An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

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.

Sorry to break up your response into different posts, but I think it is best if we tackle these topics one thing at time.

In this case I agree with you wholeheartedly. *IF* there is a way to empirically verity the idea, then yes, it's "ok" to believe in the unseen. It wasn't mythical at any stage of the process because the concept could be falsified or verified here and now, if not today, then at some point in time.

Compare that to inflation. Inflation is dead. It no longer exists. It will forever defy empirical verification or falsification in a standard empirical test with a real control mechanism. Dark energy presumed to be "shy" around matter and therefor it too defies any sort of empirical verification in terms of verifying any cause/effect relationship between accleration and dark energy.

It's not the fact that something is "unseen" that I object to. It's the fact it cannot *EVER* be verified or falsified here and now that concerns me.

 

[3sigma]

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.

Well, if the illusory correlations, false dichotomies, tu quoque arguments and wishful thinking that you’ve presented in the way of “evidence” so far are the best you can do then your hypothesis is worthless.

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.

No, you are engaging in yet another fallacious straw man argument. It’s just one fallacy after another with you, isn’t it? I would not claim that because I had never seen a kangaroo then “nobody on Earth has *ever* seen one”. That’s just ridiculous. Even if I had never seen a kangaroo, I would still accept sound evidence such as photographs, videos, scientific papers and other such evidence that kangaroos exist. Your problem is that you have no such evidence supporting your claim that awareness persists for years after your permanent death. Not only have I never experienced such a thing, but neither have you nor has anyone else. The best you can offer is Stevenson’s misapprehensions tainted by confirmation bias.

While we are on the subject of “personal experience”, please answer these questions. Have you ever had personal experience of fairies? I do hope you answer ‘no’ to that question because if you don’t then we need to postpone this conversation until after you’ve received professional help. So, assuming you haven’t had personal experience of fairies, what would you think of someone who believes in fairies and who makes the argument that you cannot challenge him or ask him to produce sound evidence that fairies exist because you have never personally experienced fairies? Imagine he tells you that “your *LACK OF* experience is a worthless argument”, that “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!”, that “your personal experiences … have been elevated to godhood” and that “your whole argument is based on a fallacy, specifically that your own "lack of" experience is all that is relevant”. What would you think of such a person, his belief in fairies, and his arguments defending that belief? Think carefully about this because those statements in quotes are yours. That’s what you’ve been saying to me here. You are behaving like that person who believes in fairies.

And on the subject of sound evidence, you constantly complain whenever I ask you for sound evidence to support your beliefs by asking me to define ‘sound’ over and over again. I’ve told you numerous times that I mean evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension. Your constant argument over this leads me to ask what kind of evidence you accepted when arriving at your beliefs. Did you accept evidence that was full of errors, riddled with fallacies and based on misapprehensions? Is that the sort of person you are? It appears so when we see the errors you made in thinking that NDEs are evidence that your awareness lasts for years after you are dead. I’ll tell you what. You present the evidence you used to convince yourself that you will never really die, that “the entire physical universe is God” and that “the universe is alive and aware and actively involved in ‘creation’” and we’ll continue to show you your errors, fallacies and misapprehensions.

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?

You’ve been told several times that this is a fallacious argument and a diversion tactic, yet you keep using it. Are you really that impervious to reason? Look, for the last time, it doesn’t matter whether or not inflation, dark energy, dark matter or other concepts and hypotheses are wrong. Those concepts are irrelevant to your awareness-after-death claims and your “Empirical Theory of God”. Just assume those concepts never even existed. Instead, provide sound evidence to support your claims and tell us what evidence would falsify your hypothesis.

You argue just like creationists. When asked to provide sound evidence supporting their beliefs, they respond with, “evolution is a lie!”, “there are no transitional fossils” and “carbon dating is wrong”. They never provide sound evidence supporting their belief that their God created anything or that it even exists. All they can do is try to divert attention away from their unsupported beliefs.

So please stop these pointless diversionary tactics. Each time you use them after being shown they are fallacious just confirms your evasiveness, your lack of critical thinking and that you are impervious to reason. Just provide sound evidence to support your claims and tell us what evidence would falsify your hypothesis. Your “Empirical Theory of God” is falsifiable, isn’t it? If not, then it isn’t a theory at all; it’s just another unwarranted belief.

 

[Michael]

Well, if the illusory correlations, false dichotomies, tu quoque arguments and wishful thinking that you’ve presented in the way of “evidence” so far are the best you can do then your hypothesis is worthless.

Since you haven't offered us any valid way to *OBJECTIVELY* determine what is a "good' argument from a "bad" one, how exactly do you suggest we proceed? You've fixated on a single aspect of a very complex theory to the exclusion of every other aspect of the theory, and without demonstrating any sort of objective definition of "good" science to work with. Is inflation or "dark energy" good science? If so, why?

No, you are engaging in yet another fallacious straw man argument. It’s just one fallacy after another with you, isn’t it? I would not claim that because I had never seen a kangaroo then “nobody on Earth has *ever* seen one”. That’s just ridiculous. Even if I had never seen a kangaroo, I would still accept sound evidence such as photographs, videos, scientific papers and other such evidence that kangaroos exist. Your problem is that you have no such evidence supporting your claim that awareness persists for years after your permanent death.

Er, in the grand scheme of things, "so what"? That is but a *SINGLE* aspect of a much "larger" theory. Who cares about a single aspect of it anyway? I've yet to hear you explain any of NDE "experiences" in a "better" scientific manner. I've yet to see you read anything I have suggested you read. What exactly did you expect if you never actually lift a finger to educate yourself?

In terms of awareness surviving death, that has to be your biggest "goal shift" of all time. First you just wanted evidence. Then you wanted the person to be decaying. Then they had to be cremated. LOL! Not once did you even lift a finger to study Stevenson's work until I *FORCED* you to even address it. You've yet to explain anything in those NDE studies to explain why all those atheists and theists alike keep claiming to meet God at death. You've really just handwaved a few times. Not once did you mention the crash cart incident from the NDE study where the patient actually knew where his false teeth had be placed. Your "rebuttal" of Stevenson's work amounts to a "complaint" about *ONE* of TWENTY cases that Stevenson's book contains, and Stevenson was himself quite open about some of the problems in the case that was rebutted in your articles.

Not only have I never experienced such a thing, but neither have you nor has anyone else. The best you can offer is Stevenson’s misapprehensions tainted by confirmation bias.

The problem with that argument is that it applies to *EVERY* sort of "big picture" sort of theory, including "inflation", "dark energy", exotic forms of matter, etc. There's no way to not go down that path once the topic becomes "non empirical'. Since you fixated on a personal opinion of mine (and that majority of the planet) rather than any other empirical aspect of the empirical theory I presented in this thread, what exactly did you expect? Are you so naive as to believe that inflation theory is exempt from conformational bias problems?

Did you ever address that external EM field and *WHY* it caused folks to have "spiritual" (their term) experiences?

While we are on the subject of “personal experience”, please answer these questions. Have you ever had personal experience of fairies? I do hope you answer ‘no’ to that question because if you don’t then we need to postpone this conversation until after you’ve received professional help. So, assuming you haven’t had personal experience of fairies, what would you think of someone who believes in fairies and who makes the argument that you cannot challenge him or ask him to produce sound evidence that fairies exist because you have never personally experienced fairies?

Besides the kangaroo problem...

The problem with your analogy is that human beings *HAVE* reported experiencing "God" since the dawn of recorded human civilization. I've handed you a perfectly *EMPIRICAL* definition of "God", specifically the entire physical universe. Do you deny that the universe physically exists?

Imagine he tells you that “your *LACK OF* experience is a worthless argument”, that “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!”, that “your personal experiences … have been elevated to godhood” and that “your whole argument is based on a fallacy, specifically that your own "lack of" experience is all that is relevant”. What would you think of such a person, his belief in fairies, and his arguments defending that belief? Think carefully about this because those statements in quotes are yours. That’s what you’ve been saying to me here. You are behaving like that person who believes in fairies.

Again, your analogy is actually rather worthless because in this case only 4% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist". You're on the wrong end of your own analogy and the wrong side of history. The fact that you don't personally pray is no skin off my nose and your lack of personal experiences of God are irrelevant to the topic. The fact you don't personally experience God in your life is worthless information in terms of determining whether or not God exists.

And on the subject of sound evidence, you constantly complain whenever I ask you for sound evidence to support your beliefs by asking me to define ‘sound’ over and over again. I’ve told you numerous times that I mean evidence free from error, fallacy or misapprehension.

But again, your definition applies to *ALL* scientific theories, particularly any "where did we come from" scientific theory. There was a "fallacy" in terms of a lack of cause/effect demonstrations between "inflation" and "expansion" and yet I don't see you claiming that theory is "less than scientific". Why the double standard? How exactly did you expect me to work around that double standard?

Your constant argument over this leads me to ask what kind of evidence you accepted when arriving at your beliefs. Did you accept evidence that was full of errors, riddled with fallacies and based on misapprehensions? Is that the sort of person you are? It appears so when we see the errors you made in thinking that NDEs are evidence that your awareness lasts for years after you are dead.

Woah. That "years after you're dead" clause was one of that caveats you threw in later! You're blaming me now for your own shifting of goal posts. Never once did you explain *WHY* your atheist friends keep claiming to meet God during an NDE.

I'll tell *YOU* what.

Why don't you focus on the electrical aspects of events in space for awhile and let's see what similarities with a human brain we might come up with? Rather than fixate on what amounts to a "personal opinion" that is technically unrelated to the theory in this thread, why don't you focus on the the actual topic of thread itself for awhile?

 

[Michael]

You’ve been told several times that this is a fallacious argument and a diversion tactic, yet you keep using it.

No, the diversionary tactic is yours. You refuse to acknowledge that the criteria you're using make all forms of "where did we come from" forms of "science" worthless. Furthermore you won't acknowledge that the standards you are using are *beyond anything other humans actually apply to any topic*. In order for us to proceed to discuss what is "good evidence" and what is "bad evidence", we need to have some objective standard. Your standards make all forms of "big picture" "science" fail your own criteria. My theory (any theory other than your own belief evidently) could not possibly pass such a narrow minded set of standards, and there's nothing "objective" about your standards.

Are you really that impervious to reason? Look, for the last time, it doesn’t matter whether or not inflation, dark energy, dark matter or other concepts and hypotheses are wrong.

Are they still valid forms of "science"? If so, why? You need to stop dodging this question.

Those concepts are irrelevant to your awareness-after-death claims and your “Empirical Theory of God”.

Ya, but essentially your hijacking my "Empirical theory of God" thread to fixate upon a personal opinion of mine. Why?

Just assume those concepts never even existed. Instead, provide sound evidence to support your claims and tell us what evidence would falsify your hypothesis.

Well, if the universe isn't electrical by design, this theory isn't going anywhere. If the EM field has no effect on human consciousness, this theory could be falsified. Unfortunately for you the second part has already been confirmed.

Let's turn this around now and you tell me what it would take to "confirm' any or all parts of the theory I have presented in this thread?

You argue just like creationists. When asked to provide sound evidence supporting their beliefs, they respond with, “evolution is a lie!”, “there are no transitional fossils” and “carbon dating is wrong”. They never provide sound evidence supporting their belief that their God created anything or that it even exists. All they can do is try to divert attention away from their unsupported beliefs.

But that isn't what I"m doing. I"m asking you to give us an objective way to determine what is *good science* from *bad science* that doesn't rely upon your own *LACK OF EXPERIENCE*.

As I see it, you've essentially applied a personal set of criteria that would make any and all 'where did we come from' theories fail your personal test. If we intend to have a real scientific discussion, we'll have to have a definition that goes beyond your personal definition, and gives us some 'subjective wiggle room" so that accepted scientific theories can be "entertained in the classroom*. By your standards, that's impossible for any and all scientific theories related to "creation",and yes Lambda-CDM theory is a Young Universe Creation theory that cannot be justified in terms of empirical physics based on the standards you have applied to this thread.

 

[3sigma]

I"m asking you to give us an objective way to determine what is *good science* from *bad science* that doesn't rely upon your own *LACK OF EXPERIENCE*.

You’ve already been given this several times. I gave you the scientific method and lucaspa gave you the hypothetico-deductive method. Whatever it’s called, it amounts to the same process. You need to perform these basic steps:

1. Characterize the subject with observations, definitions and measurements.
2. Develop hypothetical explanations for the observations.
3. Make predictions based on those hypotheses.
4. Conduct tests designed to disprove those predictions

If we were feeling charitable, we could say you’ve completed steps 1 and 2, though to call your belief a hypothesis would be a misrepresentation. Predictions are made before observations and experiments designed to test them, not after, so you can’t claim as a prediction the observation that human brains generate a “sensed presence” (probably themselves) when subjected to magnetic fields. All you are doing is taking observations already made, retrofitting them to your belief then calling them predictions that have been confirmed. Furthermore, you are searching for things that confirm your belief rather than things that disprove it. You are engaging in confirmation bias.

What you need to do is make predictions from your “hypotheses” that haven’t already been observed then conduct tests designed to disprove those predictions. After you’ve done that, published the results and allowed others to examine your hypotheses, you might have the beginnings of a theory, but I strongly suspect you will never do that. All you are doing is searching for excuses to continue to believe your God is real, your prayers are answered and you will never really die. You may want to continue to pursue this wishful thinking, but I’ve had enough of this farce.

 

[Michael]

You’ve already been given this several times. I gave you the scientific method and lucaspa gave you the hypothetico-deductive method. Whatever it’s called, it amounts to the same process. You need to perform these basic steps:

1. Characterize the subject with observations, definitions and measurements.
2. Develop hypothetical explanations for the observations.
3. Make predictions based on those hypotheses.
4. Conduct tests designed to disprove those predictions

Um, how did they set out to "disprove" inflation? Dark energy?

If we were feeling charitable, we could say you’ve completed steps 1 and 2, though to call your belief a hypothesis would be a misrepresentation.

Oh bull, that's just another of your ridiculous claims because you apply the scientific method completely inconsistently (to suit yourself).

Predictions are made before observations and experiments designed to test them, not after, so you can’t claim as a prediction the observation

You are evidently very naive. Guth didn't "predict" a homogeneous layout of matter, he *KNEW* it was homogeneously distributed and he *POSTDICTED* a fit! That is certainly true of "dark energy" too. They "observed" something they believe is "acceleration' and postdicted a fit. By your standards *NO* big picture theory makes any 'predictions", so no theory passes your personal "tests".

that human brains generate a “sensed presence” (probably themselves) when subjected to magnetic fields. All you are doing is taking observations already made, retrofitting them to your belief then calling them predictions that have been confirmed.

How is the presumed influence of "dark energy" not exactly the same thing?

Note that never once have you bothered to demonstrate any sort of cause/effect relationship to support inflation or DE? Note that this *IS* an empirical "test of concept". In other words it is in fact a "prediction" of this theory that A) the universe is electric and B) that EM fields are the primary method of human/universe interaction. The fact you refuse to even acknowledge that I've done *MORE* than mainstream theory can do says volumes about your own "biases".

Furthermore, you are searching for things that confirm your belief rather than things that disprove it. You are engaging in confirmation bias.

Talk about irony. You didn't even read Stevenson's actual work. Talk about biases.

How was the "dark energy" hypothesis any different in your opinion?

What you need to do is make predictions from your “hypotheses” that haven’t already been observed then conduct tests designed to disprove those predictions.

What exactly did you have in mind? I like that EM test. It thought that was well done in fact.

After you’ve done that, published the results and allowed others to examine your hypotheses, you might have the beginnings of a theory,

You don't even bother to read published materials I cite, so your "need' here for publishing is purely irrational. If you read published material *THEN* (and only then) could you claim "publishing" is some sort of requirement. Since you don't, well, that's just silly.

but I strongly suspect you will never do that. All you are doing is searching for excuses to continue to believe your God is real,

Whereas you're searching for excuses to not do your homework, not get on your knees to pray, not lift a finger to find 'enlightenment' and you expect "truth" to conform to your own preconceived opinions.

your prayers are answered

I've already had plenty of personal confirmation of that 'fact", and my personal experiences and opinions are shared by *MANY* other human beings.

and you will never really die. You may want to continue to pursue this wishful thinking, but I’ve had enough of this farce.

The "farce" is your own. The farce is you "pretending' your defending some mythically perfect "scientific method", when in fact every single one of your criticisms also apples to "dark energy' and inflation and every other "big picture" theory of cosmology. The "farce" is you pretending that only our own "lack of experience" is relevant and meaningful.

 

[Nabobalis]

[/list]

Um, how did they set out to "disprove" inflation? Dark energy?

He is talking about theories. So for dark energy, all that is currently is a filler for something we don't know. Not a theory more of a fact.

Inflation would be easy to disprove, find a fact that disagrees with it.

 

[Michael]

He is talking about theories. So for dark energy, all that is currently is a filler for something we don't know.

No, "acceleration" is a "filler'" for something we don't know. "Dark energy" is simply a made up term, a metaphysical and cool sounding gap filler to prop up an otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Not a theory more of a fact.

Definitely not. It's actually more of an "interpretation" that suggests "acceleration". Dark energy has nothing to do with 'acceleration" in terms of empirical cause/effect relationships. It's an "act of faith in the unseen", a form of "religion".

Inflation would be easy to disprove, find a fact that disagrees with it.

Since the properties of inflation were "made to fit" an observation, how would you propose we do that? Which brand of inflation? Guth's brand has already been falsified, but new brands keep popping out of the metaphysical closet. How does one falsify an infinite variety of potential brands of imaginary entities?

 

[3sigma]

The "farce" is you pretending that only our own "lack of experience" is relevant and meaningful.

The farce is you pretending that this thread is about a scientific theory when all it is really about is you trying to justify your comforting religious beliefs that your God is real, your prayers are answered and you will never really die. In trying to justify your unwarranted beliefs, you’ve used evasive tactics, tu quoque arguments, arguments from popularity and numerous other fallacies, which ultimately only make your belief look even more ridiculous. Keep up the good work.

 

[sandwiches]

No, "acceleration" is a "filler'" for something we don't know. "Dark energy" is simply a made up term, a metaphysical and cool sounding gap filler to prop up an otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Definitely not. It's actually more of an "interpretation" that suggests "acceleration". Dark energy has nothing to do with 'acceleration" in terms of empirical cause/effect relationships. It's an "act of faith in the unseen", a form of "religion".

Since the properties of inflation were "made to fit" an observation, how would you propose we do that? Which brand of inflation? Guth's brand has already been falsified, but new brands keep popping out of the metaphysical closet. How does one falsify an infinite variety of potential brands of imaginary entities?

I think it's been enough of you evading having to defend your idea by hiding behind inflation. Have you made predictions based on your 'hypothesis' and then tested them? Yes or no?

 

[Michael]

I think it's been enough of you evading having to defend your idea by hiding behind inflation.

I'm simply pointing out that nothing passes 3sig's definition of "sound science".

Have you made predictions based on your 'hypothesis' and then tested them? Yes or no?

Sure, to *MY* personal satisfaction for the time being at least. I've offered you some demonstrations of "cause/effect" relationships between external EM inputs and human spiritual experiences. I've provided you with ample astrophysical support of the idea that we live inside of an electric universe. There are obviously going to be weaker and stronger areas of any argument, but in comparison to any other "how did we get here" theory out there, it's a hell of a lot more "testable" here on Earth than mainstream cosmology theory. What exactly are we going to compare it to, and what value shall we assign to concepts that have some hope of being demonstrated here and now in terms of verifying empirical cause effect relationships?

 

[Stephen Kendall]

An Empirical Theory Of God​

“In the end you will know that I am in you, you are in me and we are all one in God.”​

The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in “creation”. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale. These myriad of interlaced and interwoven circuits of energy, and quantum interaction, give rise to an awareness and consciousness far greater and more powerful than the microscopic variety of awareness found on Earth. Awareness is therefore an intrinsic feature of the universe. Its presence and expression at the microscopic level of life on Earth is a direct result of the existence of awareness at the macroscopic level.

God is the sum total of everything that exists in nature and every physical thing in the universe. We live our entire physical lives inside the body of God, sustained by the body of God. The dirt we walk on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the chemicals of our body, the sunshine that sustains life on Earth, all of it belongs to and is a part of a living being that humans call God.

The Electrical Nature Of Living Organisms.

Scientific research into living organisms demonstrates that the intricate structures of the brain give rise to awareness. The electrical exchange of energy between neurons, the circuits of the brain create a kind of ‘quantum awareness’ that is the sum total of the thinking processes, of an organized structure, over some period of time. The various exchanges of electromagnetic energy inside the brain provide “awareness” with a place to reside and function. The unique and specific arrangement of neurons, life experiences, and current flows of each individual give rise to an individual sense of awareness, a unique sense of identity.

This rise of awareness in humans has led to experiences of God and a belief in a creator in virtually every culture on Earth. Many cultures consider nature to be “sacred’. We must ask ourselves: Why?

The Electrical Nature Of The Universe.

Scientific research into nature and cosmology demonstrates that electromagnetic energy and current flows are not only an integral part of life on Earth, they are an integral part of the functions of the Universe. From the electrical discharges we observe in our own atmosphere, to the electrical discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere, to electrical discharges that generate solar wind, to high speed “cosmic rays” all the objects in space are bathed and electromagnetic energy. The EM field permeates space and time, far beyond the boundaries our solar system, it exists everywhere we look in space. We find direct evidence of magnetic fields that indicate the flow of current in cosmic scale structures large and small.

Only in past 100 years of so have we begun to understand and appreciate the electrical nature of our universe. Kristian Birkeland was one first scientist to seriously study the Northern Lights. He surmised that these events were related to electrical processes in the Earth’s atmosphere. To prove his theory, he hiked extensively through the northern polar region to setup stations to measure the magnetic field of the Earth during solar storms. He also created extremely sophisticated empirical experiments, with various control mechanisms to test various aspects of his theories. Over time he and his friends gathered extensive evidence of the changing magnetic field during solar storms that gave rise to aurora. In his terella experiments he demonstrated that aurora were caused by the bombardment of Earth with high speed charged particles. In his experiments, he bombarded a metallic sphere in an evacuated chamber with a cathode ray. In this manner he was able to replicate the aurora around the poles of his sphere.

Naturally his next question turned to where these high speed charged particles originated, and he then created a series of ‘solar” experiments by turning his metallic sphere into a cathode and giving it a plasma atmosphere. In these cathode sphere experiments he was able to replicate and predict many important solar system phenomenon. He was the first scientist to predict high speed solar wind. His experiments also predicted high energy coronal loop discharges, high speed polar “jets” and many solar features not observed until modern satellites made direct observations of the solar atmosphere beyond the atmosphere of Earth.

Irving Langmuir was one of the first scientists after Birkeland to work with “plasma” in controlled laboratory conditions. Langmuir was in fact responsible for giving the forth state of matter its scientific name. As a biologist, he was inclined to compare the behaviors of ionic plasma to the plasma of human blood. He saw that plasma isolated itself from charged surfaces via double layers, and he saw many similarities between the behaviors of plasma and plasma in the blood, hence the name he came up with to describe the forth state of matter.

In the 1940 and 50’s, Dr. Charles Bruce documented and demonstrated a link between “electric discharge theory” and many observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere and in space.

Nobel Prize winning author, Dr. Hannes Alfven wrote extensively about the circuits and electromagnetic processes in solar activities and in space, culminating in a book called “Cosmic Plasma” that describes these processes via magneto hydrodynamic theory, or MHD theory.

All of these predictions of electrical discharges in space have been verified by modern satellite imagery.

Like our brains, the release of energy of the sun at the highest energy wavelengths is not constant, rather it is variable and prone to frequent changes over time. It exhibits 11 year “cycles’ of energy release patterns, the next major cycle to peak in 2012-2013. Particularly during active phases the sun’s energy exchanges with the heliosphere become highly variable and electrically active.

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

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

Electrical impulses fired by control of what in the human mind and body? Personalities occur in the womb. So the controller must be before the womb or conception that such intricacies are already formed to develop a character. Just the existence of a human life form proves that there is something out there making the complexities of it before it was even conceived. Doesn't matter how well you could explain the originality of each unique personality away, it was started way back before it was started physically. Somebody was coming in their human body ship to the Earth from a point of origin that could only be from a God that has mastery of all the things that we could hope to know. Is this presumptuous to declare God through his marvelous creation of a soul's personality?

 

[sandwiches]

Sure, to *MY* personal satisfaction for the time being at least. I've offered you some demonstrations of "cause/effect" relationships between external EM inputs and human spiritual experiences.

Arguments from analogy are evidence are not evidence that your supposition is correct.

I've provided you with ample astrophysical support of the idea that we live inside of an electric universe. There are obviously going to be weaker and stronger areas of any argument, but in comparison to any other "how did we get here" theory out there, it's a hell of a lot more "testable" here on Earth than mainstream cosmology theory. What exactly are we going to compare it to, and what value shall we assign to concepts that have some hope of being demonstrated here and now in terms of verifying empirical cause effect relationships?

We don't need to compare it to anything. Your idea should stand on its own. Is there a way to empirically demonstrate and verify that stars form a brain and not just 'act like' one according to your analogy?

 

[sandwiches]

Electrical impulses fired by control of what in the human mind and body? Personalities occur in the womb. So the controller must be before the womb or conception that such intricacies are already formed to develop a character. Just the existence of a human life form proves that there is something out there making the complexities of it before it was even conceived. Doesn't matter how well you could explain the originality of each unique personality away, it was started way back before it was started physically. Somebody was coming in their human body ship to the Earth from a point of origin that could only be from a God that has mastery of all the things that we could hope to know. Is this presumptuous to declare God through his marvelous creation of a soul's personality?

This is very poetic but I'm afraid it's empirically unsubstantiated.

 

[3sigma]

I'm simply pointing out that nothing passes 3sig's definition of "sound science".

No, you’re simply lying. First, I haven’t used the term “sound science”. Second, there are many things that pass my definition of sound evidence. Stop lying about my position.

 

[Michael]

Arguments from analogy are evidence are not evidence that your supposition is correct.

Wait a minute. It's not just an argument from analogy, I showed you an empirical cause/effect link between external EM fields (found abundantly in spacetime) and experiences of the human brain. That is to be expected actually since the human brain is essentially an EM producing and awareness itself seems to be related to the EM field. The team in question isolated specific areas of the brain that are *directly* (cause/effect) related to what the person in the helmet often associated with spirituality.

Compared to the *non demonstration* of cause/effect between inflation/expansion and "dark energy/acceleration", you really have nothing to complain about.

The other side of this argument is related to the nature of the universe itself. This theory "assumes" that the universe is electric, yet even that concept is not the "mainstream" position. It remains a method of verification/falsification. That's a lot more than I can say for "inflation". How would we falsify that concept these days?

We don't need to compare it to anything. Your idea should stand on its own.

We need to at least establish a *METHOD* of grading systems. It's irrational to reject demonstrated cause/effect relationships that bolster this argument while ignoring all the pitfalls of other "scientific"" theories. None of 3Sigs arguments are valid because they apply to *every* theory under the sun, including mainstream solar theory I might add.

Is there a way to empirically demonstrate and verify that stars form a brain and not just 'act like' one according to your analogy?

There are probably ways to 'verify' the idea, and even ways to falsify it too I suppose, although assuming the universe is electric, "disproving" the notion of a universal awareness would be tough. It's always virtually impossible to prove a negative however, so that's pretty much par for the course with all theories.

If a universal awareness (God) *wanted* to communicate with us as a planet, I'm sure it could be done. In that sense it could be 'verified' at some point, not necessarily due to any of our personal efforts. Likewise we might ultimately identify a series of electrical patterns that are common to all intelligent beings and identify those same electrical patterns in spacetime. That would take effort on our part and would be an example of active scientific approach that might be fruitful over time.

Because this is a completely "empirical" theory, there really are "concrete" ways to verify pretty much every aspect of the theory. We can't prod the universe from the outside, but we can poke and prod it from the inside.

 

[Michael]

No, you’re simply lying. First, I haven’t used the term “sound science”.

You have provided us with no objective method to measure the validity of *any* scientific theory. Pretty much your whole argument of why you've objected to the evidence presented in this thread applies to *every* scientific theory ever conceived of, from Lambda-CDM theory, to string theory, certainly to SUSY particle theory that Lambda-CDM theory seems to *need*. There's no theory that passes your "personal tests" in terms of being "fallacy free" and none that are immune from your same criticisms.

Second, there are many things that pass my definition of sound evidence. Stop lying about my position.

Like what? Name one "big picture" (how did we get here) theory of the universe that passes your "sound evidence" test and explain how and why it passes that "sound evidence" test. You always dodge this question.

 

[sandwiches]

Wait a minute. It's not just an argument from analogy, I showed you an empirical cause/effect link between external EM fields (found abundantly in spacetime) and experiences of the human brain. That is to be expected actually since the human brain is essentially an EM producing and awareness itself seems to be related to the EM field. The team in question isolated specific areas of the brain that are *directly* (cause/effect) related to what the person in the helmet often associated with spirituality.

Demonstrating that electric fields give people feelings of spirituality is in no way evidence that the universe is sentient. Drugs, sex, and even a blow to the head can give you the same effect.

There are probably ways to 'verify' the idea, and even ways to falsify it too I suppose, although assuming the universe is electric, "disproving" the notion of a universal awareness would be tough. It's always virtually impossible to prove a negative however, so that's pretty much par for the course with all theories.

So, is there evidence that empirically demonstrates that the universe is sentient or is there evidence to demonstrate that the universe isn't non-sentient?

Because this is a completely "empirical" theory, there really are "concrete" ways to verify pretty much every aspect of the theory. We can't prod the universe from the outside, but we can poke and prod it from the inside.

What empirical methods did you use to verify "pretty much every aspect of the theory?" And what were the empirically verifiable results?

 

[3sigma]

You have provided us with no objective method to measure the validity of *any* scientific theory.

That’s another blatant lie. I’ve given you the scientific method twice now and you’ve just ignored it. Is this your latest tactic; just ignore what people say then falsely claim they didn’t say it?

Like what? Name one "big picture" (how did we get here) theory of the universe that passes your "sound evidence" test and explain how and why it passes that "sound evidence" test. You always dodge this question.

As for the origin of the universe, as far as I know we have no theory for what caused the Big Bang so asking me to show that it is supported by sound evidence is a red herring. However, you said, “nothing passes 3sig's definition of ‘sound science’". You didn’t limit yourself to origins theories. There are many scientific theories that have become theories because they are supported by sound evidence. The theory of evolution is one, germ theory is another and the general theory of relativity is a third. All those have passed through the scientific method to become theories. Your religious beliefs thinly disguised as a hypothesis have not. Show me a scientific paper that begins “The entire physical universe is God” and I’ll show you an insecure and credulous religious believer trying to pass off his unwarranted religious beliefs as science in a vain attempt to make them appear less ridiculous.

 

[Michael]

...... I’ve given you the scientific method twice now and.....

You've failed to explain how any part of this theory fails that "scientific method" you're talking about, and how any other "big picture" theory "passes" those very same criticisms. Who ever tried to falsify "dark energy"? Every single complaint you have leveled against any part of this theory applies to any and all scientific theories at some point in the process.

As for the origin of the universe, as far as I know we have no theory for what caused the Big Bang so asking me to show that it is supported by sound evidence is a red herring.

I asked you to show how "Lambda-CDM Theory" was supported by sound evidence. You can start with "dark energy". Where does it come from? How do we falsify it?

There's no way to have a rational discussion if you aren't prepared to explain how any "creation" (yes Lambda-CMD is a creation theory) theory is based on "sound evidence". The universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across, so what makes you think a 13.7 billion year creation date is any better supported than any other date?