An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Demonstrating that electric fields give people feelings of spirituality is in no way evidence that the universe is sentient.

No, but it is an obvious "prediction" of the theory outlined in this thread. All theories are ultimate judged by how well "prediction" match observation.

Drugs, sex, and even a blow to the head can give you the same effect.

Besides the fact you're speculating about the effect since you haven't sat in the chair, it's still a valid "prediction" of this theory. We can make very "specific" types of predictions with this empirical theory because it is based upon known laws of physics and identified forces of nature. Nothing about it is "metaphysical" or requires faith in the "unseen", or at least the "unseeable" like dark energy for instance.

The EM field is something we can actually measure. We know their source so we can create them in a lab and 'control" them in real experiments. This is a "natural" sort of experiment to see of the EM components of our universe can create a 'spiritual" type of experience in the human brain. The individual that conducted the experiment even isolated the *PART* of the brain that is most likely involved in such a process. You can' just blithely ignore the implications of these experiments as they relate to the "predictions" of this theory. If we live inside an electric being, it only makes sense that we could and would be able to communicate with such a being via the EM field. The human brain even generates an EM field while it's "working".

You are however ultimately correct that this one experiment doesn't demonstrate that the universe "thinks", but it's certainly a good step in terms of what real 'experiments" should be focused on. If we are going to build an apparatus to watch the EM fields both inside and outside the human brain, we should probably be paying particular attention to the areas inside the brain that these experiments focused on.

The key difference here between this theory and any "where did we come from" theory of creation is that this theory *CAN* be "lab tested" and whatever we can test *SHOULD* be lab tested. We can control and measure EM fields and we can observe their empirical effect on empirical experiments. That's light years ahead of "dark energy" since nobody knows where it comes from, let alone how to control it, let alone how to build actual "experiments" with real control mechanisms using "dark energy"

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?

There is evidence to suggest that the universe supports sentient life, and that the physical structures of the universe have similarities with the structures of living things. That's really about all I can say at this point in time. Define "sentient". Is a single celled animal "aware" of it's environment? How and why does it eat for instance? I'm not sure we even have the ability to recognize sentient life at the macroscopic level anymore than a bacteria might be able to figure out how what a human thinks about while living inside the human body.

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

FYI, if I somehow implied to you that I personally empirically verified "pretty much every aspect of this theory", that was never actually the case. I don't even personally have access to the equipment that might be necessary to fully do such a thing.

What I can tell you is that I personally have checked out various aspects of this theory (and lots of theories) and to my knowledge it is the single 'best' explanation of the universe that I can think of. I don't personally "test" every aspect of *ANY* scientific theory by the way. Have you personally tested every aspect of Lambda-CMD theory? Evolutionary theory? I think it's beyond the scope of anyone to verify every part of any theory. Even Einstein had help.

 

[sandwiches]

No, but it is an obvious "prediction" of the theory outlined in this thread. All theories are ultimate judged by how well "prediction" match observation.

Hypotheses, which is what yours is, and theories are judged on the strength of the supporting evidence.

Besides the fact you're speculating about the effect since you haven't sat in the chair, it's still a valid "prediction" of this theory. We can make very "specific" types of predictions with this empirical theory because it is based upon known laws of physics and identified forces of nature. Nothing about it is "metaphysical" or requires faith in the "unseen", or at least the "unseeable" like dark energy for instance.

The EM field is something we can actually measure. We know their source so we can create them in a lab and 'control" them in real experiments. This is a "natural" sort of experiment to see of the EM components of our universe can create a 'spiritual" type of experience in the human brain. The individual that conducted the experiment even isolated the *PART* of the brain that is most likely involved in such a process. You can' just blithely ignore the implications of these experiments as they relate to the "predictions" of this theory. If we live inside an electric being, it only makes sense that we could and would be able to communicate with such a being via the EM field. The human brain even generates an EM field while it's "working".

You are however ultimately correct that this one experiment doesn't demonstrate that the universe "thinks", but it's certainly a good step in terms of what real 'experiments" should be focused on. If we are going to build an apparatus to watch the EM fields both inside and outside the human brain, we should probably be paying particular attention to the areas inside the brain that these experiments focused on.

The key difference here between this theory and any "where did we come from" theory of creation is that this theory *CAN* be "lab tested" and whatever we can test *SHOULD* be lab tested. We can control and measure EM fields and we can observe their empirical effect on empirical experiments. That's light years ahead of "dark energy" since nobody knows where it comes from, let alone how to control it, let alone how to build actual "experiments" with real control mechanisms using "dark energy"

How do you plan on testing whether the universe is sentient?

There is evidence to suggest that the universe supports sentient life, and that the physical structures of the universe have similarities with the structures of living things. That's really about all I can say at this point in time. Define "sentient". Is a single celled animal "aware" of it's environment? How and why does it eat for instance?

It's a simple yes or no question: 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?

I'm not sure we even have the ability to recognize sentient life at the macroscopic level anymore than a bacteria might be able to figure out how what a human thinks about while living inside the human body.

Ah. So if we're incapable, that'd be a 'no.' Thanks. That's all I was asking.

FYI, if I somehow implied to you that I personally empirically verified "pretty much every aspect of this theory", that was never actually the case. I don't even personally have access to the equipment that might be necessary to fully do such a thing.

What I can tell you is that I personally have checked out various aspects of this theory (and lots of theories) and to my knowledge it is the single 'best' explanation of the universe that I can think of. I don't personally "test" every aspect of *ANY* scientific theory by the way. Have you personally tested every aspect of Lambda-CMD theory? Evolutionary theory? I think it's beyond the scope of anyone to verify every part of any theory. Even Einstein had help.

So far we've determined yours is a hypothesis, at best, and, as per your own admission, there's no known way to verify this. Therefore it's not scientific. So, what's left?

 

[Michael]

Hypotheses, which is what yours is, and theories are judged on the strength of the supporting evidence.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to personally collect all that evidence by myself! Just like all scientific theories, this one is not actually "mine", nor is it "special". It's simply a pantheistic view of the universe. Whatever evidence supports the idea, so be it. Whatever evidence refutes the idea, so be it. I'm no more emotionally or personally attached to this theory than I am to the theory of evolution, or SUSY particle physics theory.

The only real way we can compare theories in any scientific manner is to put all of these theories on equal footing, recognize the strengths and weaknesses and focus on the things that *might* be either refuted or verified in controlled experimentation. IMO that experiment with the human brain and the effect of external EM fields is a good example of a valid empirical test of concept. He could have for instance found *NO* pattern of effect on human consciousness. He "should' (according to this theory) find a pattern of cause/effect between the external EM inputs and the experience of the individual inside the helmet. That's exactly what they did find. In that sense, this data "verifies" that indeed an external EM field can and does have a quantifiable and real effect on human experiences.

How do you plan on testing whether the universe is sentient?

Well, we could "ask". IMO that is what prayer is for by the way, but we aren't limited to prayer of course. We should be able to eventually isolate some key EM features that are common to all sentient life and we should be able to find such features in the macroscopic universe. For instance, the presence of measurable EM fields over the whole of the universe is a "feature" we should expect to see in a sentient life form based upon our own experiences here on Earth. All life on Earth seems to generate EM fields so we should expect that to be true at the macroscopic level. This is a simple example of course, and only a small step in the overall process, but it is also a logical "prediction" of this theory, and acts as a means of falsification/verification for this specific theory.

It's a simple yes or no question: 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?

I guess that depends on what we count as "evidence". The evidence of wide spread measurable EM fields throughout he physical universe is consistent with sentient life. It's also consistent with non-sentient "electrical systems", and mainstream theory. The presence of "current flows" between the structures of spacetime is consistent with sentient life. It's also consistent with non-sentient electrical systems. It's not consistent with mainstream theory. We could fixate on that issue and eliminate either this theory or mainstream cosmology theory. Unfortunately for the mainstream, their concepts of EM field production is essentially based upon what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and they are therefore mystified by simple things like solar wind acceleration which Birkeland 'explained' over 100 years ago using "current flows".

The solar cyclical activity, and other measurable cyclical activities of the universe are consistent with sentient life. All life seems to produce rhythmic patterns and it operates on cycles. Again however, this is not a mutually exclusive set of data.

Now if we expand our concept of "data" to include human experience and human belief systems, we should note that only about 4% of the planet labels themselves an "atheist", whereas most humans choose some theistic belief system over atheism. This 'pattern of data" is consistent with a sentient universe. It's also consistent with other concepts of God. It does however tend to poke holes in strong atheistic view of the universe.

We could expand the data to include direct human experiences of God. We note that humans throughout human history have reported having a "relationship" with a living God, one they could "commune' with. Many historical books dating thousands of years ago include such accounts. That data is also consistent with this theory, yet again it's not mutually exclusive to any theistic concept of God.

So where does that leave us exactly? We have 'tentative" support for this theory, but not necessarily mutually exclusive support of this theory in these sorts of data sets.

Ah. So if we're incapable, that'd be a 'no.' Thanks. That's all I was asking.

I didn't mean to suggest that there was *no* way we could *EVER* test this theory. To test the concept however, one has to at least recognize the current flows that sustain the magnetic fields of spacetime. The mainstream cosmology community hasn't even gotten *THAT* far, so the limitation is related to our own ignorance, not our technology per se. We have the ability to create new technologies, and we have the ability to change our belief systems over time. It's not therefore 'impossible" to ever verify these ideas, but it will take a change of thinking withing the mainstream cosmology community, and evidently a change in religion as well.

So far we've determined yours is a hypothesis, at best, and, as per your own admission, there's no known way to verify this. Therefore it's not scientific. So, what's left?

You have that completely backwards IMO. Because this is an entirely empirical theory, it *CAN* be verified, if not now, some day. Not every aspect of GR theory could be 'tested" the moment it was thought of. Over time however *some* parts of it have been tested and verified. Other parts of it haven't been verified or have failed to be demonstrated in tests that were meant to verify or falsify the idea like the idea of gravity waves and the LIGO experiments. Even if we can't test every idea, we can test most of them and we can test them in controlled experiments. That is *LIGHT YEARS* ahead of mainstream cosmology theories that absolutely defy any sort of controlled empirical experimentation here on Earth. Compared to any other "big picture" theory of the universe, this particular theory is head and shoulders more "scientific" than anything else out there. Where would I even get "dark energy"? How would I "control' it? Can I expect to even measure it here on Earth?

Honestly, IMO you've got reality standing on it's head. At worst case *some* things might not be tested "yet". There is however "hope"" to test them in real experiments. What's "left" is simply a lot of work to be done, and lot of "sweat equity" that will need be put into verifying or falsifying the idea. There is however almost no limit to what we might be able to "test" as long as we're willing to do it.

 

[Michael]

Neurobiologists Find that Weak Electrical Fields in the Brain Help Neurons Fire Together - Caltech Media Relations

FYI, I found this article to be really quite interesting, and it seems to be related to this discussion, so I thought I would post it here.

 

[Delphiki]

Pantheism is related to electro-chemical activity in the brain?

 

[Michael]

Pantheism is related to electro-chemical activity in the brain?

It could be. Previous links I've posted in this thread show that it is possible to influence/trigger "spiritual" experiences in the human brain with an external electromagnetic input. If the universe is indeed an electric universe, it may very well be that the electromagnetic influences that give rise to awareness in the human brain, long ago gave rise to awareness in the universe as a whole. Ancient texts allude to the notion that we are created in God's image. Maybe the generation of awareness via electromagnetic transfers of energy is one way that we are "like" our creator.

 

[lucaspa]

It could be. Previous links I've posted in this thread show that it is possible to influence/trigger "spiritual" experiences in the human brain with an external electromagnetic input.

I've been looking for those links. Can you please repost them? Thank you.

The only research in this area I am aware of is that of Persinga, who can induce a "sensed presence" by electrodes attached to the skull and triggered by a very complex, unnatural set of impulses. This particular external input is nowhere to be found in the natural universe.

If the universe is indeed an electric universe, it may very well be that the electromagnetic influences that give rise to awareness in the human brain, long ago gave rise to awareness in the universe as a whole.

Again, the problem is that natural EM influences do not give rise to spiritual experiences.

What's more, the "awareness" in a the human brain is due to the connection of neurons and the specific firing patterns of those neurons. There is no such comparable structure in the universe as a whole. The sun puts out EM radiation in all directions equally. All stell objects receive the EM radiation from the sun equally. There is not specificity like you find in the human brain.

What's more, humans don't exchange EM signals with each other. Whatever EM field is generated by our brains is confined within our skulls and never makes it past the bone.

 

[Michael]

I've been looking for those links. Can you please repost them? Thank you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288-2/#post54119231

The only research in this area I am aware of is that of Persinga, who can induce a "sensed presence" by electrodes attached to the skull and triggered by a very complex, unnatural set of impulses. This particular external input is nowhere to be found in the natural universe.

Well, it does require a particular type of complex impulses, and it's "unnatural" in the the sense that it requires 'intelligence" to create. How do you know the universe and/or God is incapable of generating such "intelligent" impulses?

Again, the problem is that natural EM influences do not give rise to spiritual experiences.

It seems to me there was a Discovery special on this topic where that particular term actually was used by one of the participants. I'll see if I can round up the link.

What's more, the "awareness" in a the human brain is due to the connection of neurons and the specific firing patterns of those neurons. There is no such comparable structure in the universe as a whole. The sun puts out EM radiation in all directions equally. All stell objects receive the EM radiation from the sun equally. There is not specificity like you find in the human brain.

I can assure you from studying the sun for at least 2 decades that the sun does not put on energy equally in all directions. It's both cyclical (11 year cycles) and anything but "equal" in terms of the flow of matter coming off the sun.

What's more, humans don't exchange EM signals with each other. Whatever EM field is generated by our brains is confined within our skulls and never makes it past the bone.

Well, that may be true due to the limits of the EM signals in our brain, but a larger EM source (like a sun) is capable of putting out very powerful EM bursts that have even fried telegraph equipment on the ground during past flare events. Such macroscopic EM fields are not limited by a "skull".

 

[Michael]

Pantheism is related to electro-chemical activity in the brain?

I think it would be more correct to say that that awareness is related to electro-chemical activity, and the universe experiences such activity.

 

[sandwiches]

I think it would be more correct to say that that awareness is related to electro-chemical activity, and the universe experiences such activity.

So, do batteries. Would you say they're alive and conscious?

 

[Michael]

So, do batteries. Would you say they're alive and conscious?

Let's look at pure numbers for a second. How many 'circuits' exist in a battery?

Here's a current SDO daily movie of the sun. Every single one of those "loops" you see in the atmosphere is a "circuit', as are all the 'small loops" that look like "dots'. Compare and contrast the number of "working circuits" that are visible in the atmosphere of the sun vs. a battery:

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0211.mpg

 

[sandwiches]

Let's look at pure numbers for a second. How many 'circuits' exist in a battery?

Here's a current SDO daily movie of the sun. Every single one of those "loops" you see in the atmosphere is a "circuit', as are all the 'small loops" that look like "dots'. Compare and contrast the number of "working circuits" that are visible in the atmosphere of the sun vs. a battery:

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0211.mpg

That's fine but you understand that for a consciousness to arise, we need more than a large number of radiating objects , right? We could have a million trillion light bulbs all radiating energy to one another but that alone would not make a consciousness.

We need logic gates, channeled energy, redirection of flow of energy, etc for a consciousness to appear.

 

[Michael]

That's fine but you understand that for a consciousness to arise, we need more than a large number of radiating objects , right? We could have a million trillion light bulbs all radiating energy to one another but that alone would not make a consciousness.

We need logic gates, channeled energy, redirection of flow of energy, etc for a consciousness to appear.

The visual confirmation of the constant redirection of energy in that SDO image is pretty obvious IMO. Each coronal loop involves a flow of energy that can "reconnect" to other loops and change direction to connect to the heliosphere. Every solar atmosphere seems to produce trillions of individual circuits of energy that flow constantly, and that just the loops we can observe above the photosphere.

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7519625-8/#post57215366

Such evidence may very well exist, but I've yet to see any. Wind is evidenced through the moving trees and leaves, gravity in falling rain, love and joy in a mother's smile, energy in a nuclear power plant. Harking back to the OP, electrons are evidenced through a number of other well-established phenomena. Without wanting to derail the thread, what evidence is there for God?

Likewise God is evidenced through people's experiences in life, their choice of theism over atheism etc. There is far more evidence of God as the universe than any other so called 'scientific' theories about the universe in terms of pure empirical physical evidence.

Why not? For some people, truth and the pursuit thereof are the greatest joys and goals of life. A scientist is someone who works in and advances science, who pushes the sphere of human knowledge further outward. Ipso facto, a good scientist is someone who does this well - that is, their science is good science. And what is good science? Something that's well-evidenced, repeatable, testable, has explanatory power, etc.

Pantheism have more scientific explanatory power, including explaining those circuits in space, than mainstream scientific theory will EVER possess. The whole mainstream thing has been "posticted" since day one. Guthflation is an act of faith in a dead entity, and dark energies never moved a single atom in a lab.

This all relies on facts. If a proposed claim isn't supported by the facts, we cannot be sure it's actually true, so it has no use in science.

Guth's dead supernatural inflation entity has no place in empirical physics today. It has no place in empirical physics in the future. It's always been a "religion' that came from a single individual, without scientific precedent, and it's always going to be an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer. I can't do anything to anything in any lab today.

Compared to that "way out there" concept of the universe, pantheism enjoys *enormous* empirical support. When you hold up "science" as your surrogate source of truth, and you require empirical support for God, what exactly is the alternative to pantheism in terms of "real things" the show up in "real labs" and require no "acts of faith" in the unseen, in the lab?

So why should a scientist, who's goal is the pursuit of facts that advance human knowledge, disregard facts? More generally, why should we believe in or affirm the truth of anything that isn't supported by the facts?

Indeed. Why? How come inflation was without a scientific precedent WC? How was it not a postdicted "religion" on Guth's part?

A thousand different religions say the same thing. Christians tell me Christianity is the only way, Muslims tell me Islam is the only way, Sikhs tell me Sikhism is the only way...
Why should I believe you over the others?

I suggest you try the teachings of Jesus, mainly because they are as close to a humanistic value system as you're ever likely to find in any 'religion' on the planet.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7519625-8/#post57215366

Likewise God is evidenced through people's experiences in life, their choice of theism over atheism etc. There is far more evidence of God as the universe than any other so called 'scientific' theories about the universe in terms of pure empirical physical evidence.

So people have claimed. I've yet to see any evidence for pantheism, however.

Pantheism have more scientific explanatory power, including explaining those circuits in space, than mainstream scientific theory will EVER possess.

I'm somewhat sceptical that you know that the scientific community will never EVER come up with a theory with more explanatory power than 'pantheism'.

The whole mainstream thing has been "posticted" since day one. Guthflation is an act of faith in a dead entity, and dark energies never moved a single atom in a lab.

Quite.

Guth's dead supernatural inflation entity has no place in empirical physics today. It has no place in empirical physics in the future. It's always been a "religion' that came from a single individual, without scientific precedent, and it's always going to be an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer. I can't do anything to anything in any lab today.

Compared to that "way out there" concept of the universe, pantheism enjoys *enormous* empirical support. When you hold up "science" as your surrogate source of truth, and you require empirical support for God, what exactly is the alternative to pantheism in terms of "real things" the show up in "real labs" and require no "acts of faith" in the unseen, in the lab?

The alternative to pantheism, which has zero supporting evidence or scientific consensus, is the mainstream theories, which have overwhelming supporting evidence and unanimous scientific consensus.

Indeed. Why? How come inflation was without a scientific precedent WC? How was it not a postdicted "religion" on Guth's part?

Since it wasn't, your question is moot.

I suggest you try the teachings of Jesus, mainly because they are as close to a humanistic value system as you're ever likely to find in any 'religion' on the planet.

The other ethical statements of the Bible notwithstanding, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is indeed a very humanistic ethic, but it's by no means ubiquitous of Christianity. It is far old, and far more widespread, than a single religion. Besides, what does a religion's ethical similarity to humanism have to do with the veracity of said religion?

 

[Michael]

So people have claimed. I've yet to see any evidence for pantheism, however.

You aren't looking very hard IMO. In this thread alone I've provided you with laboratory experiments that show that external EM inputs produce psychological changes in individuals. I've shown you evidence that the universe we live in is "electrical" by its very nature and full of external (to the human brain) EM fields. I've show evidence that circuits exist in space and in the human anatomy. I can show that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and expand.

You on the other hand have *NOTHING* of any empirical nature that supports any of your mainstream beliefs, starting with Guth's "made up" supernatural entity. Dark energy never did anything to anything in any empirical physical experiment on Earth! You've got *ZIP* in the way of empirical support for your preferred cosmological beliefs.

I'm somewhat sceptical that you know that the scientific community will never EVER come up with a theory with more explanatory power than 'pantheism'.

Pfft. Their entire belief system is predicated upon *AVOIDING* all mention of circuits in space. It's 96 percent 'faith in the unseen' in the lab, and it's only 4% actual "physics". I seriously doubt it's going to 'explain' anything.

The alternative to pantheism, which has zero supporting evidence or scientific consensus, is the mainstream theories, which have overwhelming supporting evidence and unanimous scientific consensus.

Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy? If so, it fails miserably on both counts since self described atheists represent only about 4 percent of the population. If that's an appeal to authority argument, you seem to have ignored the *EMPIRICAL* aspect of our debate entirely. What your argument seems to amount to is empirical physics is irrelevant, only "belief in the unseen" matters so long as there is "consensus". Is that what you're saying?

Since it wasn't, your question is moot.

Have you even read Guth's original paper? He *already knew* that the universe was relatively homogeneously distributed. He simply "made his theory fit" with known observations, he did not actually "predict" anything. More damning IMO is the fact that his claim has no scientific precedent whatsoever. He literally "invented" the concept in his imagination and he endowed it with supernatural, density defying properties.

The other ethical statements of the Bible notwithstanding, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is indeed a very humanistic ethic, but it's by no means ubiquitous of Christianity. It is far old, and far more widespread, than a single religion. Besides, what does a religion's ethical similarity to humanism have to do with the veracity of said religion?

Well, for starters, it demonstrates how "universal" Christ's message actually is. The concepts of 'loving your enemy' and turning the other cheek are founded upon selfless motives. Compared to the values of "bling bling" and selfish acquisition of wealth we still observe in our culture, it's still a more workable solution for the future than what passes for "civilization" today.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You aren't looking very hard IMO.

I sincerely doubt you have any idea where I've looked or at what I've looked. Please don't be so presumptuous, you just end up looking like a paranoid schizophrenic.

In this thread alone I've provided you with laboratory experiments that show that external EM inputs produce psychological changes in individuals. I've shown you evidence that the universe we live in is "electrical" by its very nature and full of external (to the human brain) EM fields. I've show evidence that circuits exist in space and in the human anatomy. I can show that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and expand.

There are over 600 posts in this thread, and only one is mine. I have neither the time nor the inclination to review each one. You linked me here from another thread, remember.

You on the other hand have *NOTHING* of any empirical nature that supports any of your mainstream beliefs, starting with Guth's "made up" supernatural entity. Dark energy never did anything to anything in any empirical physical experiment on Earth! You've got *ZIP* in the way of empirical support for your preferred cosmological beliefs.

Allegedly. I, and the rest of the scientific community, beg to differ. You can declare and decry established scientific knowledge of being empirically unjustified until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so. Instead of getting hysterical, might I suggest a calm and civil request for evidence? Perhaps a thread entitled "What evidence is there for the Big Bang" or "The evidence for Dark Matter" or something?

People are disinclined to listen to shrill hyperbole and rhetoric. Just a heads up.

Pfft. Their entire belief system is predicated upon *AVOIDING* all mention of circuits in space. It's 96 percent 'faith in the unseen' in the lab, and it's only 4% actual "physics". I seriously doubt it's going to 'explain' anything.

Allegedly. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that there is such an anti-plasma cosmology conspiracy theory? Do you have any sources for these (almost certainly spurious) statistics?

Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy? If so, it fails miserably on both counts since self described atheists represent only about 4 percent of the population. If that's an appeal to authority argument, you seem to have ignored the *EMPIRICAL* aspect of our debate entirely. What your argument seems to amount to is empirical physics is irrelevant, only "belief in the unseen" matters so long as there is "consensus". Is that what you're saying?

No, it is not. I quite clearly mentioned the absence and abundance of evidence for pantheism and mainstream theories, respectively. Moreover, an argumentum ad populum involves "Many people believe p. Therefore, p is true" - that is, the sheer fact that a claim is believed by many is proof of its truth. This is not the same as pointing out where the scientific consensus lies, as the latter involves deferring to the tens of thousands of experts.

So, no, your diatribe is quite amusingly off base.

Have you even read Guth's original paper? He *already knew* that the universe was relatively homogeneously distributed. He simply "made his theory fit" with known observations, he did not actually "predict" anything. More damning IMO is the fact that his claim has no scientific precedent whatsoever. He literally "invented" the concept in his imagination and he endowed it with supernatural, density defying properties.

Indeed. So? How does that affect its veracity in the slightest? That's how science works: propose a hypothesis that explains the data, test hypothesis, modify hypothesis, test hypothesis, repeat ad infinitum.

That said, who is 'Guth'? I've never heard of him or this paper you're referring to, and there's no obviously prominent individual by that name on the Internet.

Well, for starters, it demonstrates how "universal" Christ's message actually is. The concepts of 'loving your enemy' and turning the other cheek are founded upon selfless motives. Compared to the values of "bling bling" and selfish acquisition of wealth we still observe in our culture, it's still a more workable solution for the future than what passes for "civilization" today.

Indeed. So? Christ's teaching of 'Love thy neighbour' is not unique to Christianity: it occurs in virtually every religion. Again, how does the existence of the Golden Rule in Christianity prove that Christianity is true, given that it also exists in a great many other religions and philosophies? Remember, the original question to Inan3 was "Why should I believe you?", when she espoused the truth of Christianity. I honestly don't see what the Golden Rule has to do with anything.

 

[Michael]

I sincerely doubt you have any idea where I've looked or at what I've looked. Please don't be so presumptuous, you just end up looking like a paranoid schizophrenic.

Well, assuming you've read this thread in it's entirety, you are at least being extremely "subjective" about what you consider "evidence".

There are over 600 posts in this thread, and only one is mine. I have neither the time nor the inclination to review each one. You linked me here from another thread, remember.

God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should give you a pretty good overview. Suffice to say that there is a neurological connection between human thoughts and externally generated EM fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n
There's also an empirical connection between EM fields and the acceleration of plasma in space. The work of Hannes Alfven also demonstrates the existence of "circuits" in space, along with an abundance of EM fields in space.

Consciousness has also been linked to "circuitry" in living organisms.

All of these findings "just so happen" to be 100 percent consistent with Pantheism. Why is that?

Allegedly. I, and the rest of the scientific community, beg to differ. You can declare and decry established scientific knowledge of being empirically unjustified until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so.

Likewise you can point at the sky all day and claim "my invisible friend did it", but until you can demonstrate your friend has any effect on real plasma in the lab, you have no empirical evidence that your friend exists, let alone that "he did it". Guth had *NO* scientific precedent for inflation. He literally just 'made it up' and endowed it with supernatural density defying properties that are unlike any other vector or scalar field found in nature.

Instead of getting hysterical, might I suggest a calm and civil request for evidence? Perhaps a thread entitled "What evidence is there for the Big Bang" or "The evidence for Dark Matter" or something?

At this point, I've tried pretty much every approach in the book, and it doesn't really matter. It all comes back to faith in magic math with magic sky entities. Of course the sky entities are either dead or impotent on Earth like most religious sky deities. Inflation and dark energy have no effect whatsoever on anything in the lab. It's all an act of faith on the part for the 'believer' in the unseen (in the lab). Nice or not, there is no empirical justification for Guth's inflation sky entity.

People are disinclined to listen to shrill hyperbole and rhetoric. Just a heads up.

I hear you on that point actually. It's like an evangelical atheist with a 'tude. They can definitely be abrasive.

Allegedly. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that there is such an anti-plasma cosmology conspiracy theory? Do you have any sources for these (almost certainly spurious) statistics?

How about you show me a half dozen papers published in the US or UK mainstream astronomy publications that uses the term 'circuits' in relationship to events in space. It's the "forbidden term" in astronomy today. All *electro*magnetic events are always "dumbed down" in press conferences and published material to "magnetic" yada, yada, yada, instead of *ELECTROmagnetic* yada, yada, yada.

No, it is not. I quite clearly mentioned the absence and abundance of evidence for pantheism and mainstream theories, respectively.

*WITHOUT* pointing at the sky, show me *ANY* sort of empirical evidence for either inflation or dark energy.

Moreover, an argumentum ad populum involves "Many people believe p. Therefore, p is true" - that is, the sheer fact that a claim is believed by many is proof of its truth. This is not the same as pointing out where the scientific consensus lies, as the latter involves deferring to the tens of thousands of experts.

Your so called "experts" can't even tell us where "dark energy" comes from. Your so called 'experts' can't show that inflation isn't a figment of their collective imagination and a meme that was simply created in the imagination of a single individual. It has NO empirical justification whatsoever. Guth quite literally 'made it up'. It can't show up in a lab because Guth *killed it too*.

There is *ZERO* empirical justification for mainstream theory. It's all one giant SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the phenomenon of redshift. The rest of it is purely "made up" from "sky entities" that are entirely impotent in the lab.

I've show all sorts of *REAL* empirical connections between external EM fields and human thought, circuits in space, and statistical connections related to human thoughts and beliefs on the topic of God. I've cited atheists reporting to have 'met God' during near death experiences. These are all things that occur in labs here on Earth.

What you're talking about is a CREATION MYTHOLOGY that requires "faster than light speed expansion" of a universe full of MASS that is physically incapable of performing that trick. In fact, the only two theories I'm aware of that require 'faster than light expansion' are young earth creation theory, and Lambda creation mythologies. Pure coincidence?

Indeed. So? How does that affect its veracity in the slightest? That's how science works: propose a hypothesis that explains the data, test hypothesis, modify hypothesis, test hypothesis, repeat ad infinitum.

That said, who is 'Guth'? I've never heard of him or this paper you're referring to, and there's no obviously prominent individual by that name on the Internet.

Alan Guth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm slightly amused at the fact that you evidently have never read Guth's work for yourself, yet you evidently "trust" his work implicitly. Why? Talk about "pure faith" in anything labelled "science".

Wait till you discover he needs 'negative pressure' from a 'vacuum' to make it all work, and his original theories were actually falsified and replaced with a new inflation sky entity anyway.

Indeed. So? Christ's teaching of 'Love thy neighbour' is not unique to Christianity: it occurs in virtually every religion. Again, how does the existence of the Golden Rule in Christianity prove that Christianity is true, given that it also exists in a great many other religions and philosophies?

It demonstrates that the statement "love your neighbor" is 'true', irrespective of the "religion", and irrespective of a lack of belief in God entirely.

Remember, the original question to Inan3 was "Why should I believe you?", when she espoused the truth of Christianity. I honestly don't see what the Golden Rule has to do with anything.

The golden rule simply demonstrates a "universal truth" that was taught by a man named Jesus. If you want to OBJECTIFY this issue we need to look at it scientifically, and statistically. The fact that half of the planet considers Jesus to be at least a great "prophet" of God demonstrates that the teachings of Jesus are considered to be "true" by general consensus.

 

[Delphiki]

I do like this OP, though, as crazy as it may sound to the other skeptics here. I try explain that I am an "agnostic pantheist" of sorts, in that, while agnostic, if there was a god, it would be similar to the one described in the OP. I think a god would simply be a conscious universe (pantheist). Since such an entity would be far beyond the capability of human discovery, it's impossible to know (hence, agnostic).


edit: Additionally, trying to rationalize it's existence by trying to relate the movements in the universe to a conscious would be futile, due to the scale of what I would define as a god.

 

[Michael]

I do like this OP, though, as crazy as it may sound to the other skeptics here. I try explain that I am an "agnostic pantheist" of sorts, in that, while agnostic, if there was a god, it would be similar to the one described in the OP. I think a god would simply be a conscious universe (pantheist). Since such an entity would be far beyond the capability of human discovery, it's impossible to know (hence, agnostic).

I disagree about the "impossible to know" part. That "assumption" seems to "assume" that God does not want to be "known" and does not interact with us in any conscious way. The "God helmet" demonstrates that an aware electric universe could indeed empirically interact with humans via an ordinary EM field. Do you believe that it's possible for a hamster to "know" something about a human being that feeds it and plays with it everyday?