An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Gravity is demonstrable and can be tested.

Likewise, the physical universe is demonstrable and can be tested. We simply quibble over whether it's "aware" I suppose.

You kind of make my point.

I don't see how.

When you keep removing qualifiers or answers, you are deluding a concept. Eventually, anything will fit.

No, not "anything" actually. The universe could have been electromagnetically sterile and unlike physical life forms on Earth in that respect. If such a state had existed, it may have actually falsified pantheism at the level of empirical physics. It certainly would have relegated the concept of "God" to an unmeasurable quantity. Fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

This doesn't validate anything.

In terms of empirical physics, perhaps not. In terms of whether the idea has been pondered for some time, it does at least validate that the concept predates us both, and it's relatively congruent with "Christianity" IMO.

Please let me know when you find this device that tests and measures "love".

Well, anything that can measure the electromagnetic movements of energy inside of the brain would technically suffice. You would agree that all thoughts and feelings are EM inputs to something we call awareness (also a quantum EM effect)?

Interpreting the seen or naturally observed as an unnatural concept is rather silly and pointless.

Who said that God is necessarily an "unnatural" concept? Doesn't the concept thrive inside something called "human awareness", a fully "natural" process?

So, we'll just have to go with the known and stay in the world of reality.

Like what? Dark energy? Inflation genies that are utterly impotent on Earth? What exactly is the cosmology alternative that you actually prefer? How is it any "empirically' better than pantheism in terms of pure empirical physics in your opinion?

 

[Michael]

I agree with every statement up until the last: it's a non sequitur. Just because the camera was fashioned to behave as the eye does, doesn't mean the eye itself was intelligently fashioned.

It's sole purpose is to provide input to an "intelligent" thing called "awareness" isn't it? Unless one is "aware" of the difference in light intensities, that they have a relevancy in the "outside' world, etc, of what "purpose' or use is an 'eye'?

A cave is a natural, undesigned phenomenon, but it has a function (e.g., shelter) which can be replicated in man-made objects (e.g., a tent). But, that doesn't mean the cave is intelligently designed.

But even a cave "can be" intelligently designed can it not?

I disagree. Electrical discharges are hardly uncommon, be it in a computer, in a brain, in a thunderstorm, or in deep space. Just because one set of discharges causes one phenomenon, doesn't mean all of them do.

No single electron inside of my brain is "aware" either, but the sum total of all such electrical processes *IS* in fact aware. Why would you ASSUME that something as complex as an entire electrical universe is not aware and not "intelligent"?

Lightening causes thunder, but it's fallacious to conclude that, hence, there is thunder inside my skull.

You're confusing process with "scaling" issues.

Likewise, just because synaptic patterns create conciousness (let's assume), doesn't mean all electrical discharges create conciousness.

No, but we do have ample examples of very complex circuity in microscopic organisms giving rise to 'awareness', even in single celled organisms without an official "brain" as we understand it. How can you know it's NOT aware?

Logic, and the weight of evidence. The brain certainly uses electric charge to go about its business - but so does pretty much every other part of the body. Contracting muscles, catalysing enzymes, digesting stomach acid, everything uses the EM force in some way. How do you know the universe isn't a giant stomach that's disassembling galactic nutrients, instead of a brain processing galactic synapses?

In terms of the actual macroscopic purpose of what humans can actually observe in this little sliver of visible spacetime, for all it know that is EXACTLY it's purpose.

How do you know it's not just a coincidence that there are electrical phenomena in the stomach and the universe at large?

The problem with overly simplistic 'explanation' of the "purpose" of something like say an ordinary "sun" is that we're actually pretty "clueless" in terms of purpose and/or cause of the solar cycle, sunspots, CME's, flares, solar wind, etc. It's activity however is "complex" in terms of pure circuitry. Every single "coronal loop" we observe in high energy wavelengths is in fact a "circuit" that is part of a series of interwoven circuits that exist only on the OUTSIDE of the sun. The sheer number of such circuits isn't typically indicative of a "simple" process.

Off the top of my head, he may well have been espousing the idea that believers in God are equal before God. Spoken poetically, everyone is one in God. The sinner and the saint are all equal before God, all are children of God, all inherit the Kingdom of God, etc. That said, I'd be interested in how you took "you are one in God" and derived the Schrödinger equation.

The physical attributes of God/Universe evidently follow a very "predictable" mathematical pattern in terms of their basic movements, etc. What is less "predictable" is something like a major solar flare.

I would conclude the same. Of course, just how God influences this control is a matter of some debate. If he makes a tree fall in a forest, diverting someone's path away from danger, does that qualify as influencing human will? If he cures someone of a brain tumour, is he influencing free will? If he can do those things, can he influence sodium intake in a cell, thereby changing how we perceive or analyse the world? That's surely just another form of control, right?

Define "control". By putting us here on this planet, with the limitation imposed on this planet, we are in fact "controlled". Should we turn out to be a "pain in the neck" for some reason, the universe can sluff off the human species in a single supernova event, and I'm sure it would have little if any effect on any of the rest of the circuity in the system.

 

[nebulaJP]

Okey Dokey.

It's also utterly unrelated to this topic actually.

IMO, a "sin" is actually more along the lines of a "detrimental selfish act", an act that doesn't much care for the effect it has on others and one that has a detrimental effect on others.

This is an EMPIRICAL theory of God, unlike "dark energies" of mainstream theory, "dark matter" and the ever popular Guthism (but utterly impotent), "inflation" genie. I'm talking about things that are tangible, real and exist in nature. We definitely aren't on the same wavelength.

OK, sorry, I wasn't making that distinction. I got the idea for the theory in that thread (the part about a conscious universe) after reading your initial post in this one. I don't actually know any of those theories but will read up on it. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Non sequitur]

I don't see how.

That (inadvertently?) made another point.

In terms of empirical physics, perhaps not. In terms of whether the idea has been pondered for some time, it does at least validate that the concept predates us both, and it's relatively congruent with "Christianity" IMO.

Many bad ideas have been pondered for some time, that predated us.

Well, anything that can measure the electromagnetic movements of energy inside of the brain would technically suffice. You would agree that all thoughts and feelings are EM inputs to something we call awareness (also a quantum EM effect)?

You are talking about awareness, in the sense of "on".

You can say there is liquid in a cup, but measuring it would mean you have to identify it first, then exactly how much of it there is.

And we are only dealing with the concrete physical. Not feelings.

When can we measure EM inputs to measure (amount and degrees of) love?

How about honest love or lust?

Again, not identifying but measuring.

Like, "Let me hook this up to you and I will then be able to tell you how much you love your spouse with this handy doodad."

*ZAP*

"You love her exactly 856.43 Love. Give or take a Love"

Who said that God is necessarily an "unnatural" concept? Doesn't the concept thrive inside something called "human awareness", a fully "natural" process?

Can I play football with God? (Not thank him for winning.)

Like what? Dark energy? Inflation genies that are utterly impotent on Earth? What exactly is the cosmology alternative that you actually prefer? How is it any "empirically' better than pantheism in terms of pure empirical physics in your opinion?

Do I have to prefer an alternate?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's sole purpose is to provide input to an "intelligent" thing called "awareness" isn't it? Unless one is "aware" of the difference in light intensities, that they have a relevancy in the "outside' world, etc, of what "purpose' or use is an 'eye'?

To see. The camera, though working on broadly similar principles, does not 'see' or convey light to the brain - it stores its input spectrum on an effectively permanent medium. To say that the camera is an eye because they both work with light, is to say that glasses or contact lenses are also 'eyes' because they work with light.

But even a cave "can be" intelligently designed can it not?

Sure, but the point is not all caves are. The point is that, using your logic, you would fallaciously conclude the cave is artificial, whereas it's actually natural.

No single electron inside of my brain is "aware" either, but the sum total of all such electrical processes *IS* in fact aware. Why would you ASSUME that something as complex as an entire electrical universe is not aware and not "intelligent"?

Because there is insufficient evidence to warrant that conclusion. It is not an assumption, it is rational scepticism. Why do you take superficial similarities and assume they both generate conciousness, when there's little evidence that the origin of conciousness has anything to do with electrical circuits at all?

You're confusing process with "scaling" issues.

I would say you're doing the same thing.

No, but we do have ample examples of very complex circuity in microscopic organisms giving rise to 'awareness', even in single celled organisms without an official "brain" as we understand it. How can you know it's NOT aware?

Because we make great assumptions when we say that humans or animals are 'aware', let alone the universe. At the moment, all you have to go on is a superficial similarity in electrical circuitry. That's hardly compelling.

In terms of the actual macroscopic purpose of what humans can actually observe in this little sliver of visible spacetime, for all it know that is EXACTLY it's purpose.

Exactly. Why, then, do you assume it's a concious at all? If the only thing you're going on is "Both the brain and the universe involve EM fields", why do you not equally conclude that it's not concious, like many other objects that involve EM fields?

The problem with overly simplistic 'explanation' of the "purpose" of something like say an ordinary "sun" is that we're actually pretty "clueless" in terms of purpose and/or cause of the solar cycle, sunspots, CME's, flares, solar wind, etc. It's activity however is "complex" in terms of pure circuitry. Every single "coronal loop" we observe in high energy wavelengths is in fact a "circuit" that is part of a series of interwoven circuits that exist only on the OUTSIDE of the sun. The sheer number of such circuits isn't typically indicative of a "simple" process.

What is your evidence for this conclusion?

The physical attributes of God/Universe evidently follow a very "predictable" mathematical pattern in terms of their basic movements, etc. What is less "predictable" is something like a major solar flare.

Clouds are unpredictable too. Are they evidence that the universe is concious?

Define "control".

That's rather the point. To what degree are we 'controlled'?

By putting us here on this planet, with the limitation imposed on this planet, we are in fact "controlled". Should we turn out to be a "pain in the neck" for some reason, the universe can sluff off the human species in a single supernova event, and I'm sure it would have little if any effect on any of the rest of the circuity in the system.

Then how could we ever be a pain in the neck?

 

[Michael]

That (inadvertently?) made another point.

If you say so.

Many bad ideas have been pondered for some time, that predated us.

Many good ones (like the study of gravity) have also predated us both. Now what? What specific theory of the universe do you prefer?

You are talking about awareness, in the sense of "on".

You can say there is liquid in a cup, but measuring it would mean you have to identify it first, then exactly how much of it there is.

And we are only dealing with the concrete physical. Not feelings.

Feelings are the result of a "physical" process are they not?

When can we measure EM inputs to measure (amount and degrees of) love?

Well, assuming that we can both agree that we might isolate certain types of electron flows, located in very specific areas of the brain correspond with the feeling of 'love' then yes, we should in fact be able to measure the amount of current, the duration of the current, etc and come up with some way of measuring the process.

How about honest love or lust?

Same deal. Lust is likely to trigger other "circuitry" in the brain related to sexual activity, whereas "honest love" (no selfish motives involved) might not. How will we know unless we try, right?

Can I play football with God? (Not thank him for winning.)

You're a wee "microscopic" to play "against" God if that is what you mean. You can carry the presence of God within as you play football or whatever you do.

Do I have to prefer an alternate?

Well, unless you have a more "likely" explanation of the universe, how it got here, how it functions, etc, I'm personally likely to stick with empirical physics. Do you know of a "better" theory of the cosmos?

 

[Michael]

To see. The camera, though working on broadly similar principles, does not 'see' or convey light to the brain - it stores its input spectrum on an effectively permanent medium. To say that the camera is an eye because they both work with light, is to say that glasses or contact lenses are also 'eyes' because they work with light.

We seem to be talking past one another. Let me try again. AFAIK, an "eye" is an "intelligently designed" instrument. It evolved/is designed to provide 'input' into "intelligence" and "awareness". The same is true of the camera in the final analysis. They both are "devices" meant to serve "awareness". To me that suggests "intelligent design" in both cases.

Sure, but the point is not all caves are. The point is that, using your logic, you would fallaciously conclude the cave is artificial, whereas it's actually natural.

That depends entirely on the nature of the cave, how one selectively interprets the evidence and how one ultimately defines "natural" I suppose. IMO God is the single most "natural" thing in existence. Is life "natural" in your opinion? Are EM movements of energy inside of living things "natural"?

Because there is insufficient evidence to warrant that conclusion.

So it's really all about a subjective choice now isn't it? What naturally occurring "circuitry" here on Earth evolves into something like trillions of sustained circuits that isn't "alive"? Do you any idea how many "circuits" the exterior of the sun has going at any given moment?

It is not an assumption, it is rational scepticism. Why do you take superficial similarities and assume they both generate conciousness, when there's little evidence that the origin of conciousness has anything to do with electrical circuits at all?

There are two basic errors in your logic in that paragraph IMO. First I DO have pretty good evidence that consciousness has lots to do with electrical circuitry, specifically the electrical circuitry located in the brain of most living entities. We could 'test' that concept rather crudely by removing the brain and noticing the effect. I'm not advocating the idea, I'm just saying....

Secondly, I do believe that there is enough collective evidence to suggest that such a sophisticated and complex circuitry *does* typically have a lot to do with "living" organisms, and typically involves "living" things.

Name one trillion plus set of naturally occurring circuits that is NOT aware and NOT "intelligently designed".

I would say you're doing the same thing.

How do you know that consciousness doesn't "scale" quite nicely? I've seen movies of ants 'herding' aphids they way we might use cows. They quite literally use the aphids to collect sugars and they use them almost exactly like we use cattle in that sense. Considering their size, and the size of their brain, that's pretty sophisticated behavior if you ask me.

Because we make great assumptions when we say that humans or animals are 'aware', let alone the universe. At the moment, all you have to go on is a superficial similarity in electrical circuitry. That's hardly compelling.

There isn't "just" that evidence. Humans throughout time for instance have reported "communing" with something they call "God" since the dawn of recorded human civilization. Why? If the universe is alive and capable of influencing us via EM fields, that certainly would explain such things. There are near death experiences to consider too. Even atheists have reported 'meeting' something they call "God" at their physical death. Why? Again, a "living" universe might very well explain that process quite nicely.

Exactly. Why, then, do you assume it's a concious at all? If the only thing you're going on is "Both the brain and the universe involve EM fields", why do you not equally conclude that it's not concious, like many other objects that involve EM fields?

I have yet to see anyone name any million+ circuit collection of "naturally occurring circuits" that isn't either related to "life" or an "intelligently designed" item. I've seen several folks compare it to a "computer", but even an "intelligently designed" universe destroys atheism instantly.

What is your evidence for this conclusion?

Well, for starters, if it was a "simple" process, the "prediction" of solar storms would be a piece of cake. It isn't. There's nothing "simple" about the way the sun operates. It has "active" and less active phases, but it is perfectly capable of generating massive CME's at any time. Why?

Standard solar theory doesn't begin to explain such external processes. In fact the mainstream is *STILL* mystified by the whole electrical side of the process. They've "dumbed down" the whole process to "magnetic yada yada yada" rather than "electromagnetic yada yada yada.".

Clouds are unpredictable too. Are they evidence that the universe is concious?

You're switching goal posts from circuitry to complexity and ignoring the implication of life's NEED of "complex circuitry' to sustain "awareness". That "pattern" of complex circuity is found in MANY life forms.

That's rather the point. To what degree are we 'controlled'?

We would not exist independently of God anymore than a fish can exist without water. We have physical limitations galore related to be a "microscopic" sized organism. In that sense we are 'controlled' to a great degree, but not 100%.

Then how could we ever be a pain in the neck?

In terms of our physical effect on "God", I doubt we have the ability to do that. In terms of our effect on other potential life forms in the universe, perhaps the exporting of our violent and selfish tendencies could become "annoying", even to God.

 

[Non sequitur]

Many good ones (like the study of gravity) have also predated us both. Now what? What specific theory of the universe do you prefer?

As long as you call Christianity a theory, I'm good with this line of thinking.

Feelings are the result of a "physical" process are they not?

As far as I know, yes.

Well, assuming that we can both agree that we might isolate certain types of electron flows, located in very specific areas of the brain correspond with the feeling of 'love' then yes, we should in fact be able to measure the amount of current, the duration of the current, etc and come up with some way of measuring the process.

And what kind of love will it be that we are measuring?

Real love? "True" love? Jealous love? Appreciative love? Family love? Spouse love? Passionate love? Hopeless love? Active love? Passive love?

Or just "current flowing to x part of brain means something is happening in that part"?

Same deal. Lust is likely to trigger other "circuitry" in the brain related to sexual activity, whereas "honest love" (no selfish motives involved) might not. How will we know unless we try, right?

I think it would be rather silly to waste our time on measuring the complexity of feelings, but let me know of any studies you find

You're a wee "microscopic" to play "against" God if that is what you mean. You can carry the presence of God within as you play football or whatever you do.

Actually that would be wee "blatant".

So, if your God is everywhere, then it can't be distinguished from anything else.

Which leaves us with adding "and something else" to everything.

Reality works just fine, within itself, without needing a "plus x".

Well, unless you have a more "likely" explanation of the universe, how it got here, how it functions, etc, I'm personally likely to stick with empirical physics. Do you know of a "better" theory of the cosmos?

Not at the moment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We seem to be talking past one another. Let me try again. AFAIK, an "eye" is an "intelligently designed" instrument. It evolved/is designed to provide 'input' into "intelligence" and "awareness". The same is true of the camera in the final analysis. They both are "devices" meant to serve "awareness". To me that suggests "intelligent design" in both cases.

Why does it?

That depends entirely on the nature of the cave, how one selectively interprets the evidence and how one ultimately defines "natural" I suppose. IMO God is the single most "natural" thing in existence. Is life "natural" in your opinion? Are EM movements of energy inside of living things "natural"?

Life is natural, because it arose from entirely mundane processes. There were no supernatural things, like ghosts or deities. Pantheism is still a branch of theism.

So it's really all about a subjective choice now isn't it? What naturally occurring "circuitry" here on Earth evolves into something like trillions of sustained circuits that isn't "alive"? Do you any idea how many "circuits" the exterior of the sun has going at any given moment?

Indeed, and I would submit that the Sun is an example of something that has an abundance of electrical circuits and isn't alive. And, if you object to that, well, so what? You have no way of knowing whether it is or not. Conciousness may well arise solely as a self-sustaining pattern of electricity, but that doesn't mean it arises whenever there's any hint of electricity. Just because there's a lot of circuits in the Sun, doesn't mean it's concious.

There are two basic errors in your logic in that paragraph IMO. First I DO have pretty good evidence that consciousness has lots to do with electrical circuitry, specifically the electrical circuitry located in the brain of most living entities. We could 'test' that concept rather crudely by removing the brain and noticing the effect. I'm not advocating the idea, I'm just saying....

OK. Remove the brain of my cat. What test would you thereafter perform to demonstrate that the brain is no longer concious? Provided there's little or no trauma, removing the brain will not instantly end its electrical activity - that will continue until the cells themselves die, some minutes later. Would the cat still be 'alive', in your opinion? Would it be concious?

Secondly, I do believe that there is enough collective evidence to suggest that such a sophisticated and complex circuitry *does* typically have a lot to do with "living" organisms, and typically involves "living" things.

Name one trillion plus set of naturally occurring circuits that is NOT aware and NOT "intelligently designed".

Lightening striking the ocean. Nuclear fission in a reactor. Untold trillions of electrical circuits, far more than in the Sun or the brain, are created between atoms and molecules. Every molecule of water constitutes a never-ending loop of electrical charge, whizzing round atomic nuclei

How do you know that consciousness doesn't "scale" quite nicely? I've seen movies of ants 'herding' aphids they way we might use cows. They quite literally use the aphids to collect sugars and they use them almost exactly like we use cattle in that sense. Considering their size, and the size of their brain, that's pretty sophisticated behavior if you ask me.

Indeed, but they are not aware of it. They're following chemical trails and evolve algorithms. There's no individual ant which has a grasp of the grand scheme of things.

There isn't "just" that evidence. Humans throughout time for instance have reported "communing" with something they call "God" since the dawn of recorded human civilization. Why?

Because people are idiots. They also thought the world was flat and good smells prevented disease.

If the universe is alive and capable of influencing us via EM fields, that certainly would explain such things.

So would "Magic gnomes up our noses". So would "The 3 unicorns I keep in my basement". So would any other contrived being I pull out of thin air, and magically imbue with the necessary abilities to solve all sorts of problems.

There are near death experiences to consider too. Even atheists have reported 'meeting' something they call "God" at their physical death. Why?

Because these atheists live in a culture where they're inundated with religion, God, and the idea of an NDE. When the brain is dying, who's to say that as the visual cortex shuts down, all a person sees is just a diffuse white light?

I have yet to see anyone name any million+ circuit collection of "naturally occurring circuits" that isn't either related to "life" or an "intelligently designed" item. I've seen several folks compare it to a "computer", but even an "intelligently designed" universe destroys atheism instantly.

Then you misunderstand their point. Computers are not alive or concious, yet they have a massively complex web of electrical circuitry. Whether computers were intelligently designed or not is completely irrelevant: they're an example of something that has a lot of electrical circuits without being concious. Therefore, your assertion that "lots and lots of circuits must create a conciousness", is false.

Well, for starters, if it was a "simple" process, the "prediction" of solar storms would be a piece of cake. It isn't. There's nothing "simple" about the way the sun operates. It has "active" and less active phases, but it is perfectly capable of generating massive CME's at any time. Why?

The oceans and weather are equally unpredictable, but it's insane to attribute this unpredictableness to an intelligent conciousness. Sometimes, we just don't have enough information. If we did, we could predict each wave and each cloud and each solar flare. But we just don't have a complete understanding of what every single atom is doing.

In short: chaos theory.

Standard solar theory doesn't begin to explain such external processes. In fact the mainstream is *STILL* mystified by the whole electrical side of the process. They've "dumbed down" the whole process to "magnetic yada yada yada" rather than "electromagnetic yada yada yada.".

My God, the monsters!

C'mon, seriously? You've been doing exactly the same thing: you've never once mentioned 'electromagnetic circuitry', only 'electrical circuitry'.

 

[Michael]

Why does it?

Because without "awareness" and intelligence, neither one of them serves any particular purpose. It's a relatively "complex" design that isn't likely to form all by itself "randomly" out of pure chemicals.

Life is natural, because it arose from entirely mundane processes.

Like? You do realize that your statement is essentially a "statement of faith" on your part, right? Are those same processes and chemicals not also found in the cosmos in great abundance at every distance seen to date?

There were no supernatural things, like ghosts or deities.

Oddly enough we both agree on that point. There is nothing "supernatural" about "nature" or about God IMO.

Pantheism is still a branch of theism.

From the standpoint of empirical physics, that's almost (not quite) irrelevant. There's simply one more burden of proof required in pantheism, but in every other way, it's a scientifically competitive theory with "mainstream" cosmology theory. In fact mainstream theory has more impotent "sky deities' than pantheism will ever have.

Indeed, and I would submit that the Sun is an example of something that has an abundance of electrical circuits and isn't alive.

That's quite impossible to demonstrate since it is sitting smack dab inside of a living organism. It's like looking at a neuron and claiming for a fact that it isn't alive.

Now about starting with an example here on Earth. Name one thing composed of at least a million circuits that isn't "alive", part of a living organism, or an "intelligently designed" piece of equipment?

And, if you object to that, well, so what? You have no way of knowing whether it is or not. Conciousness may well arise solely as a self-sustaining pattern of electricity, but that doesn't mean it arises whenever there's any hint of electricity. Just because there's a lot of circuits in the Sun, doesn't mean it's concious.

Well, I certainly have a means and a method to 'test' these kinds of hypothesis in a completely empirical manner. You might object to the evidence I have presented thus far, but it's unlikely that this amount of evidence will remain 'static' over time. It's likely to grow as it has grown over the history of pantheism in general.

What you are doing is "assuming" that the sun is not part of a living organism, but it's output varies over time, it' has a 'pulse' in terms of various cycles, including a 5 minute cycle, a 22 year cycle, etc.

I have already pointed out some similarities to the output variations in the higher energy wavelengths of the sun and human though processes and the effect they have on electron flow inside of the brain. I've shown links between EXTERNAL EM fields and internal human thoughts and experiences.

Show me even one empirical test of concept related to inflation or 'dark energy" that doesn't begin and end with pointing at the sky and actually occurs here on Earth.

Compared to mainstream cosmology theory, God (as the universe) is a piece of cake to defend at the level of empirical physics. There are so many impotent sky entities in mainstream cosmology theory, it's like a trilogy of useless, deisticish sky beings.

OK. Remove the brain of my cat. What test would you thereafter perform to demonstrate that the brain is no longer concious? Provided there's little or no trauma, removing the brain will not instantly end its electrical activity - that will continue until the cells themselves die, some minutes later. Would the cat still be 'alive', in your opinion? Would it be concious?

Until it ceases, yes I would say that the organ remains capable of supporting 'awareness'. The common barometer of death is related to brain activity. Once that ceases, it suggests that conscious thought is not longer taking place inside of the organ.

Lightening striking the ocean.

That would be an example of a single circuit, not a trillion of them.

Nuclear fission in a reactor.

Hmmm. Interesting analogy, but I'm not sure where you figure "circuits" play into the process. You seem to be confusing atomic charge separation of any sort and 'circuitry' that can be mapped in some way. By that definition all plasma is a circuit and 99% of spacetime is composed of plasmas. Interesting concept.

Untold trillions of electrical circuits, far more than in the Sun or the brain, are created between atoms and molecules. Every molecule of water constitutes a never-ending loop of electrical charge, whizzing round atomic nuclei

Again, I think you're confusing charge separation between a couple of particles (plasmas) and circuits. A circuit is a connection of a whole set of plasmas, not simply a couple of charged particles.

Indeed, but they are not aware of it. They're following chemical trails and evolve algorithms.

I suppose we could ask "why" that occurs and whether that is a "natural" process created by the "awareness" present in the universe in a macroscopic scale.

There's no individual ant which has a grasp of the grand scheme of things.

Yet ants are perfectly capable of organizing themselves, creating vast underground cities, herding aphids, collecting and gathering food, a whole host of activities that suggest a extreme intelligence for such a "tiny" little insect.

Because people are idiots. They also thought the world was flat and good smells prevented disease.

Ya, and today they are convinced that 95 percent of the universe is "dark' too. Go figure.

I think you're skipping the point. Many humans report having a living connection to a living organism they call "God" (or some variation of that term). They have 'experiences' with such a being and these have been documented in books since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

A theory like this "predicts" such behaviors are *NOT* irrational, but perfectly "logical" in the final analysis. We are living electrical beings, living inside of a living electrical organism. Of course it's not only "possible", it's "likely" that the EM processes of spacetime will have some effect and some influence on the EM processes inside of us. I've even documented the effect in "experiments" on Earth, complete with control mechanisms.

Show me that "Dark energy" does anything in a "controlled experiment" here on Earth.

So would "Magic gnomes up our noses". So would "The 3 unicorns I keep in my basement". So would any other contrived being I pull out of thin air, and magically imbue with the necessary abilities to solve all sorts of problems.

I think you just put the death nail in "Lambda-dark stuff of the gaps" theory with that statement.

FYI, I'm not endowing the universe with any 'supernatural powers" like you are. Awareness isn't "supernatural". It arises in "living" things. That's the only "unseen" (less the tangible) process that I have proposed. Compared to the trilogy of dead and impotent sky entities of Lambda-religion theory, you haven't got an empirical leg to stand on.

Because these atheists live in a culture where they're inundated with religion, God, and the idea of an NDE. When the brain is dying, who's to say that as the visual cortex shuts down, all a person sees is just a diffuse white light?

Or....

What makes your opinion (or mine), one born of pure ignorance of the experience itself (I've never had one) any more rational or logical than their opinion on the topic, particularly years later? Oddly enough their experiences are typically not all that different from your run of the mill theist. If this is just the last few firings of a few random circuits, why does the whole thing follow a common theme and pattern?

Then you misunderstand their point. Computers are not alive or concious, yet they have a massively complex web of electrical circuitry. Whether computers were intelligently designed or not is completely irrelevant: they're an example of something that has a lot of electrical circuits without being concious. Therefore, your assertion that "lots and lots of circuits must create a conciousness", is false.

This argument always amuses me. Even if we were to discover that the universe is "intelligently designed" to support life but not necessarily "alive" itself, atheism is still falsified. Of course we still have those pesky human interactions to explain, in both the living and the (legally) dead. The universe would not only have to be an intelligently designed environment, it would have to allow for "communication" between creator and the "created". Even an intelligently designed environment would pretty much conclusively falsify atheism forever.

I think you're also ignoring the fact that such a sophisticated set of circuitry as we would find in space is most typically (exclusively in fact) limited to "living entities".

The oceans and weather are equally unpredictable, but it's insane to attribute this unpredictableness to an intelligent conciousness. Sometimes, we just don't have enough information. If we did, we could predict each wave and each cloud and each solar flare. But we just don't have a complete understanding of what every single atom is doing.

We (the mainstream scientific community) don't even have a clue about how a sun's atmosphere even works yet. In fact mainstreamers are blissfully unaware of the charge separation and electrical discharge processes that drive the process. It's like a pre biology/chemistry oriented culture trying to figure out how a brain works at the level of physics by taking it out and looking at it. In that sense I agree with you.

On the other hand, we do have many examples of some types of features (like current flow) that are in fact directed by, and controlled by "awareness".

My God, the monsters!

C'mon, seriously? You've been doing exactly the same thing: you've never once mentioned 'electromagnetic circuitry', only 'electrical circuitry'.

You're sort of missing the point. Only a very tiny community of folks prefer an EU orientation to cosmology, and therefore have some understanding of Birkeland's works and Alfven's work, and therefore solar physics. The vast majority of mainstream theory is based on pure "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, the guy that wrote plasma physics. Modern astronomers 'dumb down" the whole electrical aspect of plasmas and take a "magnetic field only" approach to describing plasma events. That's like calling an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere a "magnetic reconnection" event because you insist on only describing the event in terms of the B orientation to plasma physics. It's absurd.

 

[Michael]

As long as you call Christianity a theory, I'm good with this line of thinking.

Well, IMO all religious are "theories", in fact theism in general is a "theory" as well. This conversation however isn't really about religious dogma (as in characteristics of God). It's simply a "sterile" view of the cosmos as a living organism. In terms of the scientific question as to whether the universe is 'alive' and "aware", 'religions' are technically irrelevant IMO.

And what kind of love will it be that we are measuring?

Real love? "True" love? Jealous love? Appreciative love? Family love? Spouse love? Passionate love? Hopeless love? Active love? Passive love?

Or just "current flowing to x part of brain means something is happening in that part"?

I would assume that given enough measurements and enough subjects and topics that we will experience and witness *ALL* forms of "love'. I would think that the "trick" would be to figure out which one is which based upon the various areas of the brain that "light up" during the process.

I think it would be rather silly to waste our time on measuring the complexity of feelings, but let me know of any studies you find

You would be AMAZED at the stuff we waste our tax dollars on.

IMO it's an interesting question and it must have some interesting empirical explanations too.

Actually that would be wee "blatant".

So, if your God is everywhere, then it can't be distinguished from anything else.

Which leaves us with adding "and something else" to everything.

Reality works just fine, within itself, without needing a "plus x".

Technically the only "plus x" I'm adding is "awareness", and awareness shows up right here on Earth rather abundantly. I'm claiming that the universe is made of the same stuff everywhere.

Mainstream theory on the other hand, adds three different "plus x,y and z" components and claims that only 4% of the universe is known to to man. What's the cosmology alternative that adds NOTHING, not even awareness to "explain" the cosmos?

Not at the moment.

And that is ultimately my point. There isn't any scientific theory of the universe that is "better" in terms of pure empirical theories go to explain the universe than pantheism. In fact it adds only one "plus x" which is perfectly "natural" and is very abundant on Earth. That plus x component helps us explain a whole host of human experiences and testimonies that cannot otherwise be explained by a non theistic oriented cosmology theory.

Compared to the mythical trio of impotent sky entities of mainstream theory, a pure EU/pantheistic view of the cosmos is very easy to defend and very easily beats mainstream theory hands down in terms of making useful "predictions" related to human behaviors and human interacts with the universe. Who do you know that's ever claimed to have a "relationship" with "inflation"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because without "awareness" and intelligence, neither one of them serves any particular purpose. It's a relatively "complex" design that isn't likely to form all by itself "randomly" out of pure chemicals.

I disagree.

Like? You do realize that your statement is essentially a "statement of faith" on your part, right? Are those same processes and chemicals not also found in the cosmos in great abundance at every distance seen to date?

Why is it a statement of faith? In my opinion, there is an abundance of evidence supporting that statement. Ipso facto, it's an empirical statement, not a faith-based one.

From the standpoint of empirical physics, that's almost (not quite) irrelevant. There's simply one more burden of proof required in pantheism, but in every other way, it's a scientifically competitive theory with "mainstream" cosmology theory. In fact mainstream theory has more impotent "sky deities' than pantheism will ever have.

Amusingly, you're doing nothing more than what you scorn mainstream science of doing, or what theists have always done: positing the existence of something for which there is no demonstrable evidence. Just because your deity is made of electricity doesn't make it any more likely than the Celtic 'green man' deity made of trees.

That's quite impossible to demonstrate since it is sitting smack dab inside of a living organism. It's like looking at a neuron and claiming for a fact that it isn't alive.

Now about starting with an example here on Earth. Name one thing composed of at least a million circuits that isn't "alive", part of a living organism, or an "intelligently designed" piece of equipment?

No. I've given you several examples now, and you simply dismissed them. Why isn't the Sun a conciousness, but the whole universe is? Why isn't a computer concious, despite having the 'required' circuital complexity? If it's just a matter of electrical circuits, surely both the computer and the Sun must be concious as well? Simply stating that the Sun is a neuron, not a conciousness in its own right, is a bald assertion on your part, and a fallacious one at that: you claim that the abundance of electrical circuits in the universe somehow constitutes evidence that the universe is concious - well, why doesn't that same logic apply to the abundance of electrical circuits in the Sun?

Well, I certainly have a means and a method to 'test' these kinds of hypothesis in a completely empirical manner.

Go on then. Prove to me that the Sun is concious. Prove to me that the unvierse is concious.

What you are doing is "assuming" that the sun is not part of a living organism, but it's output varies over time, it' has a 'pulse' in terms of various cycles, including a 5 minute cycle, a 22 year cycle, etc.

I have already pointed out some similarities to the output variations in the higher energy wavelengths of the sun and human though processes and the effect they have on electron flow inside of the brain. I've shown links between EXTERNAL EM fields and internal human thoughts and experiences.

Yes, I remember the whole 'god helmet' fiasco.

Hmmm. Interesting analogy, but I'm not sure where you figure "circuits" play into the process. You seem to be confusing atomic charge separation of any sort and 'circuitry' that can be mapped in some way. By that definition all plasma is a circuit and 99% of spacetime is composed of plasmas.

Indeed it is, and that's rather my point: your claim (that an abundance of electrical circuits generates a concious mind) is either de dicto necessarily fallacious, or logically absurd. Either everything is concious (every piece of metal is a maelstrom of electrical circuits, that's why they're such good conductors of electricity), thus reducing your pantheism to mere animism, or generic objects aren't concious, thus undermining your argument for pantheism.

Again, I think you're confusing charge separation between a couple of particles (plasmas) and circuits. A circuit is a connection of a whole set of plasmas, not simply a couple of charged particles.

On the contrary, an electrical circuit arises whenever there's a potential difference. In plasmas such as metals, electrons are not static, they flow freely. We don't usually call such movement an electrical circuit because it's inconvenient, but they nonetheless behave as microcosms of larger circuits. What, ultimately, is the difference between a circuit in my computer and a circuit in an inert hunk of metal? The answer: fundamentally, there is none. It's like static air and wind, the molecules aren't doing anything fundamentally different. From the point of view of physics, it's the same basic principle at work: hot molecules bouncing off one another.

I suppose we could ask "why" that occurs and whether that is a "natural" process created by the "awareness" present in the universe in a macroscopic scale.

Indeed we could, and the answer is a resounding 'no'.

Yet ants are perfectly capable of organizing themselves, creating vast underground cities, herding aphids, collecting and gathering food, a whole host of activities that suggest a extreme intelligence for such a "tiny" little insect.

Oh? Do explain how the behaviour of ants demonstrates this 'extreme intelligence'.

I think you're skipping the point. Many humans report having a living connection to a living organism they call "God" (or some variation of that term). They have 'experiences' with such a being and these have been documented in books since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

So?

A theory like this "predicts" such behaviors are *NOT* irrational, but perfectly "logical" in the final analysis. We are living electrical beings, living inside of a living electrical organism. Of course it's not only "possible", it's "likely" that the EM processes of spacetime will have some effect and some influence on the EM processes inside of us. I've even documented the effect in "experiments" on Earth, complete with control mechanisms.

And yet, the alternate explanation (by-products of cultural conditioning, confirmation bias, and the plethora of other psychological errors humanity is susceptible to), is far better.

FYI, I'm not endowing the universe with any 'supernatural powers" like you are. Awareness isn't "supernatural". It arises in "living" things.

Regardless, you're imbuing the universe with an awareness, attributing religious experiences and near-death experiences to a spiritual interaction with this conciousness, suggesting that it can even have an intelligent affect on the evolution of life on Earth... that's supernatural.

What makes your opinion (or mine), one born of pure ignorance of the experience itself (I've never had one) any more rational or logical than their opinion on the topic, particularly years later?

A logical analysis of the experiences, noting the vagueness and cultural specificness of the 'visions', the fact that the brain is highly susceptible to hallucinations when under duress, etc. Ultimately, of the two alternatives (genuine experience with God, vs. hallucination due to medical drugs and physical trauma and oxygen deprivation), the mundane one is far more probable, don't you think?

Oddly enough their experiences are typically not all that different from your run of the mill theist. If this is just the last few firings of a few random circuits, why does the whole thing follow a common theme and pattern?

What theme? 'Diffuse light'? Yea, I'm sure such a specific pattern could only come from some external influence...

This argument always amuses me. Even if we were to discover that the universe is "intelligently designed" to support life but not necessarily "alive" itself, atheism is still falsified. Of course we still have those pesky human interactions to explain, in both the living and the (legally) dead. The universe would not only have to be an intelligently designed environment, it would have to allow for "communication" between creator and the "created". Even an intelligently designed environment would pretty much conclusively falsify atheism forever.

Pretty much, but so what? I never said the universe is designed I'm saying it's neither designed nor concious. I'm saying that an abundance of electrical circuits isn't evidence of conciousness, and I gave the computer as an example of something that is abundant in circuits but isn't alive. Therefore, if nothing else, your assertion that the universe is concious because it is dense in circuits, is false. The use of the computer most certainly does not imply that the universe is designed.

I think you're also ignoring the fact that such a sophisticated set of circuitry as we would find in space is most typically (exclusively in fact) limited to "living entities".

We (the mainstream scientific community) don't even have a clue about how a sun's atmosphere even works yet. In fact mainstreamers are blissfully unaware of the charge separation and electrical discharge processes that drive the process. It's like a pre biology/chemistry oriented culture trying to figure out how a brain works at the level of physics by taking it out and looking at it. In that sense I agree with you.

On the other hand, we do have many examples of some types of features (like current flow) that are in fact directed by, and controlled by "awareness".

You're sort of missing the point. Only a very tiny community of folks prefer an EU orientation to cosmology, and therefore have some understanding of Birkeland's works and Alfven's work, and therefore solar physics. The vast majority of mainstream theory is based on pure "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, the guy that wrote plasma physics. Modern astronomers 'dumb down" the whole electrical aspect of plasmas and take a "magnetic field only" approach to describing plasma events. That's like calling an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere a "magnetic reconnection" event because you insist on only describing the event in terms of the B orientation to plasma physics. It's absurd.

Why? It's electromagnetism. Magnetism and electricity are the same thing. Describing it as a 'magnetic reconnection' is perfectly valid, and is as accurate as 'electrical discharge'. Why on Earth would scientists try and dumb down the 'electrical' side of it? There is no 'side' they can dumb down, it's just one great big thing

 

[Michael]

I disagree.

So you're telling me if I stick the chemical ingredients contained in an eye in powdered form, mix in a little water and waited long enough, a fully formed, fully function eyeball would form? When?

Why is it a statement of faith? In my opinion, there is an abundance of evidence supporting that statement. Ipso facto, it's an empirical statement, not a faith-based one.

Let's review your statement:

Life is natural, because it arose from entirely mundane processes.

If the process was so "mundane" and easy enough to accomplish, why hasn't someone started selling a "create your own life" kit and started making money off this really "easy/mundane" process yet?

I mean we have kits for all sorts of chemical processes and electrical devices galore. Surely it's a "simple" thing to do?

Which SPECIFIC steps are required to create a simple, single celled organism?

Amusingly, you're doing nothing more than what you scorn mainstream science of doing, or what theists have always done: positing the existence of something for which there is no demonstrable evidence.

No, that's actually not the case. Other human beings (not yours truly) make all sorts of claims about a connection they have with something they call "God" or think of as their "creator". They claim to meet him during NDE's and they "worship" this being in large numbers. I'm not postulating anything other than awareness. That seems like the very LEAST I could add to even begin to explain such behaviors. It also explains/predicts these things, something a non theistic theory could not.

More importantly however it offers "predictable", entirely "testable" aspects related to EM field interactions with the human mind, etc.

Essentially mainstream theory makes no predictions related to human behaviors and experiences, yet STILL it requires a huge and heaping amount of "invisible sky gods" to get it to work correctly.

Just because your deity is made of electricity doesn't make it any more likely than the Celtic 'green man' deity made of trees.

That's like looking at a living organism under a microscope, noting the similarities with the human form and suggesting they are utterly unrelated processes. I'm simply making logical "predictions' about living organisms that in fact "pan out" or are "verified' in satellite imagery. Deny the parallels all you like but they do exist.

No. I've given you several examples now, and you simply dismissed them. Why isn't the Sun a conciousness, but the whole universe is?

I suppose it could be conscious. Then again, I doubt that is case for the very same reason that a single neuron isn't necessarily "conscious", whereas the entire *system* is conscious.

Why isn't a computer concious, despite having the 'required' circuital complexity?

Perhaps that is a flaw in the "intelligence" behind it's design?

If it's just a matter of electrical circuits, surely both the computer and the Sun must be concious as well?

Well, I'm willing to entertain the later, but the former isn't sold in any stores in my town. I've never seen anyone sell or advertize a "conscious" computer.

Simply stating that the Sun is a neuron, not a conciousness in its own right, is a bald assertion on your part, and a fallacious one at that:

In the sense that I started by admitting that a single sun *COULD* be conscious, you're right, I can't rule out that possibility. I do however see signs that such energy centers are "wired together", much like the wiring we see between neurons in a brain. This suggests they "communicate information" between various points. Why?

you claim that the abundance of electrical circuits in the universe somehow constitutes evidence that the universe is concious - well, why doesn't that same logic apply to the abundance of electrical circuits in the Sun?

I'm willing to admit that it could. Are you?

Go on then. Prove to me that the Sun is concious. Prove to me that the unvierse is concious.

I started with x-ray graphs of the sun and how they compare to EEG type graphs of the electrical process of the human mind:

3-day GOES X-ray Flux Monitor

Such process can be highly variable over time.

Yes, I remember the whole 'god helmet' fiasco.

You mean that you don't like that fact that I can empirically link external EM input to human thought, movement of matter, million degree temperatures in plasma and all the things we see in space. On the other hand astronomers can't empirically link "dark energy" to any of those things and you don't think that's a bigger fiasco? PLEASE!

Indeed it is, and that's rather my point: your claim (that an abundance of electrical circuits generates a concious mind) is either de dicto necessarily fallacious, or logically absurd. Either everything is concious (every piece of metal is a maelstrom of electrical circuits, that's why they're such good conductors of electricity), thus reducing your pantheism to mere animism, or generic objects aren't concious, thus undermining your argument for pantheism.

By your logic I have to either assume that every single atom in my body is "conscious" and vital to consciousness, or nothing in my body is conscious, thus undermining my argument for the existence of consciousness. That's called a false dichotomy fallacy. The collective PROCESSES of a particular set of atoms might be "conscious', but it is unlikely that any single atom in the brain is "conscious" by itself.

On the contrary, an electrical circuit arises whenever there's a potential difference.

Then all plasmas contain infinite numbers of change circuits. You're essentially ignoring the whole concept of 'function', 'distance', 'purpose', etc, of most "circuits". You've dumbed down the term "circuit" to mean "charge separation of any kind".

In plasmas such as metals, electrons are not static, they flow freely. We don't usually call such movement an electrical circuit because it's inconvenient, but they nonetheless behave as microcosms of larger circuits. What, ultimately, is the difference between a circuit in my computer and a circuit in an inert hunk of metal? The answer: fundamentally, there is none. It's like static air and wind, the molecules aren't doing anything fundamentally different. From the point of view of physics, it's the same basic principle at work: hot molecules bouncing off one another.

From the view of physics, you're still ignoring the fact that they have a fundamentally different PURPOSE. Why?

Indeed we could, and the answer is a resounding 'no'.

So why can't you recreate it from inert elements in a "non biological' form, sort of like a "consciousness in a box" that can be manufactured from inert parts?

Oh? Do explain how the behaviour of ants demonstrates this 'extreme intelligence'.

For starters, they actually herd aphids. You don't figure that requires some "intelligence" on their part?

So?

So Lambda-dark-sky-gods-theory doesn't even explain or predict these issues and even still one has to have "blind faith" in impotent (on Earth) sky gods that never influence humans directly. I'll stick with empirical physics that actually "Explains" stuff that your theory can't touch and won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

And yet, the alternate explanation (by-products of cultural conditioning, confirmation bias, and the plethora of other psychological errors humanity is susceptible to), is far better.

"Better" from who's subjective perspective, yours or mine? Maybe there is no "error" at all, but rather a real physical CAUSE for such human experience, at least in SOME cases. You've ASSUMING it's all internally generated and has no external influence, but I've already shown a link between an EM generating external field and human thought and human experience. In other words I've already shown that not only is it possible from the standpoint of physics unlike your "dark energy sky gods of the gaps arguments" at it relates to acceleration of plasma, it actually CAN occur and DOES occur.

Regardless, you're imbuing the universe with an awareness, attributing religious experiences and near-death experiences to a spiritual interaction with this conciousness, suggesting that it can even have an intelligent affect on the evolution of life on Earth... that's supernatural.

Not at all. It's all done with "naturally" occurring EM fields. They actually show up in a lab and have a real effect on real people and real things in the lab, unlike your dark sky gods.

A logical analysis of the experiences, noting the vagueness and cultural specificness of the 'visions', the fact that the brain is highly susceptible to hallucinations when under duress, etc. Ultimately, of the two alternatives (genuine experience with God, vs. hallucination due to medical drugs and physical trauma and oxygen deprivation), the mundane one is far more probable, don't you think?

No. In fact I would say that interpretation is subjective at best, a statement of faith of sorts, and "wishful thinking" in terms of what might happen "randomly" via pure hallucination. The experience are quite vivid, real and typically have a lifelong dramatic effect over the lifetime of the individual. Your "interpretation" seems rather "shallow" to say the least, particularly as it relates to the repetition in their accounts.

Pretty much, but so what? I never said the universe is designed I'm saying it's neither designed nor concious.

But you can't site a naturally occurring process that includes that type of circuitry and isn't one or the other! Talk about 'statements of faith"!

I'm saying that an abundance of electrical circuits isn't evidence of conciousness, and I gave the computer as an example of something that is abundant in circuits but isn't alive. Therefore, if nothing else, your assertion that the universe is concious because it is dense in circuits, is false. The use of the computer most certainly does not imply that the universe is designed.

You're still dancing around the fact that there are only two known reasons and "functions" for the development and existence of that type of sophisticated circuitry, *LIFE* and "INTELLIGENT DESIGN", both of which rule out ATHEISM as a viable theory.

Alright, lets look at the full implications of your analogy. By your standards, I may not be able to rule in my theory with perfect certainty, but I can rule out atheism either way. I can't rule out my theory either. That's more than I can say for atheism.

Why? It's electromagnetism. Magnetism and electricity are the same thing. Describing it as a 'magnetic reconnection' is perfectly valid, and is as accurate as 'electrical discharge'.

So by your logic an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere is caused by "magnetic reconnection", not charge separation?

Why on Earth would scientists try and dumb down the 'electrical' side of it?

Mainly because EU/PC theory scares the living hell out of them? It's the one entirely *EMPIRICAL* theory that could replace their dark sky god religion perhaps? Peer pressure? It's probably a combo deal IMO.

There is no 'side' they can dumb down, it's just one great big thing

Maxwell's equations demonstrate that E (electricity) and B (magnetism) are inseparably related. Solar physicists tend to "dumb down" the entire process to the B or (field) orientation of plasma physics and they ignore Alfven's presentations of the E orientations to these very same processes. For instance, Alfven's coronal loop is 'caused' by charge separation that is in turn caused by viable flows in the photosphere. The mainstream ignores that charge separation and the circuit orientation entirely and peddle a process that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" more than a half dozen times in a keynote speech to a room full of plasma physicists!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you're telling me if I stick the chemical ingredients contained in an eye in powdered form, mix in a little water and waited long enough, a fully formed, fully function eyeball would form?

No, I am not. You said: "It's a relatively "complex" design that isn't likely to form all by itself "randomly" out of pure chemicals." I disagree with that statement. That doesn't mean I'm saying a pile of each chemical found in the eye would spontaneously form an eye. The process by which the eye formed, entirely by itself without external influence, is called 'evolution'. You may have heard of it.

Let's review your statement:

If the process was so "mundane" and easy enough to accomplish, why hasn't someone started selling a "create your own life" kit and started making money off this really "easy/mundane" process yet?

I mean we have kits for all sorts of chemical processes and electrical devices galore. Surely it's a "simple" thing to do?

No, no it is not. Why would you think that?

No, that's actually not the case. Other human beings (not yours truly) make all sorts of claims about a connection they have with something they call "God" or think of as their "creator". They claim to meet him during NDE's and they "worship" this being in large numbers. I'm not postulating anything other than awareness. That seems like the very LEAST I could add to even begin to explain such behaviors. It also explains/predicts these things, something a non theistic theory could not.

Err, yes, yes it can: cultural conditioning and psychological phenomena.

That's like looking at a living organism under a microscope, noting the similarities with the human form and suggesting they are utterly unrelated processes. I'm simply making logical "predictions' about living organisms that in fact "pan out" or are "verified' in satellite imagery. Deny the parallels all you like but they do exist.

Says you. The parallels exist only so far as they both involve electricity. Beyond that, there's nothing.

I suppose it could be conscious. Then again, I doubt that is case for the very same reason that a single neuron isn't necessarily "conscious", whereas the entire *system* is conscious.

Why? What makes you think the Sun isn't the concious entity, rather than the universe? Assuming your claim was true, both the Sun and the universe have an equal claim to conciousness. Why, then, are you so sure that it's the universe that's concious? Why do you not equally affirm the conciousness of every star?

Well, I'm willing to entertain the later, but the former isn't sold in any stores in my town. I've never seen anyone sell or advertize a "conscious" computer.

Neither is the universe marketed as intelligent, you seem perfectly happy claiming that it is concious. Why the universe and not the computer (or, indeed, the Sun)?

In the sense that I started by admitting that a single sun *COULD* be conscious, you're right, I can't rule out that possibility. I do however see signs that such energy centers are "wired together", much like the wiring we see between neurons in a brain. This suggests they "communicate information" between various points.

So your only basis for dismissing the Sun as a concious entity, is just because you want to believe that it's a neuron? Yea, you've got me convinced...

I'm willing to admit that it could. Are you?

I don't believe that the existence of dense circuits demonstrates the existence of conciousness. But you do. So, do you believe that the Sun is a concious entity?

I started with x-ray graphs of the sun and how they compare to EEG type graphs of the electrical process of the human mind:

3-day GOES X-ray Flux Monitor

Such process can be highly variable over time.

Solar X-ray flux:

EEG:

They're both wiggly. The tide is also wiggly. So what?

By your logic I have to either assume that every single atom in my body is "conscious" and vital to consciousness, or nothing in my body is conscious, thus undermining my argument for the existence of consciousness. That's called a false dichotomy fallacy. The collective PROCESSES of a particular set of atoms might be "conscious', but it is unlikely that any single atom in the brain is "conscious" by itself.

Bingo. The sheer existence of an abundance of circuits does not, by itself, generate conciousness. As you say, it is the process, the pattern, of a particular set of atoms that generates conciousness. That the universe has such an abundance does not, by itself, demonstrate the existence of a conciousness.

Then all plasmas contain infinite numbers of change circuits. You're essentially ignoring the whole concept of 'function', 'distance', 'purpose', etc, of most "circuits". You've dumbed down the term "circuit" to mean "charge separation of any kind".

I'm simply pointing out there is no difference between a circuit in an atom, a brain, or a computer. It's you who arbitrarily differentiates between them. It's like saying that windless air is completely static - it's practical to consider still air to be utterly motionless, but the molecules are as active in static air as they are in a blizzard.

From the view of physics, you're still ignoring the fact that they have a fundamentally different PURPOSE. Why?

Because, in physics, what an electron is doing is absolutely irrelevant to the larger scale. Whether it's in the brain or a computer, it will do the same thing. Circuits are formed in the same density as in the brain, yet you only accept the brain and the universe as valid entities that can hold a conciousness. Why?

So why can't you recreate it from inert elements in a "non biological' form, sort of like a "consciousness in a box" that can be manufactured from inert parts?

Because it took 3.5 billion years. Technology has not developed to the point where we can recreate in a computer from start to finish the entire 3.5 billion years of evolution of life on Earth. Naturally, it is fallacious to therefore conclude that we can never do this, or that any idea about evolution or abiogenesis is false. A gap in our understanding of lightening doesn't mean that all our understanding of lightening is false.

For starters, they actually herd aphids. You don't figure that requires some "intelligence" on their part?

Some intelligence, sure. But not extreme intelligence.

So Lambda-dark-sky-gods-theory doesn't even explain or predict these issues and even still one has to have "blind faith" in impotent (on Earth) sky gods that never influence humans directly. I'll stick with empirical physics that actually "Explains" stuff that your theory can't touch and won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Yes, yes, we all know about your phobia of mainstream physics. You said, "Many humans report having a living connection to a living organism they call "God" (or some variation of that term). They have 'experiences' with such a being and these have been documented in books since the dawn of recorded human civilization." - again, so? What does that have to do with anything? Humans can report seeing deities and prophets and angels and buddhas till they're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. Do you have any hard evidence that these experiences actually occurred, and that they're actually genuine experiences with an external conciousness?

"Better" from who's subjective perspective, yours or mine? Maybe there is no "error" at all, but rather a real physical CAUSE for such human experience, at least in SOME cases. You've ASSUMING it's all internally generated and has no external influence, but I've already shown a link between an EM generating external field and human thought and human experience. In other words I've already shown that not only is it possible from the standpoint of physics unlike your "dark energy sky gods of the gaps arguments" at it relates to acceleration of plasma, it actually CAN occur and DOES occur.

Nope, you've not shown that it occurs. You've just assumed that external EM fields from some pantheistic deity of the stars is causing these NDEs. I've never stated that it absolutely must be internally generated, to the exclusion of any other possibility; I've simply pointed out that that is the most probable explanation for the alleged religious experiences. You've yet to demonstrate that NDEs are predicted by astrology.

Not at all. It's all done with "naturally" occurring EM fields. They actually show up in a lab and have a real effect on real people and real things in the lab, unlike your dark sky gods.

If you took the blinkers off your telescope, you'd see the evidence that everyone else is privy to. Instead, your arbitrarily restrict things that can be detected in the confines of a test tube. Sorry, but sometimes the universe doesn't lend itself to being tested that way. Sometimes, a phenomenon is only apparent on such large scales that a 5" beaker isn't enough. It's like concluding the Earth is flat because you can't see the curvature of the Earth on a local map. If you filter out evidence, you're not going to get the same whole picture as everyone else.

No. In fact I would say that interpretation is subjective at best, a statement of faith of sorts, and "wishful thinking" in terms of what might happen "randomly" via pure hallucination. The experience are quite vivid, real and typically have a lifelong dramatic effect over the lifetime of the individual. Your "interpretation" seems rather "shallow" to say the least, particularly as it relates to the repetition in their accounts.

I don't doubt, but that doesn't add one jot or tittle to their veracity.

But you can't site a naturally occurring process that includes that type of circuitry and isn't one or the other! Talk about 'statements of faith"!

You've yet to grasp how undermining computer circuitry is to your argument. It's OK, I'll wait.

You're still dancing around the fact that there are only two known reasons and "functions" for the development and existence of that type of sophisticated circuitry, *LIFE* and "INTELLIGENT DESIGN", both of which rule out ATHEISM as a viable theory.

Incorrect. I am not saying that there are only two explanations for complex circuitry. There's the rather glaring third option: there's no reason. Why is the Sun dense in electrical circuits? Because it is! There doesn't have to be a metaphysical, profoundly philosophical reason for it. The nature of the Sun is such that it simply happens to have a lot of circuits. It also has a lot of Hydrogen, much like our bodies. It's also hot, much like the centre of the Earth or the air surrounding lightening. It's also billowing out the solar wind, analogous to the winds of Earth or Jupiter. These aren't mind-blowing revelations, they're just facts of the universe that have no real implication whatsoever.

You asked for an example of something that was dense in electrical circuits but wasn't alive. I gave you the example of a computer. Is, or is not, a computer concious? Is, or is not, a computer an example of a system that is dense in electrical circuits but not concious? Thus, is, or is not, it fallacious to say that all systems dense in electrical circuits are concious?

If the computer isn't concious, why do you insist that the universe is concious? They're both dense in electrical circuits after all.

And, for the fourth time, no, I'm not suggesting that the universe can only be either alive or designed. As I said, the rather obvious third option is that the universe is neither of those things.

So by your logic an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere is caused by "magnetic reconnection", not charge separation?

... Did you read what I said? 'Magnetic reconnection' is the same as 'electrical discharge'. I'm saying it's all the same thing. Not different. The same. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.

Mainly because EU/PC theory scares the living hell out of them? It's the one entirely *EMPIRICAL* theory that could replace their dark sky god religion perhaps? Peer pressure? It's probably a combo deal IMO.

Yep, you've got the Illuminati shaking in their boots.

Maxwell's equations demonstrate that E (electricity) and B (magnetism) are inseparably related. Solar physicists tend to "dumb down" the entire process to the B or (field) orientation of plasma physics and they ignore Alfven's presentations of the E orientations to these very same processes. For instance, Alfven's coronal loop is 'caused' by charge separation that is in turn caused by viable flows in the photosphere. The mainstream ignores that charge separation and the circuit orientation entirely and peddle a process that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" more than a half dozen times in a keynote speech to a room full of plasma physicists!

You cite Alfven. I cite the entire scientific community. If you want to play the 'argument from authority' game, I win. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

 

[Non sequitur]

Solar X-ray flux:

EEG:

They're both wiggly. The tide is also wiggly. So what?

Never a miscommunication.

You can't explain that.

 

[Michael]

No, I am not. You said: "It's a relatively "complex" design that isn't likely to form all by itself "randomly" out of pure chemicals." I disagree with that statement. That doesn't mean I'm saying a pile of each chemical found in the eye would spontaneously form an eye. The process by which the eye formed, entirely by itself without external influence, is called 'evolution'. You may have heard of it.

Sure, for all I know, it's another example of "intelligent design". For all you know the first evolving physical life form was "engineered" and planted in the universe a trillion years ago. Evidently a lot goes into the programming of the DNA. We also just discovered that electrical signals are part of the cell differentiation process as the cell divides. It seems we are "electrical' by design, and it's programmed into our DNA.

No, no it is not. Why would you think that?

You personally seem absolutely certain that something as complex as a fully functional eye can form in a "mundane" manner, yet you can't even explain the steps that are necessary to turn even the MOST SIMPLE life form "on" in terms of "life". Why is that? How is that not an "act of faith" on your part?

Err, yes, yes it can: cultural conditioning and psychological phenomena.

Sight itself is a "psychological phenomenon" by your standards evidently.

Says you. The parallels exist only so far as they both involve electricity. Beyond that, there's nothing.

That's not true. There are cyclical aspects which we haven't talked about, chemical transfers of energy to consider, the "structural" aspects that need to be discussed, etc. You've ignored all the empirical cause/effect demonstrations of concept as though they aren't even "important" or relevant to cosmology by the way. Why is that? If I said "God energy did it" with the same math use use, using the same techniques you use, will 'God' suddenly be the new "energy source" that causes the universe to accelerate? If not, why not?

Why? What makes you think the Sun isn't the concious entity, rather than the universe? Assuming your claim was true, both the Sun and the universe have an equal claim to conciousness. Why, then, are you so sure that it's the universe that's concious? Why do you not equally affirm the conciousness of every star?

Well, they tend to act "collectively" rather than individually for starters. From the standpoint of current flow, they are "wired together", not separate electrical entities unto themselves.

Neither is the universe marketed as intelligent, you seem perfectly happy claiming that it is concious.

20 years ago it didn't contain any "dark energy", and dark energy had nothing to do with "acceleration". What makes your claim more "acceptable' than mine again?

Why the universe and not the computer

The computer is not a biological or "natural" life form. In theory even I entertain the concept that it may achieve 'consciousness' were it to be designed to connect to "God" like other living life forms. I'm not adverse to the possibility of computers becoming sentient.

(or, indeed, the Sun)?

Like I said, suns and whole batches of suns tend to be "wired together" in large "Birkeland currents".

I don't believe that the existence of dense circuits demonstrates the existence of conciousness. But you do.

Keep in mind that you've yet to provide an example of a 'dense circuits' that are not either an example of intelligent design or found in living things. Your claim about any atom having charge separation being a 'circuit' dumbs down the term "circuit" to the point of meaninglessness.

I'm going to skip the redundant stuff this morning.

They're both wiggly. The tide is also wiggly. So what?

Tides do not involve the flow of electrons through 'circuits'. You're essentially unwilling to note any similarities at the level of actual physics evidently.

Bingo. The sheer existence of an abundance of circuits does not, by itself, generate conciousness. As you say, it is the process, the pattern, of a particular set of atoms that generates conciousness. That the universe has such an abundance does not, by itself, demonstrate the existence of a conciousness.

I love how you sort of "switch gears" with your own analogies and apply them to slightly different topics over time. That's cute. A little confusing at first, but cute.

FYI, you still have not shown any large collection of circuitry that isn't an example of intelligent design or part of a living organism. If you can't even produce an example of circuits that does not falsify atheism outright, you really don't have any viable alternative to offer.

I'm simply pointing out there is no difference between a circuit in an atom, a brain, or a computer. It's you who arbitrarily differentiates between them. It's like saying that windless air is completely static - it's practical to consider still air to be utterly motionless, but the molecules are as active in static air as they are in a blizzard.

Oddly enough I find myself in agreement with that statement at some levels. I (my little self) am the one that ultimately differentiates between various parts of the universe/God. I don't HAVE to do that I suppose, but it's nice to remember that you can "drive" a car and a "computer" can access the internet. Of course some cars have a computer and can access the internet. It's just helpful to remember these things so I don't try to use a shoe to access the internet. That isn't likely to be very productive.

Because, in physics, what an electron is doing is absolutely irrelevant to the larger scale. Whether it's in the brain or a computer, it will do the same thing. Circuits are formed in the same density as in the brain, yet you only accept the brain and the universe as valid entities that can hold a conciousness. Why?

I don't. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a computer might one day become "sentient" and "connected to God" in a wireless manner, just like all living entities. It would have to be sensitive to changing external EM fields and be capable of recording various experiences that people experience under a "God helmet".

Because it took 3.5 billion years. Technology has not developed to the point where we can recreate in a computer from start to finish the entire 3.5 billion years of evolution of life on Earth.

I'm not asking you to create a fully formed human being, just something a like a "simple" life form that might have form 'naturally' here on Earth.

Naturally, it is fallacious to therefore conclude that we can never do this, or that any idea about evolution or abiogenesis is false. A gap in our understanding of lightening doesn't mean that all our understanding of lightening is false.

Again however, I'm not asking for the moon. I'm not asking for the recipe for a very 'simple' form of life. How would I go about creating and animating it in the lab? Surely if it can form "naturally", it can be created "intelligently" too?

Some intelligence, sure. But not extreme intelligence.

I don't know. "Some" intelligence is "I'm hungry, I'll go get some food'. Higher intelligence is "I work as a team. I'll gather food for my team". Extreme intelligence is "I'm hungry, I'm part of a team, and I can use other life forms to help me gather food". This isn't a behavior I would expect to find is say a "single celled organism". It doesn't however require an "extremely large" package to generate extreme examples of "intelligent cooperation".

Yes, yes, we all know about your phobia of mainstream physics.

Dark energy isn't "mainstream physics", it's popular sky mythology. It's amusing that you simply ignore the 'cause/effect' demonstrations as it relates to your sky beings, but you demand I empirically demonstrate every claim I make in relationship to God. You don't see that as a glaring double standard?

You said, "Many humans report having a living connection to a living organism they call "God" (or some variation of that term). They have 'experiences' with such a being and these have been documented in books since the dawn of recorded human civilization." - again, so? What does that have to do with anything?

Everything. Aware beings can be aware of other aware beings. This is a human phenomenon that requires an 'explanation' like everything else. It's a "prediction" of this theory. Your mainstreamers make a "big deal" about 'predictions' even though they never actually "predicted" anything, the postdicted a "fit" using ad hoc entities galore, most recently a liberal dose of evil dark energies.

Humans can report seeing deities and prophets and angels and buddhas till they're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.

Likewise, just because you personally do not, doesn't make your lack of experience the be-all-end-all of human experiences. What makes you 'LACK OF' experience rise to the level of 'great importance' in the first place? A failure rate of 4-5 percent seems pretty "reasonable" given the concept of some kind of "free choice".

Do you have any hard evidence that these experiences actually occurred,

Do you have any hard evidence that "dark energy" causes anything to 'accelerate'? What constitutes "hard evidence" exactly?

and that they're actually genuine experiences with an external conciousness?

I have physically demonstrated that it's POSSIBLE given the fact that external EM fields CAN and DO influence human thought, and we live inside of an electromagnetic universe/God. I've shown that the universe contains the wiring and circuitry necessary to support life at the level of empirical physics.

You can't even show ANY empirical link in a controlled experiment with your sky entities and any of the claims you make about their "supernatural" powers. Care to come clean about that double standard?

Nope, you've not shown that it occurs. You've just assumed that external EM fields from some pantheistic deity of the stars is causing these NDEs. I've never stated that it absolutely must be internally generated, to the exclusion of any other possibility; I've simply pointed out that that is the most probable explanation for the alleged religious experiences. You've yet to demonstrate that NDEs are predicted by astrology.

Man, I've seen elaborate foot dragging before, and I've seen double standards in play before, but this is just "over the top". You can't even begin to physically show any cause/effect link between ANY of your sky entities and the superpowers you endow them with. None. Not one single "property". You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to go about getting some to work with in a lab.

Even when many human beings, including atheists report "meeting God" during NDE's, your LACK OF experience is all that seems to matter to you. You don't even seem to care about the long term effects of these experiences on their future behaviors (typically very significant by the way). In fact you only seem interested in "explaining away" their experience as a "hallucination" because it doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.

If you took the blinkers off your telescope, you'd see the evidence that everyone else is privy to.

I see evidence that "acceleration happens". I see no evidence that "God energy" did it, or that "dark energy" did it. Where is your evidence that "dark energy" did it?

Instead, your arbitrarily restrict things that can be detected in the confines of a test tube.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing with God? Don't you expect me to demonstrate cause/effect relationships in an empirical manner?

Sorry, but sometimes the universe doesn't lend itself to being tested that day.

So the flip side claim is "God doesn't lend itself to being "tested"" doesn't work too?

Sometimes, a phenomenon is only apparent on such large scales that a 5" beaker isn't enough. It's like concluding the Earth is flat because you can't see the curvature of the Earth on a local map. If you filter out evidence, you're not going to get the same whole picture as everyone else.

I don't doubt, but that doesn't add one jot or tittle to their veracity.

Consider the double standard as I see it. On one hand we have "eye witnesses" that attest to "cause/effect" relationships (NDE'S). On the other hand you expect me to believe that "dark sky energies" are the "cause" of "acceleration", without so much as a single eye witness or any "proof of concept" in the lab. Care to explain that double standard for me?

I really have to stop here for a while. I'll come back later and see if anything else needs to be responded to. Most of it seemed to be a rehash of the same basic points.

 

[Michael]

Incorrect. I am not saying that there are only two explanations for complex circuitry. There's the rather glaring third option: there's no reason. Why is the Sun dense in electrical circuits? Because it is! There doesn't have to be a metaphysical, profoundly philosophical reason for it. The nature of the Sun is such that it simply happens to have a lot of circuits.

....

These aren't mind-blowing revelations, they're just facts of the universe that have no real implication whatsoever.

Evidently this is your entire argument so let's put it in some context and discuss it in a single post. The problem with your basic argument is that the only examples that you can cite of this kind of "naturally occurring" level of circuitry is found EXCLUSIVELY in living organisms. It's not there inside of living organisms "just because". In fact when life ends, that electrical activity also ceases. There is a one to one correlation between this sort of naturally occurring level of sophisticated circuitry and living, conscious things on Earth.

You now wish to "point at the sky" and claim "somewhere out there it's "different"" than it is here on Earth. How do you know that? Your statement is itself a statement of faith since you can't even cite an example of something with that many circuits that isn't alive or isn't intelligently designed!

Your null hypothesis not only is not congruent with their frequency in things here on Earth, it's not congruent with any human experiences either. It ASSUMES in fact that human experiences of God in their lives and the activities in space ARE necessarily UNRELATED. All of your "foot dragging" is fine and all, but what's the alternative cosmology theory that you actually prefer, and why exactly do you prefer it?

You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from. You can't produce any of it. You can't get it to move a single atom in a controlled experiment. You can't show it has any effect on Earth, in fact by design, it can't. It's a complete "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab, and faith in something that cannot EVER be observed in the lab. Talk about acts of faith in things you cannot demonstrate!

At least I can demonstrate that EM fields exist in space. At least I can demonstrate that EM fields influence human thought. At least I can demonstrate that EM fields accelerate plasma. At least I can demonstrate that this theory is congruent with human experiences, during life and during near death experiences. At least I can demonstrate that EM fields are present in all living things. You're pretty much up a "Dark" mythology creek without a paddle in terms of the effect that your sky deities have on atoms and people and real scientific experiments with actual control mechanisms.

... Did you read what I said? 'Magnetic reconnection' is the same as 'electrical discharge'. I'm saying it's all the same thing. Not different. The same. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.

Fine.

 

[Michael]

FYI, just to put that specific issue to rest, I am willing to entertain the possibility that an individual sun has enough circuits to achieve a 'type' of individualized awareness without the need to interact with other suns. Anything is "possible", I simply have "preferences".

 

[sandwiches]

FYI, just to put that specific issue to rest, I am willing to entertain the possibility that an individual sun has enough circuits to achieve a 'type' of individualized awareness without the need to interact with other suns. Anything is "possible", I simply have "preferences".

So, you'd prefer that the sun not be conscious?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've rehashed the post to put relevant topics together, and added headers.

Eyes and Ants

Sure, for all I know, it's another example of "intelligent design". For all you know the first evolving physical life form was "engineered" and planted in the universe a trillion years ago. Evidently a lot goes into the programming of the DNA. We also just discovered that electrical signals are part of the cell differentiation process as the cell divides. It seems we are "electrical' by design, and it's programmed into our DNA.

Neither the eye nor DNA show any hallmarks of design. The theory of common descent is still by far the best explanation we have for the origin of these things. Do you deny that it's a valid theory?

I don't know. "Some" intelligence is "I'm hungry, I'll go get some food'. Higher intelligence is "I work as a team. I'll gather food for my team". Extreme intelligence is "I'm hungry, I'm part of a team, and I can use other life forms to help me gather food". This isn't a behavior I would expect to find is say a "single celled organism". It doesn't however require an "extremely large" package to generate extreme examples of "intelligent cooperation".

Regardless, it is not 'extreme' intelligence. It's a very simple intelligence operating under evolved algorithms, instincts evolved to tell it to do certain simple things given certain simple conditions. The study of these algorithms is fascinating in its own right, but that's all it is: evolved instincts. "1) Walk somewhere. 2) If you find food, bring it back in pieces till its gone. 3) Repeat (1)". This very simple algorithm creates complex systems, like trains of gatherers or swarms of soldiers or what have you. Looking at complex behaviour and inferring an 'extreme' intelligence is fallacious. Ironically, ants are a very good example of complex behaviour without any highly intelligent being involved. Myrmecological research is quite advanced, you might want to take a delve into Google Scholar.

Well, they tend to act "collectively" rather than individually for starters. From the standpoint of current flow, they are "wired together", not separate electrical entities unto themselves.

Then why harp on about the trillions of electrical currents in the Sun? If sheer abundance isn't enough to prove something is concious, that rather undermines your whole point.

That's not true. There are cyclical aspects which we haven't talked about, chemical transfers of energy to consider, the "structural" aspects that need to be discussed, etc. You've ignored all the empirical cause/effect demonstrations of concept as though they aren't even "important" or relevant to cosmology by the way. Why is that? If I said "God energy did it" with the same math use use, using the same techniques you use, will 'God' suddenly be the new "energy source" that causes the universe to accelerate? If not, why not?

Because 'God' is a word used to denote an intelligence, a concious being that traditionally answers prayers, attends to departed souls, etc. It is unscientific, and intellectually dishonest, to hoist such attributes without justification. You can call it 'god', but that warps the definition of 'god' beyond any meaningful distinction.

Circuits

Keep in mind that you've yet to provide an example of a 'dense circuits' that are not either an example of intelligent design or found in living things. Your claim about any atom having charge separation being a 'circuit' dumbs down the term "circuit" to the point of meaninglessness.

Hardly, that's all the word 'circuit' has ever meant. Just because it's a small circuit doesn't make it any less of one. Reality has the curious habit of not caring about human conveniences. The atom is not a useful circuit (nanotechnology notwithstanding), so we don't usually think of it as such. But, nonetheless, it is a circuit. The same is true of plasma: a cold hunk of metal is as much a plasma as that found in a Tokamak, regardless of the fact that we don't generally regard it as such. It's still a plasma.

Tides do not involve the flow of electrons through 'circuits'. You're essentially unwilling to note any similarities at the level of actual physics evidently.

If you showed me actual similarities, sure. But your similarities are literally just 'they're both a bit wiggly'. Would a neurosurgeon mistake such a graph for genuine brain activity? No, of course not, because they're not similar. They are, at best, both graphs. Your only objection to the tide analogy is that it doesn't involve the flow of electrons - rather stunningly missing the point. Simply saying "Aha! They're both a bit wiggly!" is not a valid argument. At its crudest, correlation does not imply causation.

I love how you sort of "switch gears" with your own analogies and apply them to slightly different topics over time. That's cute. A little confusing at first, but cute.

FYI, you still have not shown any large collection of circuitry that isn't an example of intelligent design or part of a living organism. If you can't even produce an example of circuits that does not falsify atheism outright, you really don't have any viable alternative to offer.

First, the point of my analogy has been consistent: it's always been an example of a system that is dense in electrical circuits but is not concious. You've yet to come up with any rebuttal to that. Let's assume that it does somehow disprove atheism (I'll address this in my second point) - so what? Whether it disproves atheism or has no influence on it, it does its job: it undermines your central claim, that the universe is concious.

Second, you have twice now ignored the facts that a) the computer analogy doesn't imply the universe's electrical circuits point to intelligent design, and b) there is a third alternative: that electrical circuits are neither hallmarks of design or of conciousness.

Criteria

I don't. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a computer might one day become "sentient" and "connected to God" in a wireless manner, just like all living entities. It would have to be sensitive to changing external EM fields and be capable of recording various experiences that people experience under a "God helmet".

Why? Are these yet more criteria you're adding to the list? It has to be dense in electrical circuits, it can't be man-made (that negates the magic spell, naturally), it has to be connected to God (presumably over wifi or 3G), and it has to have a local CCTV connection (y'know, to record those experiences). That about cover it?

I'm not asking you to create a fully formed human being, just something a like a "simple" life form that might have form 'naturally' here on Earth.

Again however, I'm not asking for the moon. I'm not asking for the recipe for a very 'simple' form of life. How would I go about creating and animating it in the lab? Surely if it can form "naturally", it can be created "intelligently" too?

Nope. The Sun was created naturally too, but that doesn't mean we can recreate it in the lab. What makes you think we have the technological prowess to recreate billions of years of evolution?

Dark Matter

Do you have any hard evidence that "dark energy" causes anything to 'accelerate'? What constitutes "hard evidence" exactly?

...

You can't even show ANY empirical link in a controlled experiment with your sky entities and any of the claims you make about their "supernatural" powers. Care to come clean about that double standard?

...

Man, I've seen elaborate foot dragging before, and I've seen double standards in play before, but this is just "over the top". You can't even begin to physically show any cause/effect link between ANY of your sky entities and the superpowers you endow them with. None. Not one single "property". You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to go about getting some to work with in a lab.

...

I see evidence that "acceleration happens". I see no evidence that "God energy" did it, or that "dark energy" did it. Where is your evidence that "dark energy" did it?

Irrelevant. The veracity of the dark matter theory has no bearing on the veracity of your claims, so please stop dodging the question. Do you, or do you not, have any hard evidence that these interactions with deities and descended loved ones actually occurred?

Suppose I threw my hands up and admitted that we scientists really are suppressing the little man with our dirty evil sky gods (to whom we routinely sacrifice babies - white, Godly, American, Christian babies, of course). How would that change the topic at hand? How would that, in any way, add merit to your theory?

NDEs

Likewise, just because you personally do not, doesn't make your lack of experience the be-all-end-all of human experiences. What makes you 'LACK OF' experience rise to the level of 'great importance' in the first place? A failure rate of 4-5 percent seems pretty "reasonable" given the concept of some kind of "free choice".

Whoever said my experiences matter? The whole point is that one's personal, subjective experiences don't matter. What matters is the evidence, and you've yet to provide any evidence that these phenomena are anything more than quirks of human psychology. You insist that they're somehow connected, that they somehow demonstrate a connection with a single, divine being (who is, coincidentally enough, the same being you advocate elsewhere - ever thought that maybe there's two deities?). Well, where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that the mainstream theory is wrong, and that yours is right? We have an abundance of evidence that the brain and the mind can be deceived - degenerative diseases, hallucinogenic drugs, delusion brought on by trauma - and that, in times of great stress, is less than reliable. Why, then, are you so convinced that this phenomenon isn't just another example of hallucination under extreme stress?

Evidently this is your entire argument so let's put it in some context and discuss it in a single post. The problem with your basic argument is that the only examples that you can cite of this kind of "naturally occurring" level of circuitry is found EXCLUSIVELY in living organisms. It's not there inside of living organisms "just because". In fact when life ends, that electrical activity also ceases. There is a one to one correlation between this sort of naturally occurring level of sophisticated circuitry and living, conscious things on Earth.

A sample size of one is hardly compelling evidence. The crux of your argument is that we know of no other system that has such complex electrical structure that isn't alive and concious - so, therefore, any future discovery of such a system must also be alive and concious. Just like how all known swans are white, so all future swans must be white too, eh?

Your null hypothesis not only is not congruent with their frequency in things here on Earth, it's not congruent with any human experiences either. It ASSUMES in fact that human experiences of God in their lives and the activities in space ARE necessarily UNRELATED. All of your "foot dragging" is fine and all, but what's the alternative cosmology theory that you actually prefer, and why exactly do you prefer it?

Until proven otherwise, the default position is the null hypothesis, one of non-causality, the one where you don't assume causal relationships between phenomena until you have a good reason to. I don't assume electricity in deep space causes NDEs, because there is no evidence of this. Electricity is space is just your run-of-the-mill electricity. It doesn't generate conciousness, it isn't a hallmark of intelligent design, it's just electricity. Likewise, NDEs aren't magical connections to some lightening god, they're just random synaptic firings in the visual cortex, cultural conditioning that makes you see a white light, the brain recreating what it hears (and, occasionally, what it sees) in the mind's eye, etc. Religion surrounds our everyday lives, and we expect some sort of religious experience upon death. The brain is a powerful tool at self-deception, nothing more.

NDEs and deep-space circuits are unrelated phenomenon. They might not be, but until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with the logical default.