An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

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.

Let me elaborate here so it is clear where I stand on this topic. I was taught the BB theory *before* Guth stuck his inflation friend into what was to than point an "empirical" theory. There is however no 'cause/effect' relationship between Guth's mythical inflation, and the things he was trying to "explain"" with his mythical entity. Furthermore he made a number of errors in his set of assumptions, not the least of which was his notion of "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". What Guth did IMO, is to simply "stuff the gaps"" of our human ignorance with a mythical entity, akin to calling it "Godflation". At that point "science' and "religion" cease to be different in any way. They are completely based on "faith" in the "unseen' rather than science limiting itself to empirical physics. The different "brands" of "inflation" that have since been written about are nearly as numerous as the various brands of religion. Each brand has it own unique "properties", none of which can actually be confirmed by empirical experiment, but are simply "assigned" in a purely ad hoc manner to each of the various brands.

There is no longer a valid way to falsify the basic concept and no way to show any cause/effect relationships in a lab between 'Godflation" and "inflation" and the concept of expansion. Whatever mathematical models we assign to mythical forms of inflation, they will not ever show up in a lab because inflation is supposedly dead and gone. IMO it's akin to a religion that worships a dead deity. I have no interest in the concept and no "faith' in the cause/effect relationships that are being "assigned" to the various brands of inflation.

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.

IMO what they are doing is backwards engineering the observations with liberal amounts of "Godflation", and I am only interested in *EMPIRICAL* theories, things that can be "tested' in the here and now.

I'm really skeptical of this.

Oh the stories I could tell.

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

Kristian Birkeland was curious about the aurora and he was an electrical engineer by trade with numerous patents related to high energy electrical equipment designed to take nitrogen out of the atmosphere. He made a lot of money on his patents and created what was probably *the* most sophisticated set of equipment designed to study the cosmos that was ever built to that point in time. He was also a scholar and scientist and he risked his own life to take in-situ measurements from the northern polar regions during solar storms to compare with his experiments in the lab.

What Birkeland learned is that bombarding a terella (metallic sphere with an electromagnetic core) with a cathode, he could recreate the auroral activity around the poles of the sphere that looked exactly like the aurora he saw in the sky. He then of course turned his attention to where that cathode sources might be located, and then did a series of experiments related to solar activity with that same cathode/anode concept and recreated the same things we see in modern satellite images in terms of high energy solar atmospheric activity. He was *way* (100 years) ahead of his time. It took the "mainstream" 70 years to let go of Chapman's ideas and accept the electrical aspects of magnetospheric activities.

Hannes Alfven was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on MHD theory and was the first MHD expert to apply that theory to astronomy. He wrote extensively about the circuitry of space. He too was "way" ahead of his time. The mainstream is still pursuing something Alfven called "pseudoscience" rather than to address the electrical aspects of what is going on in space. If you want to understand PC/EU theory, I suggest you read Alfven's book called "Cosmic Plasma". That book and Birkeland's writings are pretty much the defining books in PC/EU theory. Alfven also wrote *hundreds* of papers on the topic, as have his students.

The earth has a magnetic field. Is that the result of "currents flowing through circuits in space"?

Well, it could, but not every magnetic field necessarily has to come externally rather than be produced internally. It's still an 'electro'magnetic process, not simply a 'magnetic' one. Birkeland's terella's typically included an "internal" (rather than external) magnetic field.

And what magnetic fields in space are you referring to?

All of them, each and every single one. With the exceptions of solids, the only way to create and sustain a magnetic field is via the use of electrical current. That is particularly true in light (and dense) plasmas, the kinds that make up most of the universe.

Are there magnetic fields in intergalactic space? If so, please reference papers observing that.

Pick any paper that describes light speed "jets" of charged particles flowing from the core of a galaxy. Those high speed charged particles are called "current flows" and they are intergalactic "Birkeland currents".

I'll tackle the rest of your post after I get another cup of coffee.

 

[Michael]

Which parts?

The term "tested" in my sentence was a bit sloppy on my part. "Confirmed by empirical experiment' would have been a better term IMO. Gravitational waves were what I had in mind. To date the LIGO experiments haven't turned up any gravitational waves, in spite of years of research.

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

The point I was trying to make is that even by my way of looking at things there is a time and a place for "faith" in "science", even when something has yet to be demonstrated (like gravity waves, or Higg's Bosons). As long as the idea *can* be empirically tested, I don't really have any problem with the concept. It's when you create and then kill something off to created events that are "far far away" that I start to become skeptical.

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

I didn't say that. I said that *parts* of this theory *can* be tested and *should* be tested to the best of our abilities. There may be things about the theory that cannot be tested yet, or tested completely, but that doesn't mean *no* part of this theory can be tested. I think you're mistaking my position and 3Sig's position.

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.

Of course they do! Every experience you think of as a "spiritual experiences" is caused by an EM field, natural or "artificial". There is a "known and demonstrated link" between what humans refer to as a "spiritual experience" and EM inputs. That's a demonstrated cause/effect process between EM fields and human spiritual "experiences'. That's not at all surprising to me or to this theory, in fact it is a "prediction" of this theory. My beef with inflation is that you cannot demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between inflation and expansion here and now, whereas I *can* demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between external EM inputs and human "spirituality".

See above. Also remember that inflation does give us the universe we see today.

Which brand of inflation are we talking about exactly? Wouldn't "Godflation" with some pilfered math give us that too? How then do we distinguish between "religion' and 'science"?

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.

You and I have very different concepts when it comes to "testing" an idea. I would take Birkeland's approach in terms of astronomy, whereas you seem perfectly happy with Chapman's purely mathematical approach to "science". Unfortunately history was on Birkeland's side of that argument.

But it's not a unique prediction of this theory.

Nether is a homogeneous layout of matter unique to Lambda-CDM theory. Alfven's "bang" theory started with the homogeneous layout of matter and never involved a "near singularity".

That is, many other theories, including standard Christianity of God external to this universe.

I can't "rule out" every other theory (except perhaps strong atheism) with that particular "observation". All I can show is that my theory "passes" or "fails" any specific observation. There are however a wealth of other 'predictions" related to this theory that are unique to this theory, including that EM influence on human "spirituality".

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.

If you intend to use those standards, you'll have to give up "guthflation" too because he never "predicted" anything that wasn't already known in terms of the homogeneous layout of matter. He "postdicted" a fit to a known observation. In fact Lambda-CDM theory is a series of "postdicted fits' with "ad hoc" entities, the last one being "dark energy".

Instead, what we already know becomes the first test to falsify the theory.

No, that data didn't "falsify" anything related to this theory, in fact it "confirms" a key prediction of the theory, the link between external EM fields and human spirituality.

It's interesting that you have a double standard. You won't admit to the universe as it is as a "prediction" of inflation,

Huh? The universe exists. *ANY* theory of spacetime "predicts" it to exist. Inflation didn't "create" this universe anymore than string theory created it, or magic created it. Whatever the physical causes might have been, they had *nothing* to do with "inflation", because there isn't any established cause/effect relationship between "expansion" and "inflation". You simply "assumed" that!

but will allow it for your theory.

No, I specifically *prohibit* anything "metaphysical" being stuffed into this theory. If I wanted to have a purely "metaphysical" theory of God, I'd just call it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" and I'd be done!.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Of course, as it happens, inflation predicted peaks in the CMBR before they were observed.

Which "peaks" are you talking about specifically, and do they require "dark energy"? If these peak matches require "dark energy", then you can't claim that "inflation" (alone) predicts them, can you?

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

I guess there is a subjective component to all belief systems. It's interesting to me that you would find this theory to be any more or less "ridiculous" to a theory that amounts to worshiping a dead inflation deity. I fail to see any connection between that dead deity and this living universe. I like my theory a *lot* better.

 

[Gracchus]

43% of scientists think praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

... and 98% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[3sigma]

43% of scientists think praying will provide a valid answer to a question.

Which only means that, at times, 43% of scientists are insecure enough and credulous enough to allow their need for emotional comfort to override their reason. Yes, some scientists believe that their God is real, but there is still zero sound evidence to support that belief and no amount of belief can make something a fact.

There is no sound evidence to show that prayer does anything other than provide emotional comfort to those praying. Let me ask you the same question that Michael has evaded, twice. Do 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? 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 you too will evade this request.

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.

Here is the full quote from Richard Dawkins.

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. 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.

It is demonstrating that either the universe is not aware of our existence or it doesn’t care about our existence or the existence of other living things. Dawkins is not stating a personal belief about the universe. He is stating what we observe about the universe right now. The conclusion is based on observations and facts.

 

[3sigma]

Could you define "them" for me.

Here we have another clear example of your evasiveness where instead of answering a question, you ask me to define something whose meaning is obvious. You stated, “FYI, I've spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists” and I asked, “Have you ever formally explained your “Empirical Theory of God” to them?” I even quoted you right before I asked the question. It should have been obvious to any reasonable and intellectually honest person that “them” refers to the astronomers and cosmologists to whom you claim to have spent a lot of time talking. There is really no way you could honestly fail to comprehend that or honestly mistake it for anything else.

What "formal" channels would you suggest in terms of the spiritual components of this theory?

By “formally explained”, I meant explained in a way that led the astronomers and cosmologists to think that you actually wanted your “Empirical Theory of God” to be taken seriously. I meant explained in enough detail that the astronomers and cosmologists could make a reasonable appraisal of its worth.

Let me rephrase my question so there should be no mistake about it. Have you ever explained your “Empirical Theory of God”—in enough detail to allow your theory’s worth to be appraised reasonably—to the astronomers and cosmologists to whom you claim to have spent a lot of time talking? I suspect you haven’t, but in case you have, what did they think of your “theory”? 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 seen as anything more than just another crank on the Internet.

As I suspected, you evaded my request for you to show us that prayers are answered by your God or any other god.

 

[corvus_corax]

... and 98% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Side thread----Funny story (at least I think so)....When I was a trainer at Sykes, I told a class (after 3 weeks of training), that 50% of the customers they would talk to would be angry, 10% would be FURIOUS, 20% would be rather sedate, and the last 20% would be completely confused. Nearly everyone in the class shook their head in the affirmative. Then I told them that 87% of the time all of those customers would take directions correctly if they were dealing with someone whom they thought was an authority...........specifically, 87% of all people simply cave in to authority. Again, the people in class shook their heads in the "Yes" fashion as if they had heard this. Then I told them that only 68% of them would use this advice to their advantage. Again, heads were nodding across the classroom. THEN I told them that 94% of statistics were made up ON THE SPOT. Heads again started nodding until they saw me nearly glaring at them. Fortunately a couple of people got the joke pretty quickly and started laughing, and eventually the entire class realized (in good humor) that they had been 'had'. Good times, good times

 

[Michael]

Here we have another clear example of your evasiveness where instead of answering a question, you ask me to define something whose meaning is obvious.

You seem to have a *very* short attention span. If all you care about are astronomers, I have already answered your question in the negative earlier in the thread. Is there any reason you keep asking the same question over and over again?

You also seem to be ignoring the point of my response entirely. This kind of scientific theory spans *many* branches of science, from biology, to electrical engineering, to cosmology. It also has a key theological component to it as well. Which scientific publication would be the "right" publication for this type of theory? Why would cosmologists be so "special" in terms of convincing them specifically? Why are they so special?

FYI, I have spend the last 5 years or so trying to get the mainstream cosmology/astronomy community to simply acknowledge the *electrical* aspects of events in space with little or no success. They are much more interested in promoting their "dark metaphysical religion" than they are interested in exploring empirical physics and "current flow". There is such an irrational aversion to "electricity" in space inside the mainstream cosmology community that it is palpable. Many astronomy/cosmology websites for instance treat PC/EU theory entirely differently than other types of theories. Most published documents today are fixated *only* on "magnetism" to the absolute exclusion of current flow, the only thing that would actually sustain a magnetic field in light plasma in the first place!

IMO there's no way that any kind of "electrically" oriented cosmology theory is going to be accepted by the mainstream at this point in time. The mainstream's aversion to all things electrical is a major problem for their community, particularly as it relates to solar physics. No electrically oriented theories *ever* see the light of day in mainstream publications. If you doubt me, just round up half dozen papers related to an electrical theme from mainstream publications over the last decade. Hannes Alfven wrote hundreds of papers on the 'circuits' found in space, but the mainstream literally ignores his work. Worse still, they continue to promote what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" (magnetic reconnection theories). They do this in spite of the fact that every electrical engineer on the planet knows that magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without an end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic "lines". I don't think you even begin to understand the complexities or politics of cosmology today. It's literally the "dark ages" of astronomy. 96% of the "mainstream" Lambda-CDM theory is composed of metaphysical entities that fail to show up in the lab. Only 4% of current cosmology theory has anything to do with the known energies and elements that can be found on the periodic table. Most of their theory is based on "faith in the unseen", not empirically demonstrated forms of matter and energy. Why should I put any faith in their unseen entities or care what they think? It's like me asking you if you've formally tried to the convert the pope to atheism. Who cares?

 

[Michael]

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 seen as anything more than just another crank on the Internet.

IMO that is a *VERY* ironic and funny comment coming from an atheist who posts to religious websites. You don't think you sound like a "crank" to theists that post here? You aren't in the minority position? Your comment is like me telling you that you're obligated to write the Pope and change the world's collective opinion, otherwise you'll forever be seen as a "crank." Who cares what other people think?

As I suspected, you evaded my request for you to show us that prayers are answered by your God or any other god.

You have *EVADED* every direct scientific question I have put to you. You have not *EVER* supported your position with a scientific study, nor have you ever demonstrated any interest in having an "honest" scientific debate. It's irrational of you to accuse me of evasion when I've been at this thread now for months and I've answered all sorts of questions related to the topic. If you want studies to support (or refute) this concept, Google it. You'll find all sorts of literature on this topic, both for and against the idea.

Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Yes, some scientists believe that their God is real, but there is still zero sound evidence to support that belief and no amount of belief can make something a fact.

Please objectively define "sound evidence" and stop being so ridiculously evasive on this issue. What is "sound evidence" and what makes it "sound"? Show me how "inflation" has "sound evidence" to support it. Show me how "dark energy" is supported by "sound evidence.". The term "sound evidence" coming from you seems to mean "evidence that I personally agree with". Is that what you mean by "sound evidence"?

 

[3sigma]

I have already answered your question in the negative earlier in the thread.

I asked three questions: “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?” Which of those did you answer in the negative earlier in the thread? Are you saying that you haven’t explained your “theory” to them or you have explained it to them and they rejected it?

Why would cosmologists be so "special" in terms of convincing them specifically? Why are they so special?

You tell me. You are the one who claims to have “spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists”. I presumed that was because your claims that “The entire physical universe is God”, “The universe is alive and aware” and “the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale” are all within their realm of expertise.

FYI, I have spend the last 5 years or so trying to get the mainstream cosmology/astronomy community to simply acknowledge the *electrical* aspects of events in space with little or no success.
…
There is such an irrational aversion to "electricity" in space inside the mainstream cosmology community that it is palpable.

I see. I suppose that answers my previous question in this post. Now you appear to be saying that you have explained your “theory” to them and they reject it.

IMO there's no way that any kind of "electrically" oriented cosmology theory is going to be accepted by the mainstream at this point in time. The mainstream's aversion to all things electrical is a major problem for their community, particularly as it relates to solar physics. No electrically oriented theories *ever* see the light of day in mainstream publications.

It seems you almost think the “mainstream” is persecuting you and other plasma cosmology proponents.

 

[3sigma]

You don't think you sound like a "crank" to theists that post here? You aren't in the minority position?

Simply being in a minority position doesn’t necessarily make one a crank. There are several other characteristics typical of a crank. Read the Crank HOWTO for an explanation. Here is the basic progression to becoming a full-blown crank.

1. Develop a wacky idea
   The HOWTO provides some examples of wacky ideas.
   
   “It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don't defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You've got to think big! You've got to do something like deny HIV causes AIDS, or relativity, or reject an entire field of biology, or deny the earth is older than 6000 years.”
   
   For example, you could deny inflation or claim that “The entire physical universe is God”.
   
   
2. Disseminate your idea
   You could do this by spending “the last 5 years or so trying to get the mainstream cosmology/astronomy community to simply acknowledge the *electrical* aspects of events in space” or by propounding your theory on “Many astronomy/cosmology websites”.
   
   
3. (Not) Responding to criticism
   The HOWTO provides some examples of how to deflect criticism.
   
   Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
   Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.
   
   Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
   Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.
   
   Accusation: "Because of X, Y, and Z, your theory is false and you're an idiot"
   Response: Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).
   
   Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
   Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.
   
   Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
   Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.
   
   You seem to be following these guidelines quite well.
   
   
4. Get persecuted
   You are progressing well, but this is one area where you need to put in more effort before you can be declared a full-blown crank.

You have *EVADED* every direct scientific question I have put to you. You have not *EVER* supported your position with a scientific study, nor have you ever demonstrated any interest in having an "honest" scientific debate.

I have answered your irrelevant questions several times. I think the last time was [post=55249789]here[/post]. However, this thread is not about inflation, dark matter, dark energy or other scientific explanations. It is about your “Empirical Theory of God” and your secondary claims. You’ve made these claims in this thread: “The entire physical universe is God”; “The universe is alive and aware”; “the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale”; your God [post=54129207]loves us unconditionally[/post]; your God [post=55240238]answers prayers[/post]; and awareness [post=55224328]persists after death[/post]. You are yet to provide any sound evidence to show that those claims are true.

If you want studies to support (or refute) this concept, Google it. You'll find all sorts of literature on this topic, both for and against the idea.

Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I’m not disputing that praying makes people feel better (so do other placebos). I asked you to show us that prayers are answered by your God or any other god. Show us that your God actually answers prayers and that it isn’t just those praying deceiving themselves into believing that.

 

[3sigma]

Please objectively define "sound evidence" and stop being so ridiculously evasive on this issue. What is "sound evidence" and what makes it "sound"?

Oh for pity’s sake, how many times do you need to be given [post=55221867]this[/post] [post=55244936]definition[/post] before you understand it? Are you really so lacking in comprehension and reason or are these repeated requests for definitions and evidence for inflation the only diversionary tactic you know? Sound evidence is evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension. There is zero sound evidence supporting the belief that gods are real.

Show me how "inflation" has "sound evidence" to support it. Show me how "dark energy" is supported by "sound evidence."

From the Crank HOWTO on not responding to criticism: “Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one”. Again, this thread is not about inflation, dark matter, dark energy or other scientific explanations. It is about your “Empirical Theory of God” and your secondary claims. You’ve made these claims in this thread: “The entire physical universe is God”; “The universe is alive and aware”; “the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale”; your God [post=54129207]loves us unconditionally[/post]; your God [post=55240238]answers prayers[/post]; and awareness [post=55224328]persists after death[/post]. You are yet to provide any sound evidence to show that those claims are true.

 

[Michael]

Simply being in a minority position doesn’t necessarily make one a crank. There are several other characteristics typical of a crank. Read the Crank HOWTO for an explanation. Here is the basic progression to becoming a full-blown crank.

1. Develop a wacky idea
   The HOWTO provides some examples of wacky ideas.
   
   “It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don't defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You've got to think big! You've got to do something like deny HIV causes AIDS, or relativity, or reject an entire field of biology, or deny the earth is older than 6000 years.”
   
   For example, you could deny inflation or claim that “The entire physical universe is God”.

For example, Guth could deny the laws of physics and posit "inflation", something that's never been seen and never been demonstrated to exist outside of human imagination.

I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better than that if you expect to call me a "crank" based on your own definitions. FYI, I didn't invent pantheism, so technically it's not even *my* idea in the first place. I'm not claiming anything "extraordinary" in terms of having invented the stuff in my head like Guth invented inflation.

Disseminate your idea

1. You could do this by spending “the last 5 years or so trying to get the mainstream cosmology/astronomy community to simply acknowledge the *electrical* aspects of events in space” or by propounding your theory on “Many astronomy/cosmology websites”.

Um you've got history standing on it's head again, and you treat "science" like religion. PC/EU theory isn't even *MY* idea either. A cathode solar system concept was first proposed by Kristian Birkeland, over 100 years ago! Alfven spent his *entire* life promoting the idea and applying MHD theory to events in space. Again, all I'm doing is promoting an alternative theory of cosmology, a theory I didn't personally create. If science can't have majority/minority positions, and that be "ok" by you, then you're simply practicing your science like a "religion", and using the term "crank" the way a "Christian" might use the term "evil' to attack one's personal credibility. Again, that's exactly the way a religion operates, but not science. FYI, I am not the only PC/EU advocate on the web, nor am I the only critic of mainstream theory. You're 0 for 2 and haven't even recognized that these are not *MY* ideas in the first place!

I'll get to the rest of your post in a separate response.

 

[Michael]

Oh for pity’s sake, how many times do you need to be given [post=55221867]this[/post] [post=55244936]definition[/post] before you understand it?

What I "understand" is that you have essentially offered me a completely *subjective* definition (your own opinion in fact), that is absolutely and completely irrational in the first place. One can't "prove" anything in science, and *your personal* standards are not even relevant to any scientific topic, yet you've elevated your own personal opinion to the level of "godhood". You expect me to "prove" something to personal satisfaction of "your majesty" (your personal ego) as far as I can tell.

Are you really so lacking in comprehension and reason or are these repeated requests for definitions and evidence for inflation the only diversionary tactic you know?

Sound evidence is evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension. There is zero sound evidence supporting the belief that gods are real.

Well, the definition you *FINALLY* provided is useful. What's equally useful is that you ignored the B definition entirely and elevated you own *lack of* personal experience and effort to the level of "god" where you personally get to decide what is "experience" and who's an "expert" in the field of God theories. Evidently you've heard them all already, seen them all already, handwaved at every one, and somehow already determined the outcome, even though only 4% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist" like you. Give me a break.

From the Crank HOWTO on not responding to criticism: “Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one”. Again, this thread is not about inflation, dark matter, dark energy or other scientific explanations. It is about your “Empirical Theory of God” and your secondary claims.

Sure, but we have to have some *NON SUBJECTIVE* way to critique any and all theories. I'm simply asking you to use your own standards to demonstrate the merits of any other comperable "where did we come from' type of theory. Your reaction was classic. You simply evaded every ugly metaphysical aspect of mainstream theory and you refused to demonstrate how they are "sound" ideas based on your own criteria. Since Guth literally made up inflation in his head, and made several errors in his paper, including the whole concept of "negative pressure in a vacuum", how was his idea "sound" by your standards. Who ever demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between expansion and inflation or "dark evil energies"?

Once I understand how you figure other branches of similar area of science are "sound", we'll be able to proceed. At the moment mainstream theory fails your "sound" test big time and yet you aren't on crusade over mainstream theory. What's up with that?

You’ve made these claims in this thread: “The entire physical universe is God”; “The universe is alive and aware”;

Pantheism as a concept predates me personally by thousands of years. Deal with it.

“the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale”;

FYI, that particular claim you actually *might* be able to pin on me personally.

your God

I have never professed to 'own' God. Calling it 'my God" is like calling the universe "my universe". Standard atheist fallacy.

[post=54129207]loves us unconditionally[/post]; your God [post=55240238]answers prayers[/post]; and awareness [post=55224328]persists after death[/post].

These are not *MY* personal claims, they tend to be the "consensus" of the entire planet. Again, no particular claim there is related to me personally. Jesus made similar claims 2000 years ago.

You are yet to provide any sound evidence to show that those claims are true.

I did. You handwaved at them like you handwaved at the NDE study published in the Lancet. Instead of reading the paper and responding with a similar study to support your claim, you simply ignored their findings, claimed the experience was related to what they already ruled out in the study, and you ignored science entirely! You provided no peer reviewed study to rebutt it, but you expect me to publish theory. Why bother publishing anything if you ignore the papers anyway? Talk about hypocritical behaviors. You simply *ignored* that Lancet study, so what's the point of a peer review process in your mind?

 

[Michael]

1. (Not) Responding to criticism
   The HOWTO provides some examples of how to deflect criticism.
   
   Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
   Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.
   
   Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
   Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.
   
   Accusation: "Because of X, Y, and Z, your theory is false and you're an idiot"
   Response: Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).
   
   Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
   Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.
   
   Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
   Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.
   
   You seem to be following these guidelines quite well.

This part of your post is basically unintelligible, not to mention irrelevant. I guess the key component is one has to compare themselves to Galileo to be a crank? The only only "issue" seems to be related to feeling persecuted, but frankly I don't feel that way, so how it applicable? I do believe that the mainstream has an irrational fear of all things electrical in space, but it's not "personal", nor it is personally directed at me, or at this particular theory. Their bias has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with fear of electricity.

Get persecuted

1. You are progressing well, but this is one area where you need to put in more effort before you can be declared a full-blown crank.

[\QUOTE]

So far I've felt no personal persecution from anyone other than you personally in this thread. Most "skeptics" of the idea have kept the conversation focused on the topic. You're the only individual to focus *on* the individual. I'm gathering from your latest responses (the 'crank' tactic you're currently using for example) that you really are just a one trick pony when it comes to debate. Your "style" of debate would be like me attacking you personally by calling you "evil" because you didn't agree with my personal opinions. You attack only the individual, not the idea in debate. In that sense you are in fact personally guilty of persecution of the individual, but that just your flaw, and it's not really any skin of my nose.

I’m not disputing that praying makes people feel better (so do other placebos). I asked you to show us that prayers are answered by your God or any other god. Show us that your God actually answers prayers and that it isn’t just those praying deceiving themselves into believing that.

If I were the only individual to ever experience a prayer being answered (in their opinion), your argument might have some merit. Since that is certainly not the case, what you're insisting is that I use your own *PERSONAL LACK OF* experiences as the only thing that matters. You'd have to believe everyone in history was "deceived" except of course little ol' you who never had any prayers answered because you didn't like the term "no" as answer, and that's the answer you got the one or two times you ever prayed in your life. Is that it?

 

[Michael]

I asked three questions: “Have you ever formally explained your “Empirical Theory of God” to them?

Why should I bother publishing anything when you handwave at the published papers like that NDE paper published in the Lancet? What kind of hypocritical requirement is that, when you don't even personally care one iota what's been published on any given topic vs. what you personally believe in the first place?

I suspect you haven’t,

You should not have to "suspect" anything. I've told you I have not ever tried to publish *THIS PARTICULAR* theory. What about that answer is "unclear' to you?

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?

” Which of those did you answer in the negative earlier in the thread?

I answered "no" to the original question which makes the remaining two questions irrelevant.

Just out of curiosity, where did you publish your theory on hard atheism? Oh wait, you don't have to abide by your own standards, is that it?

You tell me. You are the one who claims to have “spent a *lot* of time talking to astronomers and cosmologists”. I presumed that was because your claims that “The entire physical universe is God”, “The universe is alive and aware” and “the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale” are all within their realm of expertise.

Actually their "realm of expertise" is in what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" (magnetic reconnection theory). They aren't qualified to even discuss circuits in space (because they don't understand the concept in the first place), let alone have any clue whether such circuits might give rise to awareness. When you start seeing the mainstream talk about "circuits' in space, then you can tell me that it falls in their realm of expertise. It looks to me like their realm of expertise is in pseudoscience and making up mythical forms of matter and energy.

I see. I suppose that answers my previous question in this post. Now you appear to be saying that you have explained your “theory” to them and they reject it.

Actually, I have only tried to explain the electrical aspects of events in space to them and they reject it. Of course they don't just reject it from me personally, they reject it from a Nobel Prize winning scientist and 100 years worth of scientists making similar propositions.

It seems you almost think the “mainstream” is persecuting you and other plasma cosmology proponents.

It's really not "personal" IMO. The fear of all things electrical in space is palpable and tangible. Their fear and anxiety is not related to me personally because I didn't come up with the concept of circuits in space. You seem to be grasping at any straws you can find to fire up your ad homs. It's like me looking for any excuse to call you "evil' for not agreeing with my personal beliefs. Since I don't feel personally persecuted, your term doesn't apply. Since I didn't really posit anything all that new, it's not really *my* idea to begin with. Deal with that reality.

 

[3sigma]

FYI, I didn't invent pantheism, so technically it's not even *my* idea in the first place…
PC/EU theory isn't even *MY* idea either…
Again, all I'm doing is promoting an alternative theory of cosmology, a theory I didn't personally create…
FYI, I am not the only PC/EU advocate on the web, nor am I the only critic of mainstream theory. You're 0 for 2 and haven't even recognized that these are not *MY* ideas in the first place!…
Pantheism as a concept predates me personally by thousands of years…
FYI, that particular claim you actually *might* be able to pin on me personally…
Of course they don't just reject it from me personally, they reject it from a Nobel Prize winning scientist and 100 years worth of scientists making similar propositions…
Since I didn't really posit anything all that new, it's not really *my* idea to begin with.

From the Crank HOWTO: “It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don't defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You've got to think big! You've got to do something like deny HIV causes AIDS, or relativity, or reject an entire field of biology, or deny the earth is older than 6000 years.”

Not one of those examples is an original idea or an idea held only by one person so why are you arguing as though your cosmic brain idea has to be original or held only by you for you to be considered a crank? Maybe you really do lack comprehension and reason.

Being a crank isn’t just about having a wacky idea. It’s about how you behave in promoting and defending that idea. For example, a crank won’t publish his idea in peer-reviewed journals, but instead will invent excuses for why he hasn’t done so. Those excuses usually involve declaring that the “mainstream” is close-minded or has an irrational aversion to the idea. When his claims are challenged, the crank will use various rhetorical tactics and diversions in an attempt to evade the challenge rather than provide sound evidence showing his claims are true.

Oh for pity’s sake, how many times do you need to be given [post=55221867]this[/post] [post=55244936]definition[/post] before you understand it?
…
Sound evidence is evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension. There is zero sound evidence supporting the belief that gods are real.

Well, the definition you *FINALLY* provided is useful. What's equally useful is that you ignored the B definition entirely and elevated you own *lack of* personal experience and effort to the level of "god" where you personally get to decide what is "experience" and who's an "expert" in the field of God theories.

The very first sentence of my first linked [post=55221867]post[/post] above began, “I’m asking you to provide sound evidence (evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension)”. That was over 60 posts ago. In my second linked [post=55244936]post[/post], I linked to the dictionary meaning of sound. That was over 50 posts ago. Saying that I have finally given you this definition as though you are seeing it for the first time only now is an indication that either you lack comprehension or you just ignore what other people write. In that first linked post over sixty posts ago, I clearly showed which meaning of ‘sound’ I was using so your carping about a different meaning is just another irrelevant diversion tactic.

Sure, but we have to have some *NON SUBJECTIVE* way to critique any and all theories.

We do have an objective way to evaluate any and all theories. It is called the scientific method. The process goes something like this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Your “Empirical Theory of God” has reached step 3 at best, which means that it isn’t a theory at all. It’s merely an untested, unsupported hypothesis so stating aspects of it as facts is nothing more than wishful thinking.

I'm simply asking you to use your own standards to demonstrate the merits of any other comperable "where did we come from' type of theory. Your reaction was classic. You simply evaded every ugly metaphysical aspect of mainstream theory and you refused to demonstrate how they are "sound" ideas based on your own criteria. Since Guth literally made up inflation in his head, and made several errors in his paper, including the whole concept of "negative pressure in a vacuum", how was his idea "sound" by your standards. Who ever demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between expansion and inflation or "dark evil energies"?

From the Crank HOWTO: “demand they provide you with scientific evidence that their theory is the correct one.”

Whether or not other theories are supported by sound evidence is irrelevant. The onus is on you to show that your hypothesis is correct. If another hypothesis is wrong, that doesn’t mean yours is right by default. If another hypothesis lacks support, that doesn’t provide support for your hypothesis. Thinking that way would be a false dichotomy and a fallacy. So forget about inflation, dark energy, dark matter or other theories and hypotheses—they are irrelevant except that your constant demands that we justify them is the behaviour of a crank. Just show us that your “Empirical Theory of God” has passed tests designed to falsify it. Show us that it has passed steps 4 to 8 in the list above.

I have never professed to 'own' God. Calling it 'my God" is like calling the universe "my universe". Standard atheist fallacy.

From the Crank HOWTO: “it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument.”

You’ve already used this misinterpretation and I’ve already shown you that it was a misinterpretation. In this previous [post=55220063]reply[/post], specifically to you, I wrote this: “When I say “your God”, I’m not implying ownership. I mean whatever you think of as God because it is apparent that religious believers have their own individual idea of God and they differ from other believers’ ideas of God”. I’ve already explained this to you so this is further confirmation that either you lack comprehension or you just ignore what other people write. Ignoring my explanation and trotting out the same misinterpretation with the same analogy is the behaviour of a crank.

your God [post=54129207]loves us unconditionally[/post]; your God [post=55240238]answers prayers[/post]; and awareness [post=55224328]persists after death[/post].

These are not *MY* personal claims, they tend to be the "consensus" of the entire planet. Again, no particular claim there is related to me personally. Jesus made similar claims 2000 years ago.

Nevertheless, you made those claims in this thread. You apparently believe them. I’m asking you to show us that they are true and justified. By the way, arguments from popularity and authority are both fallacies.

You are yet to provide any sound evidence to show that those claims are true.

I did. You handwaved at them like you handwaved at the NDE study published in the Lancet.

Oh, please. Show me where you’ve ever provided sound evidence to support your claims that your God loves us unconditionally, that it is actually your God that answers prayers or that awareness persists after death. The NDE study shows that people have near death experiences not after death experiences. Death is the cessation of homeostasis—decomposition has begun. Dead is dead—you don’t wake up from that. Here’s a question for you. How long after death does awareness persist: seconds, minutes, days, years or forever? I’m guessing you hope that it lasts forever, but I’d be impressed if you can show us that awareness even persists for years after death. Can you do that?

I guess the key component is one has to compare themselves to Galileo to be a crank?

From the Crank HOWTO: “nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent.”

No, that is not the key component at all. One of the hallmarks of cranks is their evasive behaviour. Those examples from the Crank HOWTO were illustrating how cranks evade challenges to their claims by using rhetorical tactics and diversions, much as you have been doing right here and throughout this thread.

So far I've felt no personal persecution from anyone other than you personally in this thread. Most "skeptics" of the idea have kept the conversation focused on the topic. You're the only individual to focus *on* the individual.
…
You attack only the individual, not the idea in debate.

From the Crank HOWTO: “Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).”

Really? So I’ve never challenged your claims by asking you to provide sound evidence to support them? I’ve never asked you to show us that your “Empirical Theory of God” has passed tests designed to falsify it or that it has passed steps 4 to 8 in the list above? I’ve never explained to you why near death experiences are not evidence that awareness persist after death? I’ve done all of those throughout this thread and again in this post.

All you are doing is using my pointing out your cranky behaviour as an excuse to evade requests for you to show us that your claims are true.

If I were the only individual to ever experience a prayer being answered (in their opinion), your argument might have some merit. Since that is certainly not the case, what you're insisting is that I use your own *PERSONAL LACK OF* experiences as the only thing that matters.

From the Crank HOWTO: “it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument.”

You’ve already used this argument and I’ve already [post=55207689]explained[/post] to you why it is a fallacy. At the basic level, it is a worthless argument from popularity. Many people believing something is true doesn’t make it true because no amount of belief can make something a fact. Millions of people believe that Santa Claus is real. Does that make him real? Do you therefore believe that Santa Claus is real? The second point is that I asked you to show us not just that prayers are answered, but that it is actually a god that answers them. Have you done that? No, of course not. You’ve evaded that request entirely and haven’t provided a single shred of evidence. In fact, you haven’t even provided any evidence that prayers are actually answered. All you’ve done is claim that people believe they are answered.

Why should I bother publishing anything when you handwave at the published papers like that NDE paper published in the Lancet?

The telling point here is that you haven’t published your “Empirical Theory of God” in any peer-reviewed journals and I strongly suspect you never will. In fact, your so-called theory is still languishing at the stage of being an untested, unsupported hypothesis and I strongly suspect you will never progress it any further.

They aren't qualified to even discuss circuits in space (because they don't understand the concept in the first place), let alone have any clue whether such circuits might give rise to awareness. When you start seeing the mainstream talk about "circuits' in space, then you can tell me that it falls in their realm of expertise.

Do you think that you are qualified to discuss circuits in space? Are circuits in space that may give rise to awareness within your realm of expertise? Please tell us what professional training you have in the realms of cosmology, astrophysics and neuroscience. Do you think that you know more about cosmology, astrophysics and neuroscience than trained, professional cosmologists, astrophysicists and neuroscientists? I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually do think that.

 

[Michael]

From the Crank HOWTO:

You are *again* (when haven't you?) resorting to a completely unethical debate tactic, and you are again attacking the individual rather than the idea. That seems to be the only way you can debate in fact, "personally". You don't really seem to have a clue how unethical this practice is, but it's the scientific equivalent of labeling you "evil" simply because you choose to call yourself an atheist. I could run around and try to paint you personally with such a derogatory "outcast" type label, but would it be an ethical way to communicate? You tell me.

The label "crank" is stupid. It's exactly like me labeling you "evil" for not buying into my own personal beliefs. What's the point? It's a "villianization" process, an attack directed at the individual rather than an idea. It's a cheap and dirty way to attempt to pigeon hole someone rather than to discuss an idea.

Is the personal attack the only method of debate that you understand?

“It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary.

Then MOND theories and pretty much *EVERY* scientific theory qualifies, including inflation, dark energy, etc, etc, etc.

Not one of those examples is an original idea or an idea held only by one person so why are you arguing as though your cosmic brain idea has to be original or held only by you for you to be considered a crank?

The problem is that MOND theories, SUSY particle physics theory, and every theory under the sun that "lacks majority consensus" qualifies as someone who promotes "crank" ideas. This seems to be the heart and soul of the flaw in your argument.

Being a crank isn’t just about having a wacky idea. It’s about how you behave in promoting and defending that idea. For example, a crank won’t publish his idea in peer-reviewed journals, but instead will invent excuses for why he hasn’t done so.

FYI, I didn't say I would never attempt to publish such a concept, and I've made no "excuses" about it. I've really only been discussing the idea publicly for a few months. How about letting things develop over time, or is there a timeline here I'm supposed to adhere to?

Those excuses usually involve declaring that the “mainstream” is close-minded or has an irrational aversion to the idea.

They don't have an irrational aversion to the notion of a cosmic brain, it's simply outside of their field of study for the most part. What cosmology theory proper includes such an idea and why is it even necessary given the fact that many cosmologists are also "atheists"?

What the mainstream is deathly afraid of is the whole concept of electricity in space. It's not directed at any specific theory, except perhaps PC theory as a whole, but that's hardly a "personal" bias directed at me or the concept of pantheism in general. FYI, by this sort of logic, anyone that promotes "pantheism" in general is a "crank" by your definition and I guess that whole point of your demonization process.

When his claims are challenged, the crank will use various rhetorical tactics and diversions in an attempt to evade the challenge rather than provide sound evidence showing his claims are true.

But that is not what I did. I provided you with published and peer reviewed studies which you utterly, completely and irrationally ignored. They evidently don't fit your belief system, so you handwaved at them, ignored them, and in fact went for your own "theory" that was ruled out in the study that I cited. Not once did you reciprocate with published paper which shows the depth of your hypocricy. You insist I publish this idea, but you ignored the published work that supports the idea! You're a trip.

The very first sentence of my first linked [post=55221867]post[/post] above began, “I’m asking you to provide sound evidence (evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension)”. That was over 60 posts ago. In my second linked [post=55244936]post[/post], I linked to the dictionary meaning of sound. That was over 50 posts ago. Saying that I have finally given you this definition as though you are seeing it for the first time only now is an indication that either you lack comprehension or you just ignore what other people write. In that first linked post over sixty posts ago, I clearly showed which meaning of ‘sound’ I was using so your carping about a different meaning is just another irrelevant diversion tactic.

The problem is that the term "sound" in your definition is *PERSONAL*. You're *PERSONALLY* deciding which evidence is 'sound", and which is not. You aren't consistent either. You didn't rebutt that Lancet study with another study that was published. You're judge, jury and executioner in this little melodrama and you're "methods" are internally inconsistent.

When you can explain how you handwaved away that Lancet study as "unsound" evidence without even so much as a published rebuttal, perhaps this conversation can proceed. Your definition of 'sound" is anything but "sound" and your inconsistency in terms of the value of publication is irrational.

I also provided you with 'evidence' in terms of the effect of EM fields on the human brain and their ability to create "spiritual' experiences in human beings. This is a key *PREDICTION* of this particular scientific theory. Never once did you acknowledge that evidence as "sound" evidence to support the idea. What you've done in fact is ignored every empirical experiment I've presented and every published supporting paper that I've presented and you handwaved it all away. You didn't rebut the work with published works and opposing experiments, you simply went with your own "personal" beliefs. You're a circular feedback loop that refuses to look outside yourself for any information.

 

[Michael]

Nevertheless, you made those claims in this thread. You apparently believe them. I’m asking you to show us that they are true and justified. By the way, arguments from popularity and authority are both fallacies.

This line is priceless IMO, and demonstrates the hypocritical nature of your arguments. You want me to show things are 'true and justified' to the mainstream and yet when you also claim that popularity and authority figures are irrelevant. You insist that I personally go to those authorities for "acceptance', otherwise I'm a "crank", evidently by their standards or *your personal* standards. You howefer are exempt from this same process. Notice any hypocritical behavior there?

Jesus was a recognized "expert" on the topic of God. The Muslims recognize him as a "great prophet" of God. Between Christians and Muslims they make up more than 50% of the planet's belief systems. You're no "expert" on anything, certainly no expert on God. You're an 'evil crank" by their standards. Are you obligated to prove them all wrong in your lifetime and gain acceptance in your lifetime for you not to be an "evil crank"?

You are internally inconsistent and you twist the rules like a pretzel when in suits you. When you apply the "rules" to your own belief system, authority and popularity are irrelevant. When you apply the rules to my beliefs however, popularity and authority are *EVERYTHING* to you suddenly. Worse yet, that need for "publication" is only skin deep because you don't apply that rule as you look for "sound" evidence for rebuttal, so "publishing" material is irrelevant when it suits your needs. Talk about hypocritical behaviors.

 

[Michael]

Do you think that you are qualified to discuss circuits in space?

Yes, but Alfven was a lot more qualified to discuss them and he published hundreds of papers on the topic, not to mention the book Cosmic Plasma. Is he a "crank"? Is PC theory as Alfven presented it a "crank" idea?

Are circuits in space that may give rise to awareness within your realm of expertise?

Is that really within *ANYONE'S* actual realm of expertise?

Please tell us what professional training you have in the realms of cosmology, astrophysics and neuroscience.

Please tell me what formal training you've had in Christianity, meditation, prayer and God. Huh? Have you read an of Birkeland's work? Charles Bruce? Hannes Alfven? What makes you an expert on even "cosmology" exactly?

Do you think that you know more about cosmology, astrophysics and neuroscience than trained, professional cosmologists, astrophysicists and neuroscientists? I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually do think that.

That's known as a 'strawman". One could really only be an "expert" in one or two fields of science. If I"m limited to one scientific topic, I'll stick with the scientific topic of God. It's certainly going to require a lot of knowledge that I will not originally posses to begin to study that topic, which is why I've read Alfven's work, Jesus's works, Birkeland's works, a lot of material related to human brain activity, etc. What exactly makes you an expert on the topic of this thread anyway?