An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

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’ve already used this argument and I’ve already explained to you why it is a fallacy. At the basic level, it is a worthless argument from popularity.

No, you missed the point (no doubt intentionally). Your *LACK OF* experience is a worthless argument. It means nothing. Just because you've never personally seen a kangaroo does not mean that kangaroos do not exist or that no human being has ever seen one. That's essentially your position on this topic. Your *LACK OF* experience (probably related to a lack of effort on your part) is somehow elevated to an "all important" status, and you utterly *IGNORE* any and all "experiences" that you disagree with, as though your own personal experiences are all that matter and represent the entire range of all possible human experiences! Your whole argument is based on a fallacy, specifically that your own "lack of" experience is all that is relevant.

 

[3sigma]

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.

Okay, let’s concentrate on this for a moment and resolve it so that we can proceed.

You claimed [post=55224328]here[/post] that: “I believe that this physical body will certainly die. I don't believe that awareness dies.” You are saying that you believe your awareness will persist after your physical body dies. I asked if you had any sound evidence to support that belief and you replied by asking if near death experiences count as evidence.

I first explained [post=55227492]here[/post] why they did not count as evidence. You are claiming that awareness persists after death, but near death experiences occur before death not after death so they are not evidence of any kind, sound or otherwise, that awareness persists after death. I asked you to provide some sound evidence that people have had or could have after death experiences; that is, experiences after the body has died and begun to decompose.

You [post=55239441]responded[/post] with the Lancet study into near death experiences not after death experiences. None of the cases in the Lancet study is that of someone whose awareness persisted after his or her body had died and begun to decompose.

I explained again [post=55244936]here[/post] that you hadn’t provided any evidence that awareness persists after death and asked you to show us that people have awareness after they have died and been cremated. You [post=55251529]responded[/post] with more [post=55239441]stories[/post] of near death experiences from people who were still alive.

Finally, I asked you how long after death awareness persists: seconds, minutes, days, years or forever? I asked you to show us that awareness persists for years after death. You evaded both those requests.

To settle this once and for all, please answer these questions.

1. Do you accept that the death of your physical body is final; that is, once your physical body has died and begun to decompose or been cremated, it doesn’t come back to life?
2. Is it your belief that your awareness will persist after your physical body has died and begun to decompose or been cremated?
3. How long after the death and decomposition or cremation of your physical body does awareness persist: seconds, minutes, days, years or forever?
4. Can you produce any sound evidence to show that awareness does persist for that time period after the death and decomposition or cremation of the physical body?
5. If your answer to 4 above is ‘yes’ then please produce that evidence.

Don’t evade these questions by replying with questions or going off on a tangent. Just provide straightforward answers to them as though you are a reasonable and intellectually honest person. For example, these would be my answers to those questions.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Zero time.
4. No.
5. Not applicable.

Now you try.

Once you’ve shown us that you can be reasonable and intellectually honest then perhaps we can proceed.

 

[Michael]

Okay, let’s concentrate on this for a moment and resolve it so that we can proceed.

You claimed [post=55224328]here[/post] that: “I believe that this physical body will certainly die. I don't believe that awareness dies.” You are saying that you believe your awareness will persist after your physical body dies. I asked if you had any sound evidence to support that belief and you replied by asking if near death experiences count as evidence.

Let's recap, since you left out another option I mentioned (and half my argument) entirely.

S>Do you believe you have soul and that you will never really die?
M>I believe that this physical body will certainly die. I don't believe that awareness dies.

S>Do you have any sound evidence to support those beliefs?
M>Do past life history studies and near death experiences count as evidence? Who decides what is "sound" evidence?

You've utterly ignored the past life published data! You've utterly ignored the NDE studies too:

I first explained [post=55227492]here[/post] why they did not count as evidence. You are claiming that awareness persists after death, but near death experiences occur before death not after death so they are not evidence of any kind, sound or otherwise, that awareness persists after death.

These individuals were pronounced clinically dead in many cases and at least one of them was hooked up to an EEG at the time and recorded no brain activity. Your *CLAIM* that these events all occur *BEFORE* physical death is not supported by any published study. You handwaved in that claim. We have no evidence to believe it occurred until "post death". You're also completely ignoring the "prediction->verification" aspect of this process since even atheists report meeting God during such events (something this theory "predicts"). They change their life behaviors and certainly belief it was "real". Some of them claim it was *THE* most "real" thing that ever happened to them. Even Carl Jung experienced such an event and believed it to be "real". What medical/scientific qualifications do you have, and what lack of personal experience, makes you such an "expert" on this topic anyway?

You also completely ignored that published 20 case study I handed you on Children's past life memory. What you're doing is systematically ignoring every single bit of information that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. That's called "denial". Furthermore that need for "published" support for your position is irrelevant to you personally and it's a hypocritical claim

I asked you to provide some sound evidence that people have had or could have after death experiences; that is, experiences after the body has died and begun to decompose.

There have been reports of people being dead for days before "coming back to life". (Google it).

The whole point of that past life memory study was to give you yet *ANOTHER* way to verify the concept. You ignored a published book by a "scientist" in this field. What you did is cite one example of a false claim and tried to blow off the whole field of study based on one botched experiment. YEC do this too by citing *ONE* or TWO botched dating experiments and try to claim the whole field of science is therefore "untrustworthy". People do in fact have "false" memories, sometimes of accidents they saw, incidents that they were involved in, etc. That does not mean that all human testimony is worthless. (except your personal experiences which have been elevated to godhood).

You [post=55239441]responded[/post] with the Lancet study into near death experiences not after death experiences. None of the cases in the Lancet study is that of someone whose awareness persisted after his or her body had died and begun to decompose.

The decompose thing seems to be your new "squirming word" I see. History books since the dawn of recorded history have (like the Bible which you simply handwave at) have recorded incidence where humans have been dead for days and "come back to life". There are modern reports of such events too. Did their bodies "decompose" even a little bit during that time? How much decomposition/death is required exactly?

I explained again [post=55244936]here[/post] that you hadn’t provided any evidence that awareness persists after death and asked you to show us that people have awareness after they have died and been cremated.

Cremated? Man, you don't want much do you? Of course when I handed it to you, you handwaved it away too, just like the Lancet study.

Finally, I asked you how long after death awareness persists: seconds, minutes, days, years or forever? I asked you to show us that awareness persists for years after death. You evaded both those requests.

That is a complete and total lie. I provided you with a published 20 case study of children who's "past life memories" were studied in a clinical manner and published in book form. What you did is simply ignore that work, and you're in such denial, you refuse to even acknowledge that part of our conversation, even that it began in the same sentence as the NDE comment. You're in hard core denial now to any and all evidence that you don't wish to "consider'.

To settle this once and for all, please answer these questions.

1. Do you accept that the death of your physical body is final; that is, once your physical body has died and begun to decompose or been cremated, it doesn’t come back to life?

How about stem cells and cloning and stuff like that? Does that stuff count? In terms of what returns to dust, yes, it remains dust unless/until those same molecules are used again in some DNA pattern. In terms of physical immortality, I suppose I have no opinions due to the advancement potential of modern medicine. For all I know they may one day take DNA from the molars of some mummy and recreate the body that goes with it. What then?

Is it your belief that your awareness will persist after your physical body has died and begun to decompose or been cremated?

Yes, although there is only one "living being" (God) in the final analysis. We (as individuals) are sustained by that life.

How long after the death and decomposition or cremation of your physical body does awareness persist: seconds, minutes, days, years or forever?

The later. Notice how I directly answer all your questions and how you do not answer mine as it relates to other branches of so called "science"? You provide us with no logical way to objectively define the term "sound evidence" because you consistently won't explain how any other branch of science devoted to answering the question "How did we get here" is based on "sound evidence".

1. Can you produce any sound evidence

I handed you that book by Ian Stevenson. You ignored it. You don't care about "published works", and you aren't even addressing half of the evidence I presented. What you're doing is called "denial". You're selectively hearing and addressing what you want to hear and address, and selectively ignoring the other half of my argument entirely. If I had not provided you with the other half of the argument from the very start, you're argument might have merit. As it stands, your denial of that whole half of the argument simply demonstrates the irrational nature of your biases, and the lack of objectivity when it comes to what is "Sound evidence". Published material is irrelevant to you, and you ignored those 20 case studies on children's past life memories completely.

You do a nice job on filtering out what you don't want to deal with. For instance, you dismiss the entire Bible in terms of it's historic value even, not just a few stories it contains. That's an atheist fundy behavior if ever I saw it. You ignored the stories it contains about people coming 'back to life from the dead". You ignore all modern accounts of such events too, even with all the advancements in modern medicine. You ignored all the points in that Lancet study that don't fit with your "explanation" (like those teeth they found on the crash cart based on the patient's "visions" during death). You also ignored that book on past life memories by a reputable researcher. You've raised your own opinions to the level of godhood, ignored the data you don't agree with, and simply handwave at published materials galore. You're definitely a 'fundy".

 

[Michael]

Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI, here's a link to Ian Stevenson's credentials and published materials.

 

[3sigma]

You've utterly ignored the past life published data! You've utterly ignored the NDE studies too:

I’ll address the past life histories below. First, let’s see why NDEs are worthless as evidence supporting your hope and belief that your awareness will persist for years after your death.

These individuals were pronounced clinically dead in many cases and at least one of them was hooked up to an EEG at the time and recorded no brain activity. Your *CLAIM* that these events all occur *BEFORE* physical death is not supported by any published study. You handwaved in that claim. We have no evidence to believe it occurred until "post death".

Actually, the fact that these people related their experiences is evidence that NDEs didn’t occur after permanent death. Clinical death is the term applied to the condition when the circulation and breathing have stopped. It is synonymous with cardiac arrest. All people in cardiac arrest are clinically dead, but some can be resuscitated with CPR within certain time limits. Every single one of the patients in the Lancet study and every other study of NDEs was resuscitated. None of them experienced anything after permanent death because none of them had been permanently dead during the NDE episode. Clinical death precedes permanent death. Curiously enough, a person can be brain dead and legally dead, but not clinically dead.

Yes, the EEG can be flat for short periods during cardiac arrest, but some people in this state can still be resuscitated without ill effect providing it doesn’t last too long. A continued period of flat EEG is defined as brain death, which is irreversible. While some patients had flat EEGs during their NDE, none of them was brain dead during their NDE. What’s more, brain dead people with flat EEGs can still be considered alive. They can sustain circulation and respiration, control temperature, excrete wastes, heal wounds, fight infections and even gestate foetuses. A flat EEG precedes permanent death.

Clinical death (cessation of heartbeat and respiration) and brain death (continued flat EEG) alone don’t necessarily constitute permanent death. Even combined they don’t necessarily constitute permanent death (providing the flat EEG doesn’t last too long). Permanent death is marked by several other characteristics. There is the cessation of homeostasis, progression through rigor mortis (beginning about three hours after death and lasting about three days) then decomposition. Permanent death is an irreversible state; it’s permanent, after all. You don’t wake up from years of permanent death and begin relating your experiences.

The important point here is that even though you clearly hope and believe that your awareness will persist for years after your death and decomposition or cremation, no NDE studies have ever shown that nor could they show that.

What medical/scientific qualifications do you have, and what lack of personal experience, makes you such an "expert" on this topic anyway?

I have no medical or scientific qualifications, but then I don’t have to be able to sing to know when someone else is out of tune. You are the one inventing or propounding unsupported hypotheses and claiming they are true, not me. So do you have any formal qualifications in medicine, neuroscience, astrophysics or cosmology that would lend credence to anything you say?

You keep harping about my lack of personal experience, but let me ask you a question. Have you ever personally experienced awareness years after your own permanent death? What personal experience could anyone have of that?

There have been reports of people being dead for days before "coming back to life".

There have been reports of people walking on water too and there have been people credulous enough to believe those as well. Show me a report of people coming back to life after being dead for days and I’ll show you someone who is credulous or misusing the term ‘dead’. Pick the one that you think is best supported by sound evidence and give me a link to it. I can do with a good laugh. Better still, see if you can find one that shows that people have come back to life and related their experiences years after their death and decomposition or cremation because you apparently hope and believe your awareness will survive that.

How much decomposition/death is required exactly?
…
Cremated? Man, you don't want much do you?

You tell me how much you think your body will have decomposed years after your death. You clearly believe your awareness persists for years after your death so it is reasonable to conclude that your body will have decomposed significantly by then. I’m asking you to show us that your belief is true by providing sound evidence to support it. It is clear that NDEs are not evidence that awareness persists after decomposition or cremation.

… In terms of what returns to dust, yes, it remains dust unless/until those same molecules are used again in some DNA pattern. …

I interpret this response to mean that you accept that your original physical body cannot return to life with all your memories and personality intact once you have died and decomposed or been cremated. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your response.

It follows then that NDEs are not evidence that your awareness persists for years after your physical body has died and decomposed or been cremated because people who experience NDEs revive.

The later…

I interpret this and your response to the second question to mean that you believe that your awareness will persist forever after your physical body has died and decomposed or been cremated. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your responses.

Can you suggest a plausible mechanism to allow this to occur? It will be interesting to see what you consider to be plausible.

Can you produce any sound evidence to show that awareness does persist for that time period after the death and decomposition or cremation of the physical body?

I handed you that book by Ian Stevenson…

I interpret this response to mean that you think Stevenson’s book on children’s past life memories is sufficient sound evidence to show that awareness persists forever after your physical body has died and decomposed or been cremated. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your response.

Now to Stevenson’s book. I don’t have the book so I’m going to have to rely on analyses by others. The main critical analysis of Stevenson’s book appears to have been a review of the book’s strongest case, written by Leonard Angel and published in Skeptic magazine, but I can’t find a copy of it online. However, I have found an analysis here and a more comprehensive analysis of both Stevenson and Angel here. That second analysis appears to be reasonably unbiased and I suggest you read it. However, after reading those analyses I remain unconvinced by Stevenson’s data and methods. The concerns I have about Stevenson’s work are the lack of a plausible mechanism, the lack of double-blind methods, the risk of confirmation bias and the lack of falsifiability. Perhaps you are convinced by such work, but then you probably believe many things that I find lacking in credibility.

You do a nice job on filtering out what you don't want to deal with. For instance, you dismiss the entire Bible in terms of it's historic value even, not just a few stories it contains. That's an atheist fundy behavior if ever I saw it. You ignored the stories it contains about people coming 'back to life from the dead". You ignore all modern accounts of such events too, even with all the advancements in modern medicine. You ignored all the points in that Lancet study that don't fit with your "explanation" (like those teeth they found on the crash cart based on the patient's "visions" during death). You also ignored that book on past life memories by a reputable researcher. You've raised your own opinions to the level of godhood, ignored the data you don't agree with, and simply handwave at published materials galore. You're definitely a 'fundy".

I don’t dismiss the entire Bible. I accept mundane items and historical events that have been independently verified, but I don’t accept patent nonsense such as stories of talking plants and animals, a worldwide flood that didn’t occur, people walking on water or someone coming back to life after being dead for days. Given that it contains such patent nonsense, I don’t find it to be a reliable source of facts. I don’t ignore modern accounts of people returning from the dead. I find them to be either mistaken or unconvincing. The Lancet study does not show that awareness persists for years after your death and decomposition or cremation no matter how much you hope that your belief is true.

 

[Michael]

You keep harping about my lack of personal experience, but let me ask you a question. Have you ever personally experienced awareness years after your own permanent death? What personal experience could anyone have of that?

Did you read the book I suggested?

I'll tackle the NDE stuff in a later post. I'd like to point out a behavior of yours that I think stands in your way of enlightenment:

Now to Stevenson’s book. I don’t have the book so I’m going to have to rely on analyses by others.

In other words, you intentionally chose *not* to read the materials I suggested. Instead of educating yourself to *both* sides of the argument, you simply ignored the work that I suggested and spent a few moments searching Google for some sort of information that already fits with your own preconceived opinions (born or pure ignorance).

However, I have found an analysis here and a more comprehensive analysis of both Stevenson and Angel here. That second analysis appears to be reasonably unbiased and I suggest you read it. However, after reading those analyses I remain unconvinced by Stevenson’s data and methods.

In other words, *YOUR OPINIONS* are god, and purely subjective too. They aren't born of "knowledge", but rather they are born of pure ignorance and 10 minute of reading an opinion that already jived with your own beliefs.

The concerns I have about Stevenson’s work are the lack of a plausible mechanism,

What's the plausible mechanism for "dark energy"? Inflation? Non bayonic forms of "dark matter"?

the lack of double-blind methods,

What's the "double blind' for inflation?

the risk of confirmation bias and the lack of falsifiability.

You mean like *KNOWING* that the universe is homogeneously distributed, and *assuming* inflation did it? How can I falsify inflation again?

Perhaps you are convinced by such work, but then you probably believe many things that I find lacking in credibility.

The problem is that every one of your basic criticisms can be applied to pretty much every scientific topic under the sun. Of course you find it lacking in credibility because you never even bothered to get both sides of the argument nor lift a finger to educate yourself on this topic. All you did is spend a few moments reading some website that wasn't even "published work" as far as I can tell. What kind of "research" is that?

Your entire argument seems to be based on blind, self imposed ignorance. Never did you once lift a finger to even read the materials I suggested to you. You chose willful ignorance over education. That is very sad IMO.

 

[sandwiches]

In other words, *YOUR OPINIONS* are god, and purely subjective too.

His opinions are God? Wow... holy hyperboles, Batman!

 

[lucaspa]

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.

You are correct that, strictly speaking, we cannot "prove" positive statements in science. However, we can disprove. And that is what we do to theories: try to disprove them. As far as I can see, you don't try to do that and sidestep disproofs offered.

Forget 3sigma's personal standards. What you need to do is test your theory. Test the idea. I notice that you fall into the same category you accuse 3sigma of belonging to: refuse to have standards for your personal satisfaction that your theory is disproved.

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

And we do: the hypothetico-deductive method. What 3sigma mistakenly called the "scientific method". (BTW, the steps listed are also wrong). The H-D method works whenever people agree as to what is data. Science, history, theology, etc. all use the H-D method. In science, personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances is considered data. This is called "intersubjective evidence".

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"?

I've dealt with this before. ALL theories start out as "made up" in someone's head. What comes next is the testing. Guth's inflation has deductions that have observational consequences in the universe. I've given papers showing those observational consequences: previously unobserved peaks in the CMBR. The homogeneity of the universe is also an observational consequence of inflation.

"Dark energy" comes from General Relativity. When Einstein formulated the relativity equations, he did not know about universal expansion. So gravity would inevitably collapse the universe. Einstein introduced lambda as a "fudge factor" to counter gravity. When the expansion was discovered, lambda was set = 0. However, more recent observations show that the expansion is accelerating, so lambda has a positive value. Since we have to have a name for the cause of the expansion, even when we don't know the cause, that name is "dark energy".

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?

 

[lucaspa]

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".

So where are the endpoints in space? Where does the helix end in space?

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.

Yes, every sun does, but it does not do so directionally. Nerve cells have the depolarization following a specific path and direction.

Show us where there are pictures of the "jets of light speed charged particles" stringing galaxies together. What's even better, show is that those charged particles can travel at light speed. Charged particles are matter (photons are uncharged) and, consequently, can't travel at lightspeed.

There are directional jets from black holes and some neutron stars, but they are not directional and do no form networks like neurons.

 

[lucaspa]

I did provide some links to studies done on Buddhist monks during meditation.

But those studies don't provide any evidence of links between stars.

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.

That's a duck. Write for grants like the rest of us. I suggest the National Science Foundation. The reviewers' comments will help you find the weaknesses of your theory.

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.

We already know there is no interaction between external electromagnetic fields and the EM field of the brain. If there were, people would drop unconscious around power lines, MRI machines, etc. Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field Our brains are shielded from external EM fields by skin, skull bones, and cerebrospinal fluid.

Your theory just got falsified.

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.

That is true. However, that living entity does not have to be your pantheistic deity. There are several theories that explain those experiences.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

There's a quote from the Bible involving eyes, beams, and dust motes.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Sure there is. I just gave you 2. You are ducking the issue. In science when we use the H-D method, our theory/hypothesis has to have deductions that lead to observational consequences.

BB had a problem in that, on large scales, the universe is homogenous. Originally, BB would not give a homogenous universe. An exponential expansion -- inflation -- would.

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".

Guth's original proposal had errors -- which were pointed out by Guth at the time. Those errors were corrected by Linde and others. MIT Department of Physics

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.

When Boyle first proposed atoms, they too were "unseen" and might be considered a "mythical entities". What matters is not whether the theoretical entity is "unseen", but whether you can test it by looking at empirical events in the physical universe. What you are doing is trying to change science. Yes, Guth could have called it "Godflation", but that would not have changed the reality of what was being proposed.

The different "brands" of "inflation" that have since been written about are nearly as numerous as the various brands of religion.

Sources, please. There is Guth's original inflation and then the modification by Linde and others. I know of no other "brands". Don't make the claim unless you can provide the evidence -- in the form of scientific papers discussing "brands".

Each brand has it own unique "properties", none of which can actually be confirmed by empirical experiment,

You seem to be ignoring the 2 empirical experiments I posted. Making the same claims in the face of contrary evidence is not useful. It's not even intellectually honest.

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.

Theories don't have to be falsifiable forever. After all, if a theory is accurate then there will be no data that does falsify it. Eventually we will have all that data and the theory will no longer be falsifiable.

Inflation had evidence that could have falsified it. As I noted with the 2 citations -- which you ignore -- the data did not falsify inflation.

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.

And you will explain how this attitude differs from 3sigma's attitude and your claim that nothing will convince him? Eyes, beams, and dust motes.

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.

And yet when I give you 2 citations of empirical testing in the here and now, you ignore them. It sounds like you are making a set of criteria so you can ignore data that you don't like.

Oh the stories I could tell.

This does not lessen the skepticism about you talking to cosmologists. I notice you never mentioned one cosmologist you had a conversation with or any means to check up on your claim.

Kristian Birkeland was curious about the aurora ... 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.

This isn't explaining how electricity in space explains what you are claiming. Yes, the aurora is an interaction of charged particles in the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field. I notice that Birkeland also invented something that was "unseen": field-aligned currents. They could not be tested in the lab and were only supported in 1963 by a magnetometer on board a US Navy navigation satellite. So tell us, how does this confirmation differ from the confirmation of inflation?

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. [/quote]

Which falsifies your claim about scientists being unwilling to consider electricity in space! Nice of you to undercut your own claims that way.

Alfven also wrote *hundreds* of papers on the topic, as have his students.

So list a half dozen or so that support PC/EU theory. Let's look them up. Or did Alfven just speculate and have no empirical support?

Well, it could, but not every magnetic field necessarily has to come externally rather than be produced internally.

IOW, no, the earth's magnetic field does not result from "currents flowing through circuits in space". That refutes your claim as to the origin of all magnetic fields. So name for us an empirically observed magnetic field that does result from "currents flowing through circuits in space".

All of them, each and every single one.

And those magnetic fields are? Name some. Are there magnetic fields around galaxies? In nebula? If so, which nebula? In intergalactic space? If so, give us some citations.

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.

Plasmas are atoms that have been stripped of some of their electrons. So they are positively charged. Of course you can create a magnetic field with motion of charged particles: that's what electromagnets do. But notice that electrical current is negatively charged particles (electrons) while plasmas are positively charged.

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".

You pick a couple of papers. Are they really "Birkeland currents"? Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What direction are the currents flowing? Birkeland currents in the earth flow from the earth to the earth. Where are the jets flowing? Again, for your theory to work, those jets must have specific receptors in order to carry information.

Another thought just occurred to me. Those jets are moving at less than lightspeed. Even if they were forming a circuit with another galaxy, that means a time lag of millions of years before the signal can reach the terminus. Since "thoughts" are not just one neuron to one neuron, but networks of neurons, if the universe is a conscious being, then it hasn't even complete one thought since the origin of the universe 13.4 billion years ago: the signals are still traveling from galaxy to galaxy at light speed or a little less.

Also, how coherent are the "jets" over distance? They can easily be disrupted by gravity, magnetic fields, and intersection with other streams of charged particles. What's the chance of such a jet ever getting to another galaxy?

 

[Michael]

His opinions are God? Wow... holy hyperboles, Batman!

Well, what else can I say? He won't even read the reference I cited, but he will seek out internet websites with an opinion he personally agrees with. One needs to get *BOTH* sides of an argument to make an educated decision. It's a little discouraging from my vantage point that he consistently chooses ignorance over education.

 

[Michael]

There's a quote from the Bible involving eyes, beams, and dust motes.

True.

 

[Michael]

You are correct that, strictly speaking, we cannot "prove" positive statements in science. However, we can disprove. And that is what we do to theories: try to disprove them. As far as I can see, you don't try to do that and sidestep disproofs offered.

I don't believe I have tried to sidestep the criticisms offered, but that doesn't mean I instantly agree with every presumed "disproof'. Did you have something specific in mind?

Forget 3sigma's personal standards. What you need to do is test your theory. Test the idea. I notice that you fall into the same category you accuse 3sigma of belonging to: refuse to have standards for your personal satisfaction that your theory is disproved.

Well, let's be sure to explore that statement and make sure there isn't some truth to it. It's all too easy to get stuck in a rut and I don't claim to be incapable of that particular pitfall. I would claim that my "standard" is entirely "empirical" and therefore entirely consistent. In other words, every part of the physics is based upon something that shows up on Earth here and now (unlike say inflation) and most of it can in fact be "tested" in a standard empirical manner. Those external EM influences on the human brain and human experiences are one such example.

I've dealt with this before. ALL theories start out as "made up" in someone's head. What comes next is the testing. Guth's inflation has deductions that have observational consequences in the universe.

But he "posticted" those "consequences" based upon what he had already "observed" in the first place! It's like taking a mythical deity and assigning it with various properties till it's a "perfect fit". How then do we distinguish between "inflation" and "Godflation" with properties that are assigned to it based on those same posticted observations? Guth's brand of inflation was even "falsified" to some extent, but that didn't kill the theory. In what imaginary universe might a "vacuum' have a "negative pressure"?

I've given papers showing those observational consequences: previously unobserved peaks in the CMBR. The homogeneity of the universe is also an observational consequence of inflation.

Since one can simply "tinker" with "make believe" properties (when it started and ended for instance), so what? It's like matching peaks with magic from my perspective. Show me any *empirical* (here and now) correlation between expansion and inflation and then I'll be happy to consider it something other than a 'religion", otherwise known as "Guthflation creation theory".

FYI, I think Guth referred to the whole thing as the "ultimate free lunch", when in fact it was simply a transition of energy from one form to another. He seems to think the whole thing just went "poof" of out thin space.

"Dark energy" comes from General Relativity. When Einstein formulated the relativity equations, he did not know about universal expansion. So gravity would inevitably collapse the universe. Einstein introduced lambda as a "fudge factor" to counter gravity. When the expansion was discovered, lambda was set = 0. However, more recent observations show that the expansion is accelerating, so lambda has a positive value. Since we have to have a name for the cause of the expansion, even when we don't know the cause, that name is "dark energy".

Why not call it "God energy"? How do you even know it's "dark" in the first place and not some EM effect?

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?

IMO mainstream theory horrifically *fails* the "sound science" test because it *cannot be tested* in the here and now and it defies any kind of falsification mechanism since all of it was postdicted to fit from the start. All of it, starting with inflation, mythical forms of matter and "dark energy", has to be 'taken on faith' in the "unseen". From my vantage point that is a "religion", not a "science".

The theory I have proposed *passes* the "sound science" test because at least major parts of it *can* be tested here and now, right here on Earth. Nothing has to be "taken on faith' in the strictest sense of the word, and large parts of it *can* be falsified over time, if not this very minute. When might I expect to be be so watch 'dark energy' cause something to accelerate?

I would argue that this theory is based on the principles of empirical physics. As such is can be falsified, and large parts of it can also be verified over time. I think that's light years ahead of mainstream cosmology theory in terms of 'sound science'.

 

[Michael]

So where are the endpoints in space? Where does the helix end in space?

Beats me. I don't really have access to technologies that might help isolate various endpoints yet. I may not even be able to see all the endpoints of every circuit in fact.

Yes, every sun does, but it does not do so directionally. Nerve cells have the depolarization following a specific path and direction.

The sun does release energy "directionally" and the polarization changes over time.

Solar storm hitting Earth causes spectacular aurora displays - Telegraph
NICT Real-Time Magnetosphere Simulation

If you watch the events on 8/3 and 8/4 you'll notice lots of directionally oriented changes in the "current flows" coming from the sun.

Show us where there are pictures of the "jets of light speed charged particles" stringing galaxies together. What's even better, show is that those charged particles can travel at light speed. Charged particles are matter (photons are uncharged) and, consequently, can't travel at lightspeed.

Feature - Black holes and their jets

There are directional jets from black holes and some neutron stars, but they are not directional and do no form networks like neurons.

Suppose you explain how come they ARE directional and that direction can even change over time?

Rethinking jet structure

The gradual change of the optical light’s polarization may reveal something unexpected about the overall shape of the jet: the jet appears to curve as it travels away from the black hole.
“At one point during a gamma-ray flare, the polarization rotated about 180 degrees as the intensity of the light changed,” said Hayashida. “This suggests that the whole jet curves.”
This new understanding of the inner workings and construction of a blazar jet requires a new working model of the jet’s structure, one in which the jet curves dramatically and the most energetic light originates far from the black hole. This, Madejski said, is where theorists come in. “Our study poses a very important challenge to theorists: how would you construct a jet that could potentially be carrying energy so far from the black hole? And how could we then detect that? Taking the magnetic field lines into account is not simple. Related calculations are difficult to do analytically, and must be solved with extremely complex numerical schemes.”

 

[3sigma]

In other words, you intentionally chose *not* to read the materials I suggested. Instead of educating yourself to *both* sides of the argument, you simply ignored the work that I suggested and spent a few moments searching Google for some sort of information that already fits with your own preconceived opinions (born or pure ignorance).
…
In other words, *YOUR OPINIONS* are god, and purely subjective too. They aren't born of "knowledge", but rather they are born of pure ignorance and 10 minute of reading an opinion that already jived with your own beliefs.

It isn’t that I have chosen not to read Stevenson’s book. I just don’t have it and I’m disinclined to spend my money buying it. However, if you can point me to a copy online, I’ll read it.

I doubt that you could read and comprehend that second analysis I linked to in just ten minutes. Did you read it or did you choose not to educate yourself to both sides of the argument? If you have read it then tell me whether you think it misrepresents Stevenson’s work and where it does so, please. I take it you are familiar enough with Stevenson’s book to make that comparison. You have read Stevenson’s book, haven’t you?

What's the plausible mechanism for "dark energy"? Inflation? Non bayonic forms of "dark matter"?
…
What's the "double blind' for inflation?
…
You mean like *KNOWING* that the universe is homogeneously distributed, and *assuming* inflation did it? How can I falsify inflation again?

All of which is irrelevant to your claim that your awareness persists forever after you are dead. These are yet more attempts to divert the argument away from your claims.

The problem is that every one of your basic criticisms can be applied to pretty much every scientific topic under the sun.

Oh, please. As sandwiches has noted, you are certainly one for hyperbole. How could any reasonable and intellectually honest person claim that every one of my basic criticisms—that is, a lack of a plausible mechanism, a lack of double-blind methods, the risk of confirmation bias and a lack of falsifiability—can be applied to “pretty much every scientific topic under the sun”? You really should curb your hyperbole. When you make such ridiculous statements, it only undermines your credibility even further.

You know, the difference between you and me appears to be that while I won’t believe something until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, you will believe something until it has been disproven beyond unreasonable doubt, particularly if you find it emotionally comforting. We can see this in your arguments with lucaspa. He provides evidence falsifying your theory and you disregard it. Tell us what evidence would falsify your “Empirical Theory of God”? Have you ever applied tests to your hypothesis that are designed to falsify it? If so, what were the results?

You appear to be a victim of confirmation bias, much like Stevenson. You seem to notice data that is consistent with your hypothesis and conclude that it confirms your hypothesis. Stevenson began to believe in reincarnation as a child and spent the rest of his life searching for evidence confirming that belief. Any cases he found that didn’t confirm his belief were labelled as “unsolved” and set aside. He didn’t count them as evidence against his belief. I’m guessing you believed that your God was real before you developed your “Empirical Theory of God”. Perhaps you wondered where or what God was and it worried you so you developed this “theory” (albeit subconsciously) to quell those concerns. You see, I don’t think you are unintelligent. I think you are intelligent enough to invent rationalisations to support your beliefs and then valiantly defend them, but you allow your need for emotional comfort to override your reason in doing so.

 

[Michael]

It isn’t that I have chosen not to read Stevenson’s book. I just don’t have it and I’m disinclined to spend my money buying it. However, if you can point me to a copy online, I’ll read it.

And suppose our discussion was MHD theory and it's application to "spacetime" and I suggested you read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Would you simply have ignored the work, and still claimed there never an application of MHD theory to space that is "sound science" based on someone's critique of that book? What is value of "publication" if you won't be bothered to read it, lest your education be "expansive" or "time consuming"?

I've cited Stevenson's work around here (and other websites) for many years and this isn't the first time anyone has cited those links. Your criticisms however can be applied to *ALL* mainstream cosmology theories, including a lack of a double blind experiment, etc. There's no theory under the sun that cannot be accused of the very thing you're accusing me of right now.

All I can do is present 'evidence' to support my position. Nobody can "prove" anything, and nobody is obligated to prove anything to your personal satisfaction.

Your whole "gig" here seems to be based upon the notion that ignorance is bliss and just because you've never seen a kangaroo, it must be true that nobody on Earth has *ever* seen one. When asked to read about kangaroos, you refuse to visit the library and insist it's all a figment of human imagination.

Oh, please. As sandwiches has noted, you are certainly one for hyperbole. How could any reasonable and intellectually honest person claim that every one of my basic criticisms—that is, a lack of a plausible mechanism, a lack of double-blind methods, the risk of confirmation bias and a lack of falsifiability—can be applied to “pretty much every scientific topic under the sun”?

Let's go through the list, shall we?

What is the "plausible mechanism" of say "dark energy"?

What's the double blind experiment that demonstrates dark energy isn't a ad hoc gap filler of *EPIC* proportions?

Are you saying there is no risk of conformational bias in "inflation theory" or dark energy claims?\

How does one falsify inflation or dark energy?

There's no point in continuing this conversation if you won't address my list of questions related to contemporary mainstream theory. Will you answer them, or simply dodge them?

 

[Michael]

You appear to be a victim of confirmation bias, much like Stevenson. You seem to notice data that is consistent with your hypothesis and conclude that it confirms your hypothesis.

Actually no, I would say that I presented evidence that is "consistent with" my hypothesis that comes from outside of self. Notice that need for "outside of self" for conformation. Nobody can "prove" something. One can only present evidence that is consistent with or not consistent with an idea.

The other problem is that your argument applies to *ALL* "where did we come from" theories of "creation". Where is the empirical link between acceleration and 'dark energy"? Expansion and "inflation"? Scientists point at the sky, observe expansion and acceleration and turn right around and call it "evidence" that supports inflation and dark energy yet they never showed any empirical link between these things.

It's actually quite amazing how many of your criticisms apply directly to inflation theory, dark energy theory, non baryonic dark matter theory, etc, and how little it actually applies to this empirical theory. You seem to have found one aspect of the entire theory to fixate on that isn't directly observable in a lab, and requires "outside confirmation", the one thing you absolutely will not do. You've elevated your own opinions to the level of godhood, and no external input is going to sway you.

The problem for you as it relates to this theory is that almost all of it *IS* completely empirical by definition, and therefore there are very few things for you to fixate upon as being "weak". The concept of awareness surviving physical death is surely one of those areas that becomes more problematic. That therefor seems to be your only beef.

The problem however is that your whole argument can be directly applied to *ALL* creation mythos, including the creation mythos known as Lambda-CDM theory.

The difference however is that even this part of the theory I have presented *can be tested here and now* and put through the standard empirical skepticism that we expect to find in any branch of science. Where would I go to get some "inflation" to see cause/effect demonstration between inflation and expansion? Where would I go to get some "Dark energy" to show a cause/effect relationship between "dark energy' and acceleration?

 

[Michael]

BB had a problem in that, on large scales, the universe is homogenous. Originally, BB would not give a homogenous universe. An exponential expansion -- inflation -- would.

But Alfven's "big bang' stared out homogeneous and never stopped being homogeneous, not ever! There no direct relationship between homogeneous layout of matter and inflation. You simply "assume" one. More importantly there are other ways to "solve" that particular problem to consider, not just inflation.

Guth's original proposal had errors -- which were pointed out by Guth at the time. Those errors were corrected by Linde and others. MIT Department of Physics

Linde made them worse. In fact they created a creation mythos from "nothing" and violated every energy conservation concept on the books. They called it the "ultimate free lunch". It's the ultimate mythos.

Where might I find a example of a negative pressured vacuum? That mythical vacuum was the "power source' of Guth's inflation process. I'm sorry, but that is a physical impossibility. There is no such thing as a negative pressure in a vacuum. The lowest possible energy state of a vacuum is zero, not negative infinity.