An Empirical Theory Of God

[Doveaman]

Brain science gives no support to your view, and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.

That's probably because brain science is no way near understanding the brain, just like cosmology science is no way near understand the universe.

You would probably also conclude that cosmology science gives no support to an electric universe. But you would be wrong.

Aspects of brain function.

Aspects I'm sure you cannot explain and probably don't even understand.

Can you explain how the human brain generates and sustains the human character?

 

[sandwiches]

DNA building blocks can be made in space, NASA evidence suggests
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

The building blocks of those DNA structures you are describing are created in space and come from space, as does carbon.

Strawman. We all knew that the building blocks of DNA come from space. So, now, show me this deoxyribonucleic acid of the universe, please.

And again: Was this circuitry created by humans or is the universe a carbon-based lifeform with DNA?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's probably because brain science is no way near understanding the brain

Granted that brain science is still learning about the brain, but what are you basing the word "probably" on?

You would probably also conclude that cosmology science gives no support to an electric universe. But you would be wrong.

Go claim your Nobel Prize. What are you basing your certainty on?

Aspects I'm sure you cannot explain and probably don't even understand.

Wow! Do go claim your Nobel Prize. I am in the presence of greatness.

Can you explain how the human brain generates and sustains the human character?

With neural activity.

Now, what is it that you hope to show here? I never claimed omniscience. I had written:

Brain science gives no support to your view, and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.

So far, brain science overwhelmingly supports the idea that mental activity is brain activity. Not everything is known about mental awareness, but there is no reason to think that mental awareness corresponds to anything that can survive death.

I do not have to be omniscient to have different views than you do. If you want to believe in souls, go right ahead. If you want to convince me that souls exist, then you are failing. My lack of omnscience does not mean that you are correct. I have no reason to believe as you do.

So, given brain science, I may legitimately regard the human spirit as natural and mortal.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

I guess that's a fair enough answer. It's not as though it's an isolated incident, and it's not exactly "my" story.

This is but one of many published accounts of "out of body" experiences, that include "knowledge" types of accounts.

There's all sorts of things that've happened to lots of us. Atheists generally just ignore all that, as it's the only way they can continue on ...

(Oh, and Doveaman wasn't referring to "souls" when he spoke of an entity contributing to character. And brain science absolutely cannot speak to this phenomenon)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Oh, and Doveaman wasn't referring to "souls" when he spoke of an entity contributing to character.

He wrote this:

How do you know you are not describing an actual entity temporary existing inside our bodies? You may very well be.

I see now that he is talking about the Holy Spirit instead of souls, in which case he may also believe in that as he likes.

I need to be clear on something. When I refer to the Exalted Spirit of Man, I'm not specifically referring to the psychological experience that Christians call the "Holy Spirit". I'm not necessarily excluding that experience, but I'm not singling it out.

And while I have some interest in ancient Hellenistic beliefs such as daimones (translates as "spirits"), which they used to explain personal motivations, character, and such, I have no reason to believe that they were right to think of such things as airy entities that influence otherwise unspirited human beings. I view this idea as a primitive form of psychology that uses mythological entities to explain natural changes in brain function. This way of viewing psychology seems present in Christianity as well.

Neurotheology is a very young science, and I don't know how much is specifically known about Christian spiritual experiences. I have heard anything so far of convincing evidence that motivations are caused by some kind of spiritual possession.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Michael]

Strawman. We all knew that the building blocks of DNA come from space. So, now, show me this deoxyribonucleic acid of the universe, please.

Um, we're sort of dancing around the data aren't we? I *CAN* empirically demonstrate that electrical discharge processes create the building blocks of DNA and that we live inside of an electric universe. That universe is quite literally *FILLED*/COMPOSED of the building blocks that generate life, and the electrical processes that are associated with life. What's the scientific alternative that fits with all the data, including human experiences?

And again: Was this circuitry created by humans or is the universe a carbon-based lifeform with DNA?

It is clearly a carbon rich lifeform who's basic processes *CREATE* the building blocks of DNA.

I asked you before, and I'll ask you again: Assuming you're actually looking for macroscopic "building blocks" of some sort, what might those look like? Stars? Galaxies? Galaxy clusters? "Black holes"? Neutron stars? What?

 

[Michael]

There's all sorts of things that've happened to lots of us. Atheists generally just ignore all that, as it's the only way they can continue on ...

Atheism does seem to be a ("lack of") belief system that is entirely predicated upon elevating one's own *LACK* of experiences to the level of "all importance".

 

[Non sequitur]

Atheism does seem to be a ("lack of") belief system that is entirely predicated upon elevating one's own *LACK* of experiences to the level of "all importance".

The same could be said about the perceived elevating one's own experience to the level of "all importance" with Christians.

Except, they throw "the truth" somewhere in there and it magically is perfect

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism does seem to be a ("lack of") belief system that is entirely predicated upon elevating one's own *LACK* of experiences to the level of "all importance".

Huh?

This is not my impression. What gives you this impression?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Michael]

Huh?

This is not my impression. What gives you this impression?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's just my opinion based on 10+ years worth of discussions with atheists, and 6+ years of discussing cosmology theories with atheists. They tend to think nothing of accepting "dark energy" and "inflation" theories as plausible "scientific" theories, yet I've heard many of these same individuals claim that the topic of "God' isn't even a 'scientific' topic. It's a glaring empirical double standard related to demonstrating cause/effect relationships that I've seen play out in atheists over and over again.

 

[Michael]

The same could be said about the perceived elevating one's own experience to the level of "all importance" with Christians.

Except, they throw "the truth" somewhere in there and it magically is perfect

There's probably some truth to that statement, but it's a little bit more murky than it seems. One would expect that their own experiences, assume they are "real", are not "unique" and evidently they are not. Other individuals report similar experiences. In "science", sooner or later one has to look at the "consensus" of opinion, and weed out the "appeal to popularity" fallacy of that argument. Good luck with that.

 

[Non sequitur]

There's probably some truth to that statement, but it's a little bit more murky than it seems. One would expect that their own experiences, assume they are "real", are not "unique" and evidently they are not. Other individuals report similar experiences. In "science", sooner or later one has to look at the "consensus" of opinion, and weed out the "appeal to popularity" fallacy of that argument. Good luck with that.

There was an appeal to popularity?

 

[Michael]

There was an appeal to popularity?

Well, were I to try to suggest that the "scientific consensus" of opinion on this topic is "theism", not atheism, would you consider that an appeal to popularity fallacy? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Non sequitur]

Well, were I to try to suggest that the "scientific consensus" of opinion on this topic is "theism", not atheism, would you consider that an appeal to popularity fallacy? If so, why? If not, why not?

Did you mean, the scientific consensus is theistic or atheistic?

 

[sandwiches]

Um, we're sort of dancing around the data aren't we? I *CAN* empirically demonstrate that electrical discharge processes create the building blocks of DNA and that we live inside of an electric universe. That universe is quite literally *FILLED*/COMPOSED of the building blocks that generate life, and the electrical processes that are associated with life. What's the scientific alternative that fits with all the data, including human experiences?

It is clearly a carbon rich lifeform who's basic processes *CREATE* the building blocks of DNA.

You're still missing the point. The point is that you wanted to show that the only circuitry for information processing we've ever seen has been in life or has been created by intelligent life. And I stated that it's not just "life" but a specific kind of life with specific characteristics. So, don't forget that part.

I asked you before, and I'll ask you again: Assuming you're actually looking for macroscopic "building blocks" of some sort, what might those look like? Stars? Galaxies? Galaxy clusters? "Black holes"? Neutron stars? What?

Don't ask me for evidence of your claim. Show me where the deoxyribonucleic acid the universe uses to build proteins is.

 

[Doveaman]

He wrote this:

How do you know you are not describing an actual entity temporary existing inside our bodies? You may very well be.

I see now that he is talking about the Holy Spirit instead of souls, in which case he may also believe in that as he likes.

No, I'm not talking about the Holy Spirit. I am referring to what the Bible calls "the spirit in man".

"There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?" (Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11).

We know that human intelligence is associated with the firing patterns of the brain. But which came first, the firing patterns or the intelligence? Are the firing patterns themselves intelligent, or are they govern by an intelligent source.

We know that the brain’s EM field does influence the firing patterns of the brain. Is the EM field the intelligent source that governs those firing patterns, or is there another source lurking somewhere in our heads undetected?

Perhaps if we can find the source of our human intelligence we will then find God.

 

[Michael]

You're still missing the point. The point is that you wanted to show that the only circuitry for information processing we've ever seen has been in life or has been created by intelligent life. And I stated that it's not just "life" but a specific kind of life with specific characteristics. So, don't forget that part.

I didn't forget it. I showed you that there is already evidence that the *ELECTRIC* universe that we live in *CREATES* the very building blocks that we are based upon. It most likely "seeded" the Earth with the materials and energies that are necessary to create life and sustain life.

Don't ask me for evidence of your claim. Show me where the deoxyribonucleic acid the universe uses to build proteins is.

I have no idea how to do that unless you are willing to entertain the concept that macroscopic structures (like suns) pass "information" between one another in the form of chemical transfers, and/or electrical transfers of energy. Even *if* we can agree on such ideas, the "data" to demonstrate this is most likely going to be limited to "Birkeland currents" and electrical energy for the time being. We simply don't have the technology to properly analyze the chemical exchanges between stars IMO.

 

[Michael]

Did you mean, the scientific consensus is theistic or atheistic?

Yes. About 85 percent of the planet labels themselves a "theist". Only about 4% of the planet label themselves an "atheist". The overall "consensus" of human beings is that "God exists".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes. About 85 percent of the planet labels themselves a "theist". Only about 4% of the planet label themselves an "atheist". The overall "consensus" of human beings is that "God exists".

Now if only truth were a democracy, we'd be set.

BTW, there is quite a difference between a consensus of people on any subject and a consensus on experts in a field for which there is evidence to discuss.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, I'm not talking about the Holy Spirit. I am referring to what the Bible calls "the spirit in man".

"There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?" (Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11).

Okay. Then I was fairly close.

We know that human intelligence is associated with the firing patterns of the brain. But which came first, the firing patterns or the intelligence?

The capacity for intelligence is the brain. The use of this capacity is the firing patterns.

We know that the brain’s EM field does influence the firing patterns of the brain.

Do we? Source?

Is the EM field the intelligent source that governs those firing patterns, or is there another source lurking somewhere in our heads undetected?

Yes, there is another source, but it has been detected: neurons and their connections to other neurons. Perhaps the EM field generated from firing neurons could influence the firing of other neurons, but this would simply be another form of neural connection. It would be as if computers in a network were connected both by wires and by a wireless connection.

BTW, the electromagnetic view of consciousness that I guess you are promoting here is considered pseudo-science by nearly all mainstream scientists. It's an interesting speculation, but it's a bit too "Deepak Chopra" at this point, if you know what I mean.

In any case, this EM field is generated by the brain, not given by God, nor is it some possessing spirit.

Perhaps if we can find the source of our human intelligence we will then find God.

Or perhaps we will simply find ourselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark