dictating the basic rules of the game. Those
> who observed the rules would be called good. Those who did not would
> be called bad. Thus there would be endless delaying conflicts within
> the one great conflict.
> When all was ready and prepared he
> intended to disrupt and become no longer one, but an enormous
> concourse of entities. Then his parts must fight back to unity and
> himself.
> But first he must make reality of the dream. Ah, that was
> the test!
> The time was now. The experiment must begin.
> Leaning
> forward, he gazed into the dark and said, "Let there be light."
> And
> there was light.

 

[Michael]

I received an email a while ago, and I'm quite entertained by this idea:

> He brooded in darkness and there was no one else.
> Not a voice, not a whisper. Not the touch of a hand. Not the warmth
> of another heart.
> Darkness.
> Solitude.
> Eternal confinement
> where all was black and silent and nothing stirred. Imprisonment
> without prior condemnation. Punishment without sin. The unbearable
> that had to be borne unless some mode of escape could be devised.
> No
> hope of rescue from elsewhere. No sorrow or sympathy or pity in
> another soul, another mind. No doors to be opened, no locks to be
> turned, no bars to be sawn apart. Only the thick, deep sable night in
> which to fumble and find nothing.
> Circle a hand to the right and
> there is nought. Sweep an arm to the left and discover emptiness
> utter and complete. Walk forward through the darkness like a blind
> man lost in a vast, forgotten hall and there is no floor, no echo of
> footsteps, nothing to bar one's path.
> He could touch and sense
> one thing only. And that was self.
> Therefore the only available
> resources with which to overcome his predicament were those secreted
> within himself. He must be the instrument of his own
> salvation.
> How?
> No problem is beyond solution. By that thesis
> science lives. Without it, science dies. He was the ultimate
> scientist. As such, he could not refuse this challenge to his
> capabilities.
> His torments were those of boredom, loneliness,
> mental and physical sterility. They were not to be endured. The
> easiest escape is via the imagination. One hangs in a strait-jacket
> and flees the corporeal trap by adventuring in a dreamland of one's
> own.
> But dreams are not enough. They are unreal and all too brief.
> The freedom to be gained must be genuine and of long duration. That
> meant he must make a stern reality of dreams, a reality so contrived
> that it would persist for all time. It must be self-perpetuating.
> Nothing less would make escape complete.
> So he sat in the great
> dark and battled the problem. There was no clock, no calendar to mark
> the length of thought. There were no external data upon which to
> compute. There was nothing, nothing except the workings within his
> agile mind.
> And one thesis: no problem is beyond solution.
> He
> found it eventually. It meant escape from everlasting night. It would
> provide experience, companionship, adventure, mental exercise,
> entertainment, warmth, love, the sound of voices, the touch of
> hands.
> The plan was anything but rudimentary. On the contrary it
> was complicated enough to defy untangling for endless aeons. It had
> to be like that to have permanence. The unwanted alternative was
> swift return to silence and the bitter dark.
> It took a deal of
> working out. A million and one aspects had to be considered along
> with all their diverse effects upon each other. And when that was
> done he had to cope with the next million. And so on . . . on . . .
> on.
> He created a mighty dream of his own, a place of infinite
> complexity schemed in every detail to the last dot and comma. Within
> this he would live anew. But not as himself. He was going to
> dissipate his person into numberless parts, a great multitude of
> variegated shapes and forms each of which would have to battle its
> own peculiar environment.
> And he would toughen the struggle to the
> limit of endurance by unthinking himself, handicapping his parts with
> appalling ignorance and forcing them to learn afresh. He would seed
> enmity between them by dictating the basic rules of the game. Those
> who observed the rules would be called good. Those who did not would
> be called bad. Thus there would be endless delaying conflicts within
> the one great conflict.
> When all was ready and prepared he
> intended to disrupt and become no longer one, but an enormous
> concourse of entities. Then his parts must fight back to unity and
> himself.
> But first he must make reality of the dream. Ah, that was
> the test!
> The time was now. The experiment must begin.
> Leaning
> forward, he gazed into the dark and said, "Let there be light."
> And
> there was light.

Interesting poem. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Michael]

The point is to test whether the universe is “aware” of its surroundings.

I cannot ever physically hope to test that concept. I can physically hope to test whether the universe is aware, and whether it is aware of other aware beings that it surrounds and sustains. If you're going to dream up science projects, there has to be some physical hope of actually demonstrating what you're setting out to demonstrate. I don't live outside of the universe, nor can I see the boundaries of the physical universe, so I can't test your theory, nor can I ever hope to test that theory.

You claim that “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 claim this cosmic brain is “alive and aware”, but aware of what, exactly.

It's aware of you and me and every other living and aware thing that it sustains.

What is your brain aware of?

It's aware of itself, it's parts, the parts of it's body, the function of the whole body, *AND* the external universe.

It is aware of its surroundings. So how are you going to test whether the universe is aware of its surroundings? If you say it isn’t possible to test that then it isn’t looking good for your “Empirical Theory of God”, is it? It isn’t a theory if it can’t be tested.

I can't test your concept but that doesn't mean I cannot test mine! You'll have to be a bit more imaginative about what can and cannot be physically tested. FYI, by your standards 'inflation' isn't a theory either, because you can't even create it in the lab, let alone physically demonstrate it has any ability to cause anything to "expand". How do we "test" inflation by your standards? Dark energy? Mythical brands of non baryonic matter?

You claim that the Sun and the stars are analogous to neurons in the brain, Are you “aware” of every single neuron within your brain?

I certainly might notice if some of the key ones "disappeared" one day. Is there external life in the neuron that I should be aware of?

Do you know when each one dies (at your age, you’ve probably lost quite a few already)?

Well, I can tell you I've certainly notice that I've lost a few "memories" over the years. Since my brain can and does in fact "rewire" itself and I'm not that old just yet, it's not been much of a problem. That isn't to say it couldn't become one over time.

If the Sun is analogous to a neuron then we humans—being nine orders of magnitude smaller than the Sun—are analogous to carbon nuclei. Do you know or care when any particular carbon atom in your brain combines with oxygen and is expelled from the body as carbon dioxide?

You're also talking about a brain that has the potential to be infinitely more complex and infinitely more sophisticated than a human brain. Did you account for that in your little analogy?

The entire human race is analogous to an invisible speck of carbon in a single neuron in your hypothetical cosmic brain so do you think this cosmic brain God of yours knows or cares whether you or anyone else lives or dies?

Actually that *IS* a valid question, one that only be answered by prayer and meditation IMO. It may be possible to measure the interactions between the universe and the brain at the EM field level, but IMO the prayer method is more direct and more "personal" and therefore more "convincing" on a personal level. Your mileage may vary.

 

[JagDragon]

You claim that the Sun and the stars are analogous to neurons in the brain, Are you “aware” of every single neuron within your brain? Do you know when each one dies (at your age, you’ve probably lost quite a few already)? If the Sun is analogous to a neuron then we humans—being nine orders of magnitude smaller than the Sun—are analogous to carbon nuclei. Do you know or care when any particular carbon atom in your brain combines with oxygen and is expelled from the body as carbon dioxide?

The point is that, in a universe with a cosmic being made up of the cosmos, we humans are SO INCREDIBLY INSIGNIFICANT that yes, we are analogous to tiny chemical reactions which the cosmic brain would not even think about at all, not even consider for a fleeting moment.

Also, your numbers are a little off, the sun is about 2.1*10^28 times larger (in volume) than a human, a magnitude of 28, not of 9.

 

[3sigma]

[The cosmic brain is] aware of you and me and every other living and aware thing that it sustains.

You are making a statement of fact. Please show us that this statement is the truth.

How do we "test" inflation by your standards? Dark energy? Mythical brands of non baryonic matter?

I don’t know because I’m not a cosmologist or astrophysicist. I suggest you ask one of them. However, what is the point you are trying to make here? Are you saying that if a theory hasn’t been tested then we shouldn’t believe it? If so, then I agree with you. So has your “Empirical Theory of God” been tested? You’ve indicated that it hasn’t been tested yet so should we believe it? No, of course we shouldn’t. You certainly shouldn’t be stating it baldly as fact.

I certainly might notice if some of the key ones "disappeared" one day. Is there external life in the neuron that I should be aware of?

Well, I can tell you I've certainly notice that I've lost a few "memories" over the years. Since my brain can and does in fact "rewire" itself and I'm not that old just yet, it's not been much of a problem. That isn't to say it couldn't become one over time.

The answer you are avoiding here is that you are not aware of individual neurons within your brain and whether they live or die. You only notice bulk effects so there is no sound reason to think that this cosmic brain of yours would notice whether the Sun winked out of existence or not.

You're also talking about a brain that has the potential to be infinitely more complex and infinitely more sophisticated than a human brain. Did you account for that in your little analogy?

It’s your analogy, not mine. You are the one claiming the Sun is analogous to a neuron, not me. I’m just illustrating how utterly insignificant humans are in your analogy. You have zero awareness of carbon atoms within your brain. To think that this cosmic brain of yours knows or cares whether you live or die would be the height of wishful thinking.

Actually that *IS* a valid question, one that only be answered by prayer and meditation IMO.

It may be a valid question, but praying isn’t going to provide a valid answer. How is talking to yourself going to answer anything? You may as well scatter chicken bones or read tealeaves. You call it your “Empirical Theory of God” seeking to apply a scientific patina to it, yet you think you can test it by praying. That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[3sigma]

The point is that, in a universe with a cosmic being made up of the cosmos, we humans are SO INCREDIBLY INSIGNIFICANT that yes, we are analogous to tiny chemical reactions which the cosmic brain would not even think about at all, not even consider for a fleeting moment.

It is a point that appears to be lost on Michael, but then what can one expect from someone who thinks that praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

Also, your numbers are a little off, the sun is about 2.1*10^28 times larger (in volume) than a human, a magnitude of 28, not of 9.

I was being generous by using the height of a human compared to the diameter of the Sun. You are right that if we use volume or mass, the comparison becomes even more ridiculous. Richard Dawkins provides an apt quote for how little the universe cares about us.

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

 

[JagDragon]

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Liking the quote XD

 

[Doveaman]

Richard Dawkins provides an apt quote for how little the universe cares about us.

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

And yet we are alive and breathing, having the ability to think and reason and make decisions on our own. Perhaps the purpose of our present existence in the universe is to think and reason and to make right decisions on our own. After that we may then evolve into something else that is more compatible with the universe.

 

[Michael]

And yet we are alive and breathing, having the ability to think and reason and make decisions on our own. Perhaps the purpose of our present existence in the universe is to think and reason and to make right decisions on our own. After that we may then evolve into something else that is more compatible with the universe.

 

[Michael]

You are making a statement of fact. Please show us that this statement is the truth.

I am making a statement of theory, just like the presumed existence of inflation or 'dark energy" is a presumption of mainstream cosmology theory. Can you show any empirical (here and now) connection between "inflation' and 'expansion"? Yes? No? Maybe?

I don’t know because I’m not a cosmologist or astrophysicist. I suggest you ask one of them.

FYI, I've spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists. Their basic aversion to all things "electrical' in space is why we continue to live in the "dark" ages of astronomy, where 96 percent of the universe remains "unexplained". We're living in the 'magnetic dark ages" at the moment in terms of our understanding of the universe. We can measure magnetic fields so we imagine that magnetism is the "cause". Magnetic fiels are the 'result/effect" of the currents flowing through circuits in space.

However, what is the point you are trying to make here? Are you saying that if a theory hasn’t been tested then we shouldn’t believe it?

No. Parts of GR theory still haven't been 'tested". Many parts went untested for decades before being demonstrated. If a theory *CAN NEVER* be tested however, that might be a decent reason to try an alternative approach.

If so, then I agree with you. So has your “Empirical Theory of God” been tested?

Parts of it, yes. For instance I posted links showing that external EM influences can generate what humans perceive as "spiritual" experiences. That is something that this theory would "predict".

You’ve indicated that it hasn’t been tested yet so should we believe it? No, of course we shouldn’t. You certainly shouldn’t be stating it baldly as fact.

How "baldy as fact" do cosmologists act when claiming that "inflation did it", or "dark energy did it"? When did they ever demonstrate that inflation was anything other than an imaginary entity dreamed up in a person's head?

The answer you are avoiding here is that you are not aware of individual neurons within your brain and whether they live or die. You only notice bulk effects so there is no sound reason to think that this cosmic brain of yours would notice whether the Sun winked out of existence or not.

A lot of your remaining post seems to be based on two basic fallacies. First you're *assuming* that the human brain is the "be-all-end-all" of circuitry. Since there are hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies in our little visible sliver of the universe. I fail to see how you came to that conclusion. Care to elaborate?

Your second fallacy relates to the notion that I should be aware of individual neurons when there is no indication that they are individually "aware' in the first place. There's a lot of redundancy in those two fallacies in the rest of your post so I'll just skip those parts.

The obvious bit of "evidence" I might cite is the fact that millions/billions of human beings report having a 'relationship' with a living entity, one that often interacts with them and their life. That is a "prediction" of this theory. The only way to support any theory is to see how well it jives with "reality" in terms of its useful predictive value. A null hypothesis doesn't really "predict" anything related to humans and what they claim to "experience" in terms of "God".

It may be a valid question, but praying isn’t going to provide a valid answer.

Um, how do you know that? Just because you personally "lack" such an experience, doesn't mean *EVERYONE* is obligated to have your same "lack of' experience, does it?

How is talking to yourself going to answer anything?

FYI, the whole purpose of meditation is to learn to "quiet" one's own thoughts and feelings, not to "talk to yourself'". Have you ever formally learned to meditate?

You may as well scatter chicken bones or read tealeaves. You call it your “Empirical Theory of God” seeking to apply a scientific patina to it, yet you think you can test it by praying. That is beyond ridiculous.

The fact that you think that your own personal lack of experience is the "be-all-end-all" in terms of the possible range of human experiences is the only "ridiculous" thing going on in this conversation.

 

[Michael]

The point is that, in a universe with a cosmic being made up of the cosmos, we humans are SO INCREDIBLY INSIGNIFICANT that yes, we are analogous to tiny chemical reactions which the cosmic brain would not even think about at all, not even consider for a fleeting moment.

I don't think your analogy has merit. Humans are aware of what they consider to be "lesser" life forms. They still adopt ecologically sound policies to protect other species from extinction, etc. Your notion that a macroscopic lifeform would not "care" about us due to scale is simply an "assumption" on your part. We seem to "care" about plankton levels, if only because they eventually have an effect upon us.

Also, your numbers are a little off, the sun is about 2.1*10^28 times larger (in volume) than a human, a magnitude of 28, not of 9.

I was simply noting that a macroscopic set of "circuits" would have the potential to be infinitely more complex than a human brain. I wasn't necessarily trying to be scientifically precise about relative sizes.

 

[3sigma]

FYI, I've spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists.

Have you ever formally explained your “Empirical Theory of God” to them? I suspect you haven’t, but in case you have, what did they think of it? Did they think it had merit or did they explain to you why it is wrong? If you only hawk your so-called theory in places like this, fail to publish it in peer-reviewed journals and fail to have it pass tests designed to falsify it then you will never be anything more than just another crank on the Internet.

Um, how do you know that?

Because there is no sound evidence to show that prayer does anything other than provide emotional comfort to those praying. I asked you once before whether 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, but you evaded that question. Show us that prayers are answered by your God or any other god. I suspect you will either fail to provide any sound evidence for that or evade this request.

 

[lucaspa]

It is a point that appears to be lost on Michael, but then what can one expect from someone who thinks that praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

One does not lead to the other. You've committed the fallacies of non-sequitor and ad hominem. 43% of scientists think praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

Richard Dawkins provides an apt quote for how little the universe cares about us.

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Talk about misunderstanding a quote! Dawkins is trying to say that the universe was not created -- "designed" -- by God, because the properties of the universe are supposedly antithetical to a loving, caring God. It's not a comment on the universe, but instead an atheist apologetics argument.

In the event, Dawkins' is stating his personal belief, not a conclusion from science. Dawkins cannot conclude "no purpose" from science.

As it happens, Kenneth Miller gives a convincing counter argument to Dawkins in his book Finding Darwin's God.

 

[Michael]

One does not lead to the other. You've committed the fallacies of non-sequitor and ad hominem. 43% of scientists think praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

It seems from these conversations that only 3Sig's subjective opinions matter at all as far as he's concerned, and only his own personal experiences have any merit whatsoever. Anyone that doesn't buy that concept is worthy of the ad-hom.

 

[Michael]

Have you ever formally explained your “Empirical Theory of God” to them?

Could you define "them" for me. Who are they? Other theists? Other scientists? Which ones? Electrical engineers? Biologists? Brain surgeons? Christians? Muslims? What "formal" channels would you suggest in terms of the spiritual components of this theory? The Vatican? Exactly, what formal peer process did you have in mind?

 

[lucaspa]

I am making a statement of theory, just like the presumed existence of inflation or 'dark energy" is a presumption of mainstream cosmology theory. Can you show any empirical (here and now) connection between "inflation' and 'expansion"? Yes? No? Maybe?

Yes:
2. PJE Peebles, DN Schramm, EL Turner, RG Kron, The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology. Nature, 352: 769-776, 29 Aug. 1991.
4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999.

Both of those discuss observations made today that support inflation. That is, inflation has consequences that we can observe today, such as peaks in the CBMR.

FYI, I've spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists.

I'm really skeptical of this.

Their basic aversion to all things "electrical' in space is why we continue to live in the "dark" ages of astronomy, where 96 percent of the universe remains "unexplained".

How does electricity explain things? You never go into that.

Magnetic fiels are the 'result/effect" of the currents flowing through circuits in space.

The earth has a magnetic field. Is that the result of "currents flowing through circuits in space"? And what magnetic fields in space are you referring to? Are there magnetic fields in intergalactic space? If so, please reference papers observing that.

No. Parts of GR theory still haven't been 'tested".

Which parts?

Many parts went untested for decades before being demonstrated.

So? As you admit, they are tested and supported.

If a theory *CAN NEVER* be tested however, that might be a decent reason to try an alternative approach.

It usually is. As you point out, your theory cannot be tested.

Parts of it, yes. For instance I posted links showing that external EM influences can generate what humans perceive as "spiritual" experiences. That is something that this theory would "predict".

Those experiences come from EM fields not found in nature. So they actually refute your theory, because you deal with EM fields generated by the univerese. But those don't cause spiritual experiences.

How "baldy as fact" do cosmologists act when claiming that "inflation did it", or "dark energy did it"? When did they ever demonstrate that inflation was anything other than an imaginary entity dreamed up in a person's head?

See above. Also remember that inflation does give us the universe we see today. That also counts as evidence that inflation is not completely imaginary. Lots of theories (such as early versions of String Theory) do not give the universe we see today. Michael, comparing a theory to what we already know is the first step in testing it.

The obvious bit of "evidence" I might cite is the fact that millions/billions of human beings report having a 'relationship' with a living entity, one that often interacts with them and their life. That is a "prediction" of this theory.

But it's not a unique prediction of this theory. That is, many other theories, including standard Christianity of God external to this universe. In this case your "predictive value" is worthless. Michael, in science "prediction" applies to data we have not observed yet. New data. "Predicting" something we already know does not count. Instead, what we already know becomes the first test to falsify the theory.

It's interesting that you have a double standard. You won't admit to the universe as it is as a "prediction" of inflation, but will allow it for your theory. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Of course, as it happens, inflation predicted peaks in the CMBR before they were observed.

The fact that you think that your own personal lack of experience is the "be-all-end-all" in terms of the possible range of human experiences is the only "ridiculous" thing going on in this conversation.

Well, it is ridiculous, but certainly not the only ridiculous thing.