An Empirical Theory Of God

[Doveaman]

Tiny (semantical?) correction, pantheism is just the universe, panentheism is the universe plus anything and everything outside the universe (if there is anything).

There are some Christians who believe that the universe is a part of God, and not God as a whole, in the sense that the universe in “within” God and is therefore “surrounded” by God similar to a pregnant mother "surrounding" her womb.

This would mean that God as a whole is "outside" the universe we see if what we see is "within" God. This is pretty much my view of God at the moment.

Does this mean I'm a panentheist?

 

[Upisoft]

There are some Christians who believe that the universe is a part of God and not God as a whole in the sense that the universe in “within” God and is therefore “surrounded” by God similar to a pregnant mother "surrounding" her womb.

This would mean that God as a whole is "outside" the universe we see if what we see is "within" God. This is pretty much my position at the moment.

Does this mean I'm a panentheist?

No, that makes you a liar. In another thread you told me you know God, but now you admit that it is only your "position at the moment".

 

[Doveaman]

No, that makes you a liar.

Why is this agnostic always ready to pounce? Is that your mission on CF?

In another thread you told me you know God, but now you admit that it is only your "position at the moment".

It is my position at the moment that the universe is a part of God. Whether or not this is true doesn't prevent me from knowing God in terms of "who" God is. Knowing "who" God is is more important than knowing "what" God is. I'm flexible in terms of knowing "what" God is, whether the universe is a part of Him or not.

"For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day. - 2 Tim 1:12.

 

[Upisoft]

It is my position at the moment that the universe is a part of God. Whether or not this is true doesn't prevent me from knowing God in terms of "who" God is. "Who"God Is is more important than "what" God is. I'm flexible in terms of knowing "what" God is, whether or not the universe is a part of Him.

I see. So you can be flexible in term of knowing. So, your knowledge is not necessarily true. Therefore your knowledge of who is God is also not necessarily true. I have couple of words for that, they are "belief" and "hypothesis". And they are certainly not knowledge.

 

[Doveaman]

I see. So you can be flexible in term of knowing.

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I am flexible in terms of knowing "what" God is. I said nothing about just "knowing". If you are going to slander me at least be honest about it.

I am pretty sure as to "who" God is. We have 66 books written on the subject containing principles that if followed produce predictable results. I would be a fool to have experienced those results just as predicted after applying those principles and then conclude they are all meaningless. Not even scientists do that in their studies of nature.

Even your own slander is predicted:

"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of corruption, and they heap abuse on you." - 1 Peter 4:4.

So, your knowledge is not necessarily true. Therefore your knowledge of who is God is also not necessarily true. I have couple of words for that, they are "belief" and "hypothesis". And they are certainly not knowledge.

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." - 1 Cor 13:21, John 4:16.

God is love. Love is who God is. I can live exactly as God intends without knowing exactly what God is in terms of knowing whether or not the universe is a part of Him.

Knowing whether or not the universe is a part of Him, or whether or not the universe is Him, just makes our study of Him more interesting and exciting.

 

[Upisoft]

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I am flexible in terms of knowing "what" God is. I said nothing about just "knowing". If you are going to slander me at least be honest about it.

How is that "putting words" in your mouth? At best, you can accuse me of omitting words. Anyway, I fail to see how you can be flexible about knowing something. You either know it or not. When you don't know it you can be flexible in your hypotheses. Given the way of your usage of the word "knowing", you can't blame me I failed to understand what exactly you have in mind.

I am pretty sure as to "who" God is. We have 66 books written on the subject containing principles that if followed produce predictable results. I would be a fool to have experienced those results just as predicted after applying those principles and then conclude they are all meaningless. Not even scientists do that in their studies of nature.

Scientists do it all the time. If you cannot objectively measure the result and do it by independent tests/observers, then you have no data to work with.
Of course it is your right to believe in your 66 books. There is just a small problem though. There are other people, reading other books, that claim the same. All of you cannot be possibly correct.

Even your own slander is predicted:

"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of corruption, and they heap abuse on you." - 1 Peter 4:4.

I see, I am flood of corruption. I also find something strange. Although it was not what it was "predicted". I find you usage of the word "knowing" strange. I'm sorry to spoil the "prediction". Your own book warns you not to do it.

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft," - Deuteronomy 18:10

God is love. Love is who God is.

He certainly loves to kill people, their first born, etc.

I can live exactly as God intends without knowing exactly what God is in terms of knowing whether or not the universe is a part of Him.

Now that is the correct usage of the word "knowing". You are learning fast.

 

[Doveaman]

How is that "putting words" in your mouth? At best, you can accuse me of omitting words. Anyway, I fail to see how you can be flexible about knowing something. You either know it or not. When you don't know it you can be flexible in your hypotheses. Given the way of your usage of the word "knowing", you can't blame me I failed to understand what exactly you have in mind.

Okay then, it is my hypotheses that the universe is a part of God. This has nothing to do with me knowing for a fact that God exists and knowing for a fact who He is and knowing for a fact what His purpose is in creating me and knowing for a fact how He intends for me to fulfill that purpose.

Scientists do it all the time. If you cannot objectively measure the result and do it by independent tests/observers, then you have no data to work with.
Of course it is your right to believe in your 66 books. There is just a small problem though. There are other people, reading other books, that claim the same. All of you cannot be possibly correct.

Anyone can make a claim; it's the reliability of the books that matters. In my own experience and the experience of many others no other books have proven to be more reliable than those 66. That's why the Bible is the best-selling book in history and has the greatest influence and following.

I see, I am flood of corruption.

In the sense that your thoughts and actions are contrary to God’s own, yes. God’s “will” and “ways” are the standard we all must live up to since we were created for that very purpose:

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” - Gen 1:26.

I also find something strange. Although it was not what it was "predicted". I find you usage of the word "knowing" strange.

Perhaps I used it wrong when I said I’m flexible in terms of "knowing" what God is. But there are very few people who would be so quick to pounce on me for that. Others would have gotten the point.

I'm sorry to spoil the "prediction". Your own book warns you not to do it.
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft," - Deuteronomy 18:10

I would be interested in understanding your point here because for some reason I think we are in agreement.

He certainly loves to kill people, their first born, etc.

I see you have a hidden agenda. Good luck with that.

The way I see it, God imparts a measure of His own life to man and He has every right to take it away if He so desires to since it belongs to Him in the first place. Your ignorance of why God would take a life away does not give you the right to go about accusing God of murder or wrong-doing. After all, it is His own life He is taking away from us, so what's your problem?

Man does not have the right to take away what does not belong to him, but God has every right to take away what is His, and everything belongs to Him:

"The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." - Ps 24:1

Now that is the correct usage of the word "knowing". You are learning fast.

Thanks.

 

[Michael]

Your concept of spacetime differs from that of myself, and indeed of everyone else. Relativity, for instance, treats spacetime as a medium wherein matter and energy lie, and it is a separate entity unto itself.

Without matter and energy GR doesn't exist. GR is a description the curvature of spacetime in the PRESENCE OF MATTER. Without matter and energy, no GR.

It can affect and be affected by mass, for instance. So I disagree with your proclamations that ""Spacetime" cannot and does not exist in the absence of matter",

What exactly do you think GR describes in the absence of matter? What's generating any 'curvature' of spacetime in such a scenario?

and "[spacetime] cannot "expand" until and unless the matter that composes "spacetime" expands".

What exactly are you claiming is "expanding"? Start with your near singularity thing, just prior to inflation. What is "expanding"? Do any Higgs Bosons exist yet?

Why? One particle can decay into a shower of other particles. This is a routine occurance in particle physics.

Sure, when we're talking about "real" particles that show up in real experiments.

Who's to say that inflatons cannot decay into, say, ITJ photons?

Who's to say God cannot decay in the same thing? I don't see the point of such arguments in terms of empirical physics.

Pointing out that electrons don't do this is irrelevant, and belies your misunderstanding of the whole thing.

No, it simply demonstrates that no other known vector or scalar field in nature does that 'supernatural' thing that Guth endowed his deity with.

How about showing me that inflation can decay into *ANYTHING* in a controlled experiment. You can't simply claim that inflation decays into *MORE INFLATION* and therefore it's density remains constant while it expands exponentially. Talk about creation mythologies at their religious finest! I have to take the whole thing on 'blind faith in the supernatural creation entity'.

Please show me where the inflaton violates the laws of physics by decaying into other particles.

Please show me that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination and that it actually decays into *ANYTHING*.

If I told you that electrons exist and they "annihilate" with positrons to create gamma rays, that claim is something that I might hope to physically demonstrate in a lab. Since Guthianity begins with a dead inflation entity, you're up a metaphysical creek without an empirical paddle. I can't "disprove" something that doesn't even exist, let alone demonstrate that it violates anything by decaying into anything. Your inflation religion is evidently predicated upon the need for others to "disprove' your metaphysical religion.

Does that work for me too? Does pantheism automatically get a free pass unless and until you can physically and personally disprove it?

No. Notice the qualifying word at the beginning of the first? Here it is again:

"IF Guth's original theory has been disproven and replaced by a better theory..."

It was found to contain errors. His version had flaws and there are at least a half dozen "better" metaphysical brands to chose from these days, assuming that any metaphysical concept is actually "better" than another.

Indeed. Welcome to academia, baby.

Er, welcome to religion baby!

Even if that were the case (notice the 'if'), so what? That fact alone doesn't disprove inflation.

Notice what you're saying now. I can't "prove" that anything "supernatural" does not exist. I can't "prove' the Guth made it up in his head, although I can prove that his idea had *absolutely* no scientific precedent.

It's a scientific and physical impossibility to prove a negative. Guthanity is based upon a dead, supernatural entity that now has as many metaphysical variations on the same theme as "Christianity" (almost). It's gotten so bad you now expect me to "prove" that something that's never been seen cannot "decay" in a way that allows it to grow exponentially, yet experience little or no change in density. Even though this behavior is completely and absolutely *unlike* any other vector or scalar field in nature, you expect *ME* to disprove something that cannot possibly be 'disproven".

IMO, you sound every bit like a theist *insisting* that an atheist disprove their beliefs, rather than the theist attempting to support their own beliefs scientifically as I am trying to do in this thread. Nobody can prove a negative. It's a scientific impossibility.

But not because they've passed every test, but rather because no test has been put to them.

FYI, PC theory was what renewed my interest in pantheism, so actually that isn't a true statement from my perspective. Pantheism passed a 'test' I'd never even considered before. That's what piqued my scientific curiosity.

You've never put Guthanity to any empirical tests. You have shown no empirical connections between photons and Guth's mythical entity, let alone any specific wavelength of photon and his mythical creature. You've shown nothing remotely like an empirical demonstration of concept.

Not only can I show you Birkeland's working model of a cathode sun, I can show you an empirical link between EM fields and human thought. I can show a link between intelligence and circuitry. I can show that the universe is full of circuits. I can do all these things *EMPIRICALLY*.

You can't even get inflation to release a single photon in a lab, let alone move a couple of atoms around. Man, talk about faith in something you cannot every personally hope demonstrate and that will forever remain an act of faith!

Please show where I made the claim that "Everything that hasn't been disproven, is true".

Notice how you expect me to empirically support pantheism, yet you also expect me to *prove* that Guth didn't make up inflation in his head? Do you really not see *ANY* sort of double standard in what you're asking me to do in this thread? Somehow I'm supposed to prove to you that inflation cannot decay into endless more amounts of something, not that you can really even say what it is, or demonstrate any of it.

Then I repeat my question: why do you denounce inflation as being false, when you yourself admit it cannot be disproven?

I routinely reject *all* supernatural concepts on the same empirical grounds. I "lack belief' in anything and everything that lacks empirical support. How can you not accept that? You rationalize a "lack of belief" in God don't you? I really don't get it.

I've gone out of my way to reject metaphysics since I became an atheist at about age 15. For a time I couldn't explain God, but I never *insisted* that God was supernatural even after embracing theism again. I fail to see why you would accept me claiming that Godflation did it, and I likewise fail to see why you would expect me to believe "Guthflation did it'. Neither statement has an empirical leg to stand on in the lab.

Why would I need to read a paper from the 1980s to learn about and evaluate a theory that has had 30 years of development? I could read it, just as I could read On the Origin of Species to get a grasp of evolution - but I don't need to. The best evidence has been found after the publication of the paper, so why on Earth would I read the original paper?

You're still ignoring the fact that DNA is real and it mutates here on Earth in a lab, whereas inflation is a complete dud in the lab. 30 years after Guth invented inflation, and nobody has ever linked a photon to inflation in a lab. In fact it's impossible based on Guth's theory for that to ever happen (again). It's the ultimate act of faith on the part of the believer.

"God lights up my sky every single day and night."
What are you referring to, if not the Sun?

Everything you see.

How indeed. By all appearances, that's all you are. That's all any of us is.

Well, you're going to have to throw in awareness in there sooner or later. If you accept that awareness is a 'natural' physical process, then pantheism is by far the single most 'natural' and most empirical theory of the universe that could ever be written. It's based on pure empirical physics, like atoms and circuits and awareness.

"Awareness" is what allows me to 'observe" changes over time and therefore to explore the universe through "science". Without awareness, there is no 'science'.

Why is it an empirical reason? Like I said, my computer also has circuitry, but I don't see pantheists bowing before it.

You missed the point! The fact that your computer works at all is testament to the fact that EU/PC versions of pantheism have tangible value. Circuit theory works. It's value is found in consumer products galore. Inflation theory doesn't 'work' at the store. The only place it even exists in in *ONE* creation mythos, and that's the only place it's of any 'value". It has no intrinsic empirical value whatsoever.

FYI, you're also comparing the 'natural' circuitry of the universe to "intelligently designed hardware" which really fails as an analogy. I really don't see how you're even helping your case in any way by such silly comparisons. Either way, if the universe is aware, or it's just "intelligently designed", atheism goes down in flames from the standpoint of physics.

 

[lucaspa]

Without matter and energy GR doesn't exist. GR is a description the curvature of spacetime in the PRESENCE OF MATTER. Without matter and energy, no GR.

Not quite what GR says. Spacetime can exist without matter/energy. Yes, part of GR describes how matter curves spacetime, but that in no way indicates the existence of spacetime is dependent on the existence of matter/energy. Without matter, spacetime simply would not be curved.

What exactly do you think GR describes in the absence of matter? What's generating any 'curvature' of spacetime in such a scenario?

Who says spacetime would be curved in such a scenario? What you are saying is that the curvature depends on matter. Fine. I think we all agree that is the case. But spacetime itself is not dependent on matter/energy

What exactly are you claiming is "expanding"? Start with your near singularity thing, just prior to inflation. What is "expanding"? Do any Higgs Bosons exist yet?

Spacetime is expanding. That's how objects can recede from us faster than light. The objects are not moving thru spacetime faster than light, but spacetime is expanding. Think of twigs in a stream.

No one has found any Higgs bosons yet. That's different from whether they exist. Existence is not dependent on whether we have found them. After all, did atoms exist before we discovered them?

Who's to say God cannot decay in the same thing? I don't see the point of such arguments in terms of empirical physics.

Christianity says God cannot decay into the same thing. What you propose would make God part of the universe, and Christianity does not allow that.

All "empirical" science starts with hypotheses. You start with the hypothesis, then you go looking for empirical data.

No, it simply demonstrates that no other known vector or scalar field in nature does that 'supernatural' thing that Guth endowed his deity with.

Guth didn't have a deity. He had a theory of inflation. We have several theories in nature that produce unique results. For instance, natural selection produces design. It was once thought the only the supernatural could produce the design in plants and animals. Now we know its natural selection.

How about showing me that inflation can decay into *ANYTHING* in a controlled experiment. You can't simply claim that inflation decays into *MORE INFLATION* and therefore it's density remains constant while it expands exponentially. Talk about creation mythologies at their religious finest! I have to take the whole thing on 'blind faith in the supernatural creation entity'.

1. Some things cannot be replicated in a lab. For instance, the meteor that caused the KT extinction event can't be duplicated in the lab. Instead, you look for consequences of the theory today.

2. You don't have to take inflation on 'blind faith". Instead, you look at the fine map of the CMBR. Inflation left its mark there.

Please show me that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination and that it actually decays into *ANYTHING*.

I can't "disprove" something that doesn't even exist,

Sure you can. Flat earth doesn't exist. And people proved it. A solar system with earth in the center and the sun and planets orbiting around it doesn't exist. That was proved. What you do is disprove inflation. The fine scale maps of the CMBR could have disproved inflation, but they didn't.

Does that work for me too? Does pantheism automatically get a free pass unless and until you can physically and personally disprove it?

Pantheism is a religion, not a scientific theory. If we look at pantheism from the pov of science, it has not been falsified. It could be true. Just as Judeo-Christianity could be true. If you want to disprove pantheism, you must go to data that religion accepts as true, such as the Bible. The Bible will not allow pantheism. Of course, if you don't accept the Bible as "data", then you personally would not say pantheism is disproved.

It was found to contain errors. His version had flaws and there are at least a half dozen "better" metaphysical brands to chose from these days, assuming that any metaphysical concept is actually "better" than another.

There are other theories out there, such as ekpyrotic. But all of them, to my knowledge, incorporate inflation. Please name one that doesn't.

I can't "prove" that anything "supernatural" does not exist. I can't "prove' the Guth made it up in his head, although I can prove that his idea had *absolutely* no scientific precedent.

1. Correct in that science can't prove the supernatural does not exist.

2. Of course Guth used imagination to formulate inflation. That happens for every scientific theory. And of course it didn't have a precedent. Both of those are irrelevant.

3. What is relevant is whether there are physical consequences to Guth's theory that we can measure empirically. And there are:
4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant. And inflation theory survives.
14. M Joy and JE Calrstrom Probing the early universe with the SZ effect. Science 291: 1715-1717, March 2, 2001. Interaction with the CMBR with free electrons in ionized gas produce the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. Proposed in 1970, but not detected until recently. Is independent test of big bang and theories associated with it. So far, supportes big bang strongly.
14. C Seife, Galaxy mappers detect wiggly cosmic order. Science 292: 188-189, Apr 13, 2001. Mapping location of 250,000 galaxies. "Wiggles" in distribution of galaxies give distribution of baryonic and exotic matter. Is 5%, right between calculated values of 4% from theories on how matter generated and 6% from CMBR.
15. RR Caldwell, M Kamionkowski, Echoes from the big bang. Scientific American 284: 38-43, Jan. 2001.
20. A Gangui, In support of inflation. Science 291: 837-839, Feb. 2, 2001.
21. CSeife, Echoes of the Big Bang theory put theories in tune. Science 292: 823, May 4, 2001. Boomerang analysis of CMB finds harmonics that support acoustic theory -- pressure waves in early (<300,000 years) blob of plasma. Exactly as theory predicted. Also recalculates baryonic matter and gets 4% -- in agreement with other measurements. Analyzed 14x the amount of data presented last year. Boomerang collected a LOT of data that took time to analyze.

It's a scientific and physical impossibility to prove a negative.

Not at all. That's what deductive logic (used by science) does all the time. As I noted above, "the earth is not flat" has been proved. That's proving a negative.

 

[Michael]

Not quite what GR says. Spacetime can exist without matter/energy. Yes, part of GR describes how matter curves spacetime, but that in no way indicates the existence of spacetime is dependent on the existence of matter/energy. Without matter, spacetime simply would not be curved.

Without matter and energy, what exactly does GR relate to at that point?

Who says spacetime would be curved in such a scenario? What you are saying is that the curvature depends on matter. Fine. I think we all agree that is the case. But spacetime itself is not dependent on matter/energy

What is it dependent upon?

Spacetime is expanding. That's how objects can recede from us faster than light. The objects are not moving thru spacetime faster than light, but spacetime is expanding. Think of twigs in a stream.

Objects in motion stay in motion. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects expand, but "space" does not expand in labs on Earth.

No one has found any Higgs bosons yet. That's different from whether they exist. Existence is not dependent on whether we have found them. After all, did atoms exist before we discovered them?

The empirical difference is that we *do* expect to find them "eventually" in physical experiments, whereas inflation is nonexistent today and therefore it will forever be an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer. For good or bad, it's not any different from an ordinary religion in that respect IMO.

Christianity says God cannot decay into the same thing. What you propose would make God part of the universe, and Christianity does not allow that.

What do you make of John 17?

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What does Jesus mean about being one in God and God being in us in your opinion?

All "empirical" science starts with hypotheses. You start with the hypothesis, then you go looking for empirical data.

The problem is that there can be no "empirical data" related to inflation here and now. That is also true of "dark energy". About the only hope of empirical redemption in terms of mainstream theory is "dark matter", and frankly that hasn't gone so well.

Search for Dark Matter Narrowed by New Data From XENON100 | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

Guth didn't have a deity. He had a theory of inflation. We have several theories in nature that produce unique results. For instance, natural selection produces design. It was once thought the only the supernatural could produce the design in plants and animals. Now we know its natural selection.

But Guth's "entity" (if you don't like deity) was 'supernatural' in the sense that no other vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's about as 'supernatural' as it gets.

1. Some things cannot be replicated in a lab. For instance, the meteor that caused the KT extinction event can't be duplicated in the lab. Instead, you look for consequences of the theory today.

But meteors do crash into planets and we've documented that fact. These things happen *ON EARTH*.

2. You don't have to take inflation on 'blind faith". Instead, you look at the fine map of the CMBR. Inflation left its mark there.

Demonstrate it. Show me that inflation has some effect on photons.

Sure you can. Flat earth doesn't exist. And people proved it.

But again, you're comparing inflation (which doesn't effect the earth today) to Earth itself! That's not a reasonable comparison.

Pantheism is a religion, not a scientific theory.

No. I am a 'Christian'. That's technically my "religion". I simply see pantheism as a scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology theory. It's just a "scientific theory' IMO, nothing more.

If we look at pantheism from the pov of science, it has not been falsified. It could be true.

Yes, and from the standpoint of empirical physics I believe it is more likely to be "true" than mainstream cosmology theory.

I'll work on the rest of your post a bit later today. Suffice to say, you'll have to stop thinking of pantheism as a "religion" if we are to communicate about "science", specifically in this case, empirical physics. I'm simply comparing two scientific theories at the level of empirical physics. I didn't give up my faith in Jesus when I embraced pantheism "scientifically".

 

[Michael]

There are other theories out there, such as ekpyrotic. But all of them, to my knowledge, incorporate inflation. Please name one that doesn't.

Alfven's 'bang' theory didn't require inflation, just preexisting matter and antimatter. Static universe theories do not require inflation.

1. Correct in that science can't prove the supernatural does not exist.

So science can never disprove Guth's claim about inflation's "supernatural" ability to retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

2. Of course Guth used imagination to formulate inflation. That happens for every scientific theory. And of course it didn't have a precedent. Both of those are irrelevant.

IMO it's not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates that Guth quite literally "imagined" inflation. His brand was also falsified. What's left now is a never ending string of inflation "possibilities", none of which have the potential to show up in a lab today. How exactly in your opinion are "faith in the unseen" (faith) and science any different?

3. What is relevant is whether there are physical consequences to Guth's theory that we can measure empirically.

If I make something up and called it "Godflation" or Magicflation" and assigned it the various properties of 'inflation", would that demonstrate that magic did it? How do I verify any of the ad hoc properties that Guth assigned to inflation *without* pointing at the sky?

And there are:
4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant. And inflation theory survives.

Of course you can't link inflation to a the movement of a couple of atoms in a lab, you can't get it to emit any photon in a lab, and you can't empirically verify any of Guth's claims without it being a huge circular feedback loop.

14. M Joy and JE Calrstrom Probing the early universe with the SZ effect. Science 291: 1715-1717, March 2, 2001. Interaction with the CMBR with free electrons in ionized gas produce the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. Proposed in 1970, but not detected until recently. Is independent test of big bang and theories associated with it. So far, supportes big bang strongly.

Yet again I have to "have faith" that inflation is in any way related to the effect you claim because if I do not accept that premise, you can't demonstrate it in a lab. EM fields do real things to real plasma in lab. I don't need inflation to explain EM oriented events in space, just "current".

14. C Seife, Galaxy mappers detect wiggly cosmic order. Science 292: 188-189, Apr 13, 2001. Mapping location of 250,000 galaxies. "Wiggles" in distribution of galaxies give distribution of baryonic and exotic matter. Is 5%, right between calculated values of 4% from theories on how matter generated and 6% from CMBR.

Now I understand why you folks are so loathe to recalculate those mass percentages:


Scientists find universe is twice as bright as previously recognised - Science
Galaxies Demand A Stellar Recount
Super-Size Me: Black Hole Bigger Than Previously Thought

Even though recent findings suggest that the mainstream simply grossly underestimated the amount of "normal' matter in the universe, they won't change the figures. The moment they change them, your 'support" for inflation theory becomes a 'falsification' for inflation theory.

I'll skip the redundant references.

Not at all. That's what deductive logic (used by science) does all the time. As I noted above, "the earth is not flat" has been proved. That's proving a negative.

Deduction would allow me to conclude that astronomers grossly and massively underestimated the amount of "normal" material in the universe. Deduction would allow me to conclude that *if* inflation actually "predicts" that only 4% of the universe is found in normal baryonic matter, I can finally consider inflation theory to be falsified once and for all.

 

[lucaspa]

Without matter and energy, what exactly does GR relate to at that point?

Spacetime. Matter/energy allow us to measure and detect spacetime, but in no way says that spacetime is dependent on them.

What is it dependent upon?

The way you are usign it, "dependent upon" = "cannot exist without".

Objects in motion stay in motion. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects expand, but "space" does not expand in labs on Earth.

Spacetime expands but the objects don't. And you are correct, spacetime does not expand in labs. But it does expand in intergalactic space. This article -- Lineweaver CH and Davis TM Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American 36-45 March 2005. Misconceptions about the Big Bang: Scientific American -- will help explain it to you.

The empirical difference is that we *do* expect to find them "eventually" in physical experiments, whereas inflation is nonexistent today and therefore it will forever be an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer.

The Big Bang is nonexistant today, but it is not an act of faith. Big Bang left evidence we can study today. Same with inflation. That's why I posted the scientific papers. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Inflation affects how the present is and thus we can study it.

For good or bad, it's not any different from an ordinary religion in that respect IMO.

In this case, your opinion is in error and does not reflect reality. BTW, religion differs from science mostly in the type of evidence allowed. Science only allows intersubjective personal experience. This is a subset of personal experience. Religion allows the entire set of personal experience. I suggest the book Religion and Science by Ian Barbour to explore the similarities and differences between science and religion.

What do you make of John 17?

Jesus seems to be talking about a shared community, but not pantheism. If you adhere to Adpotionist Christianity, Jesus is the adopted son of God, and the verses would be interpreted as God adopting everyone as He adopted Jesus.

If you adhere to standard Christian Trinitarianism, then Jesus is inviting people to a shared community with him and God, where God regards them the same as He regards Jesus. The wording is symbolic, not literal. You can tell that by the groping nature of the verses and the similes:
"16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. (this also denies pantheism because pantheism has God and the world being the same thing; this clearly separates them)
...
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (again, if God and the universe were the same thing, then God would not have to send Jesus 'into the world")
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"

Now look at this:
"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

That verse denies pantheism, because you don't believe you are part of everything in the universe, do you?

The problem is that there can be no "empirical data" related to inflation here and now. That is also true of "dark energy".

It's not true about either one. I posted references about empirical data supporting inflation. Below are papers with empirical data supporting the existence of dark energy: basically the universe is expanding faster than it should:
7. J Glanz, Exploding stars point to a universal repulsive force. Science 279:651-652, 30 Jan. 1998. New data indicates the cosmological constant is back.
7a. J Glanz, No backing off from the accelerating universe. Science 282: 1249-1250, Nov. 13, 1998. As the title says, 2 independent and competing groups continue to get data that agrees.
8. G Tarke and S.P. Swordy, Cosmic Antimatter. Scientific American, 278(4): 36-41, April 1998.
10. CJ Hogan, RP Kirshner, and NB Suntzeff, Surveying space-time with supernovae. Scientific American, 280: 46-51, Jan. 1999. Studies indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.

But Guth's "entity" (if you don't like deity) was 'supernatural' in the sense that no other vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's about as 'supernatural' as it gets.

No it's not. No other process in the universe gives design except natural selection. It doesn't make NS "supernatural". That inflation does something unique doesn't make it supernatural either.

But meteors do crash into planets and we've documented that fact. These things happen *ON EARTH*.

A meteor that size has never impacted on earth where we can study it in real time. Nor have we ever witnessed a mass extinction due to such an event. Why did all the dinos, most the birds, some reptiles, and some amphibians perish, but not others? We can't go back and watch and we can't recreate it in a lab. Your criteria was that it can happen in a lab.

BTW, we've never had a black hole form on the earth, either. So we can't study a black hole by the effects on the surrounding spacetime?

Demonstrate it. Show me that inflation has some effect on photons.

On the density of photons. That's what the cited papers did. Read them.

But again, you're comparing inflation (which doesn't effect the earth today) to Earth itself!

No, I'm showing you that it's possible to prove a negative. This is what you claimed:
"I can't "disprove" something that doesn't even exist,"

I showed you that claim was false. Now you are moving the goalposts. What's more, I showed you how inflation could have been disproved, but it passed the test:
"What you do is disprove inflation. The fine scale maps of the CMBR could have disproved inflation, but they didn't."

Back to the papers. Read them.

No. I am a 'Christian'. That's technically my "religion".

Sorry, but technically that is not your religion, because Christianity does not allow pantheism. You are a pantheist who believes Jesus was God. But then, pantheism believes a tree is God, a rock is God, you are God.

I simply see pantheism as a scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology theory. It's just a "scientific theory' IMO, nothing more.

If pantheism is only a scientific theory, then you shouldn't be trying to use scripture to demonstrate it.

Please do me a favor, because I don't want to scroll thru the whole thread. List for me the unique observational consequences we should see today if pantheism is true. That is, observations that would be there only if pantheism were true and are unexplained by any other theory. Scientific theories have these, so if you claim that pantheism is only a scientific theory, then it must have these. Thank you.

Yes, and from the standpoint of empirical physics I believe it is more likely to be "true" than mainstream cosmology theory.

At this point I need to ask you what you think pantheism is. In the standard discussions of pantheism -- Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) --, I don't see how pantheism is going to differ from mainstream cosmology. If God and the universe are one, then pantheism would just have inflation be another part of God.

 

[rjc34]

I'll work on the rest of your post a bit later today. Suffice to say, you'll have to stop thinking of pantheism as a "religion" if we are to communicate about "science", specifically in this case, empirical physics. I'm simply comparing two scientific theories at the level of empirical physics. I didn't give up my faith in Jesus when I embraced pantheism "scientifically".

...Really? From the man who has repeatedly called mainstream cosmology and inflation theory a 'religion'.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, but technically that is not your religion, because Christianity does not allow pantheism. You are a pantheist who believes Jesus was God. But then, pantheism believes a tree is God, a rock is God, you are God.

FYI, I'm going to split the scientific and religious arguments up here into separate posts.

Jesus did not claim that "Christianity does not allow for pantheism", that is *YOUR* claim, not his. In fact I quoted him when he said very specifically that we are one *IN* God and that God is *IN* us. That series of statements can be explained scientifically today via pantheism and quantum mechanics. I only answer to Jesus in terms of my scientific beliefs, not you.

If pantheism is only a scientific theory, then you shouldn't be trying to use scripture to demonstrate it.

I was simply trying to cite the scripture that I believe *does* support the idea from the lips of Jesus himself to counter your "claim" that Christianity and pantheism are somehow incompatible. They are not incompatible IMO.

I'll discuss the scientific aspects in a separate post, but you will have to embrace the fact that I did not give up my faith in Jesus to scientifically look at pantheism. They are not incompatible IMO and they are not in any way at odds IMO.

Please do me a favor, because I don't want to scroll thru the whole thread. List for me the unique observational consequences we should see today if pantheism is true.

We've been talking primarily about circuit theory and PC/EU theory, EM influences on the human psyche, and the fact that "intelligence" has also been empirically linked to circuitry, something the universe possess in great abundance. What we've learned about biology in terms of what gives rise to awareness can be directly applied to the universe itself.

That is, observations that would be there only if pantheism were true and are unexplained by any other theory. Scientific theories have these, so if you claim that pantheism is only a scientific theory, then it must have these. Thank you.

FYI, I think your need for 'must have' unique differences is somewhat misguided. A lot of theories can predict similar things. The link between conscious human experiences and external EM fields is one empirical prediction of pantheism that is in fact unique to pantheism AFAIK in terms of scientific cosmology theories.

At this point I need to ask you what you think pantheism is. In the standard discussions of pantheism -- Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) --, I don't see how pantheism is going to differ from mainstream cosmology. If God and the universe are one, then pantheism would just have inflation be another part of God.

Ya, it would be "Godflation" with a silly name. Then again, in terms of "science" I simply put my faith in empirical physics. It turns out that empirical physics just so happens to lead us (well me at least) toward pantheism rather than mainstream cosmology theory.

 

[Michael]

...Really? From the man who has repeatedly called mainstream cosmology and inflation theory a 'religion'.

Yep.

Suffice to say, you'll have to stop thinking of pantheism as a "religion" if we are to communicate about "science", specifically in this case, empirical physics. I'm simply comparing two scientific theories at the level of empirical physics. I didn't give up my faith in Jesus when I embraced pantheism "scientifically".

IMO pantheism is a form of pure empirical physics, whereas mainstream 'theory' is all about having "faith in the unseen" in the lab (aka it's a religion). The only thing I technically have "faith in" are the teachings of Christ. That makes me a "Christian" in a religious sense, but I don't personally put any "faith" in anything that is 'supernatural'.

 

[lucaspa]

Alfven's 'bang' theory didn't require inflation, just preexisting matter and antimatter. Static universe theories do not require inflation.

Static universes are falsified by expansion. Please expand on Alfven's theory.

So science can never disprove Guth's claim about inflation's "supernatural" ability to retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

No, it could have. Look at the scientific papers. If inflation had not done what it did, then the CMBR would not look like it does. Since the CMBR does look like it should if inflation happened, then it may be that we've tested all the data that couldfalsify it, but didn't.

That is what happens to successful theories: the evidence that could falsify them doesn't, and eventually we run out of possible falsifying data.

IMO it's not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates that Guth quite literally "imagined" inflation.

All scientific theories are imagined. Your statement represents an outmoded view of science. Hypotheses/theories are not digests of observations. They are statements -- generated by imagination -- thrown out there for testing.

His brand was also falsified. What's left now is a never ending string of inflation "possibilities", none of which have the potential to show up in a lab today. How exactly in your opinion are "faith in the unseen" (faith) and science any different?

There is debate among cosmologists about inflation. That debate is not as you are portraying it. Inflation shows up in the CMBR. What the debate is about is that some cosmologists think inflation leads to an infinity of outcomes, which is not satisfying. Before you declare certainties, let the physicists fight it out for a while.

If I make something up and called it "Godflation" or Magicflation" and assigned it the various properties of 'inflation", would that demonstrate that magic did it?

No. The name means nothing. It's like calling God "the Flying
Sphagetti Monster". Same thing, different name.

How do I verify any of the ad hoc properties that Guth assigned to inflation *without* pointing at the sky?

Well, in this case you do point to the sky. Specifically, to the distribution of matter in the universe on a large scale and on the CMBR.

Yet again I have to "have faith" that inflation is in any way related to the effect you claim because if I do not accept that premise, you can't demonstrate it in a lab. EM fields do real things to real plasma in lab. I don't need inflation to explain EM oriented events in space, just "current".

Ah, you are a plasma guy. Sorry, but plasma physics doesn't explain the CMBR.

Scientists find universe is twice as bright as previously recognised - Science
Galaxies Demand A Stellar Recount
Super-Size Me: Black Hole Bigger Than Previously Thought

none of these has anything to do with the subject at hand. Apples and oranges.

Even though recent findings suggest that the mainstream simply grossly underestimated the amount of "normal' matter in the universe, they won't change the figures. The moment they change them, your 'support" for inflation theory becomes a 'falsification' for inflation theory.

The articles show they are changing some figures. However, the articles do not claim that the overall amount of normal matter in the universe should change. The first article would simply account for some of the "dark matter", since it would be interstellar dust instead of some more exotic material.

Deduction would allow me to conclude that astronomers grossly and massively underestimated the amount of "normal" material in the universe.

Deduction would allow me to conclude that *if* inflation actually "predicts" that only 4% of the universe is found in normal baryonic matter, I can finally consider inflation theory to be falsified once and for all.

But inflation never predicted the exact percentage of baryonic matter. It predicted the distribution of matter. Try again.

The 4% figure comes from measurements of the WMAP satellite. I don't see any of the articles you posted claiming that they are going to change that overall percentage. Do you? Have you done the actual calculations based upon the peer-reviewed papers to see if the overall percentage is going to change?

 

[lucaspa]

IMO pantheism is a form of pure empirical physics,

How do you empirically demonstrate the presence of God within any matter/energy in the universe? How can you take God out of any matter/energy and watch it disappear? Oh, you can't. First Law of Thermodynamics.

The only thing I technically have "faith in" are the teachings of Christ. That makes me a "Christian" in a religious sense,

That's not all that is necessary to be a Christian. You must also believe in Trinity. See the Nicene Creed, which defines the beliefs necessary and sufficient to be Christian.

 

[Michael]

Jesus seems to be talking about a shared community, but not pantheism. If you adhere to Adpotionist Christianity, Jesus is the adopted son of God, and the verses would be interpreted as God adopting everyone as He adopted Jesus.

If you adhere to standard Christian Trinitarianism, then Jesus is inviting people to a shared community with him and God, where God regards them the same as He regards Jesus. The wording is symbolic, not literal.

You are subjectively "choosing" *not* to interpret it literally, even though from the standpoint of QM and empirical physics it makes perfect sense to interpret it literally as well as figuratively.

You can tell that by the groping nature of the verses and the similes:
"16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. (this also denies pantheism because pantheism has God and the world being the same thing; this clearly separates them)
...

God's "awareness' is not "of this world", and neither was the consciousness of Christ. Physically speaking Jesus was "of this world", but in terms of his conscious connection to God, he was not of this world.

There is no "separation' between God and humans on Earth because Christ talks about sending the Holy spirit to us today.

18

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (again, if God and the universe were the same thing, then God would not have to send Jesus 'into the world")

Jesus came to our world. How is that creating separation between the Earth and the Universe the Earth resides in?

19

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"

Now look at this:
"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

That verse denies pantheism, because you don't believe you are part of everything in the universe, do you?

I believe that I am one in God as Jesus was one in God in a very "physical" way. In terms of consciousness and awareness however, that's where "separation' typically takes place. In terms of physics I don't believe we are capable of being separate from God. In terms of our actions, our selfishness, our thoughts, ect, these are what create "separation" between God and humans.

It's not true about either one. I posted references about empirical data supporting inflation.

We need to have a discussion about the word "empirical". I'll save that for the science response.

 

[Michael]

How do you empirically demonstrate the presence of God within any matter/energy in the universe? How can you take God out of any matter/energy and watch it disappear? Oh, you can't. First Law of Thermodynamics.

Earlier in the thread I cited studies like that "God helmet' study where we might actually be able to observe EM interactions between humans and the universe itself, assuming we build the proper gear. It may be possible to watch the Holy Spirit in action.

That's not all that is necessary to be a Christian. You must also believe in Trinity. See the Nicene Creed, which defines the beliefs necessary and sufficient to be Christian.

Father=Universe, Son=Christ, Holy Spirit=EM fields. How are my ideas all that radically different from yours in terms of 'religion" once we strip out the "scientific" differences?

 

[Michael]

Let's try this approach on the scientific side lucaspa:

I can demonstrate an empirical link in the lab between photons and EM fields with a standard light bulb, current and a switch. There is a demonstrated empirical link between photons and current. Please be so kind as to show me a laboratory method of demonstrating any actually empircal link between inflation and:

A) photon output
B) expansion (of space or objects)
C) homogenous layout of matter
D) anything else you claim inflation does.