Gods Big Bang

[Michael]

For the record:

All of his "MCI" presentation does NOT apply to anything I have proposed since nothing I have proposed defies any laws of physics, nor is any of it "supernatural" in any way.

On the other hand ALL of his routine about MCI's applies *DIRECTLY* to concepts like 'space expansion' which captures the essence of movement, but does it in a "supernatural" way, a way that defies the laws of physics as we know them and allows particles to expand faster than light. His ENTIRE presentation relates to the human mind. In fact he put up some paragraph at the intro and specifically states that it relates to the development of the human mind.

Science can also be labeled as an "artifact of our ability for imagined social worlds." In fact pretty much ANY socially oriented process falls into that category, including science, religion, music, pretty much everything that makes us "human" and "intelligent' in the first place!

 

[Belk]

Ah, you can't handle a real debate nor deal with any criticisms about the content of the video. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Real debate is not redirecting every topic to your personal pet peeve Michael.

 

[Michael]

And one more point:

His whole routine about "the attachment mechanism" most certainly is a "science of the mind" sort of argument, and it applies to ALL social groups, including scientific groups, not simply "religious" ones. In fact almost his ENTIRE argument is based on his preconceived BIAS about religion being an "artifact", when in fact it's simply a "function of" higher thinking processes, much like science or music. That doesn't make it "false".

 

[Michael]

Real debate is not redirecting every topic to your personal pet peeve Michael.

What is the topic of this thread again?

 

[British Bulldog]

Ah, you can't handle a real debate nor deal with any criticisms about the content of the video. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

If you actually want to debate the contents of the video I'm all ears, but all you want to talk about is your own agenda, that's why I've been trying to pin you down to the actual content of the video, without success.

 

[Michael]

If you actually want to debate the contents of the video I'm all ears, but all you want to talk about is your own agenda, that's why I've been trying to pin you down to the actual content of the video, without success.

Fine. How about we talk about the agenda of the video. What in your opinion was the 'agenda' of that particular speech? How well do you think it achieved it's goals?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Which evidence suggests that any "missing mass" is found in exotic forms of matter that have yet to be seen on Earth?

c.f. Bullet Cluster

Some? It's all about peer pressure and toeing the party line. One can write about SUSY theories in astronomy till the cows come home, but never a peep about "electricity" in space. It's a sham IMO. More often than not the whole 'publishing' process is simply used to "remove dissent".

Most peer review is actually quite receptive towards new ideas...as long as they conform to the same rigour as accepted scientific theories. For example, what you said is often claimed by Creationists as an explanation for why they are not taken seriously in scientific circles, and as an adjunct to the whole "academic freedom" argument, when the truth is that their ideas are not testable, they do not explain observed phenomena with the same rigour as currently accepted theories, and they are not consistent with our current understanding of the universe.

You're right. All those psychological pressures and biases are bound to play a role in the process.

But, again, that does not mean the process is useless, nor does it mean that it does not work.

In an empirical sense, you might think of it as "worshiping empiricism" to the rejection of metaphysics entirely. Nothing I 'worship' cannot be tested in a lab.

For a scientist in his professional capacity, I believe that "worshiping" empiricism is a pretty good position to have, since science deals strictly with empirically measurable phenomena.

Ok, so I admit, astronomy is my passion, and SUSY theory just so happens to span both the fields of astronomy and particle physics theory. It seems appropriate since SUSY theories appear in virtually EVERY scientific publication related to either field of study. Can you think of a "better' scientific analogy that might apply to this topic?

I'm unsure what point you're even trying to make in referencing supersymmetry.

How so? How is your "preferred" understanding of the universe any "better" in terms of actual "knowledge" than mine?

1) They have predictive power
2) They are backed by empirical evidence
3) They can be falsifiable

Through direct interactions we have learned that things that have come to us have usually come to us "intentionally". I think most theists have that same relationship with God.

I don't see this is true at all. Maybe you should do away with the analogy, it doesn't really fit that well and it's just starting to become confusing.

Actually I'm fine with your position, I'm just figuring out your position on a variety of subtopics and you're not the only individual I'm talking to about these issues. Bear with me a bit.

The thing about argumentation is that you respond to what the other side is actually saying, not what you think they're saying, or what you think other people with the same general position are saying.

c.f. Straw Man fallacy.

I really think you should read through the first few pages of my first thread on the Empirical theory of God. Assuming I'm right, God governs everything, or in your vernacular at the moment, the laws of the universe govern everything. I think you're making "leaps of faith" where none are implied or required.

In what way?

I think we might and I suggested something similar to the brain scan experiments with EM measuring capabilities both inside and outside of the brain.

Not really.

I don't believe one can adequately explain the wide range of human experiences with something they call God without it.

For example...?

It's not really 'simple' because nothing travels faster than light, and space never expands in the lab. Other than that, ya, I suppose you could call the idea "simple" enough. Hubble himself wasn't as convinced as the mainstream that it was a 'law' by the way. It was more of a distance/redshift rule of thumb then.

There are a few basic problems with that concept. Nothing moves faster than light, space never expands in the lab, and the redshift phenomenon may be related to 'tired light' not movement at all.

arXiv.org Search

What make you prefer an "expansion of space" sort of "explanation"? What is 'space'? Only 'spacetime' is defined in GR. In GR objects in motion can stay in motion, but how does space ''expand"?

1) Expansion of space under laboratory conditions is unobservable because of the scales required to see it.
2) When someone makes an argument to discredit a scientific theory, they must also posit a newer, better theory in its place. So give us your idea.
3) I never said there weren't problems with the explanation. If there were no problems it would cease to be exciting.
4) The nomenclature is just a convention. I don't think it is a law either, but it is called such normally, so that's why I use it.

 

[British Bulldog]

Fine. How about we talk about the agenda of the video. What in your opinion was the 'agenda' of that particular speech? How well do you think it achieved it's goals?

The agenda was to show how religion and the belief in God comes directly from the way the mind has evolved to function. In particular the way the mind has evolved to deal with social interaction with other humans and our recognition that other humans have minds like our own. This mechanism is so powerful that we we can't switch it off and limit it just to other humans. We automatically attribute human intentions and purposes to things that don't have a human mind. This is where the trouble starts.

He added a large number of other psychological mechanisms that can work together with the theory of mind to give us a pretty complete picture of where religion comes from.

Was he successful? Partially. I think the presentation assumes some background knowledge in the subject otherwise you just get a jumble of points about psychology that might not obviously form a coherent whole. Having read 2 or 3 popular science books on the subject I could join the dots fairly easily and see how strong and complete the picture is, but I can appreciate that a more in depth coverage of certain areas might help some people newer to the topic.

I assume the agenda you are looking for is the science versus religion debate he introduced at the end, but for me this isn't terribly important as I don't live in America. It might however come as a bit of a shock to creationists to find out that modern evolutionary psychology has swept up religious belief and explained its origins in terms of the very theory they dare not accept.

So that's my take on it. A very interesting introductory lecture on an area of psychology that completely unravels religious belief and shows us where it comes from and why we, as a species, have a predisposition for it.

 

[Michael]

c.f. Bullet Cluster

All that actually demonstrates is "missing mass", and that they simply blew their original mass estimates. That's hardly surprising IMO. I've seen them ignore the clear problems in their theories for years now. They've ignored the dust problems, the star calculations problems, pretty every problem they've encountered in fact. Their 'dark matter' calculations haven't budged an inch although some of these revelations are over three years old now.

The shining: astronomers find our universe is twice as bright> Swinburne Magazine
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

You've convinced me that astronomers blew their original mass estimates. Convince me now that any of that "missing mass" is related to "exotic" forms of matter that we've never seen on Earth.

Most peer review is actually quite receptive towards new ideas...as long as they conform to the same rigour as accepted scientific theories.

In astronomy that's a nice "ideal", but it doesn't come close to working that way in real life. Alfven called mainstream theories related to magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience". He instead embraced an electric universe. That never stopped the mainstream from pilfering his work, ignoring his complaints about MR theories, and misrepresenting his work every single day.

For example, what you said is often claimed by Creationists as an explanation for why they are not taken seriously in scientific circles, and as an adjunct to the whole "academic freedom" argument, when the truth is that their ideas are not testable, they do not explain observed phenomena with the same rigour as currently accepted theories, and they are not consistent with our current understanding of the universe.

That may be true in terms of creationism. In terms of EU theory however, Birkeland already empirically tested most of the key concepts over 100 years ago in real empirical experiments with real control mechanisms. In fact his team correctly predicted the existence of high speed solar with, of BOTH types of charged particles, coronal loops, high speed jets, pretty much everything we observe in modern satellite images of the sun. Did the mainstream take any of his work seriously? No. It wasn't until the 1970's that they even acknowledge his auroral theories have merit. At the rate they are going, his cathode sun concepts will take another 100 years for them to embrace.

But, again, that does not mean the process is useless, nor does it mean that it does not work.

It's simply functions as a defacto enforcement mechanism to uphold and defend the status quo, and promote like minded thinking. Sure, it's got a few pluses, and a few minuses, but the moment someone gets too far out of line you just yank they publishing channels and that's pretty much the end of their professional career. Talk to Halton Arp about the mainstream taking away your nifty astronomy toys if you don't agree with party line dogma.

For a scientist in his professional capacity, I believe that "worshiping" empiricism is a pretty good position to have, since science deals strictly with empirically measurable phenomena.

You'd think the mainstream would be less fond of metaphysical stuff like SUSY particles that tend to be long term duds in the lab, but they seem to worship dogma, not lab results.

I'm unsure what point you're even trying to make in referencing supersymmetry.

1) They have predictive power

Ok.

2) They are backed by empirical evidence

Er, no. What empirical evidence?

3) They can be falsifiable

They've been falsified in the lab for 20 or so years now. Nobody cares.
315 Physicists Report Failure In Search for Supersymmetry - NYTimes.com
BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'
CERN Document Server: Search for supersymmetry in all-hadronic events with MT2
CERN Document Server: Search for Supersymmetry in Events with Photons, Jets and Missing Energy

When is a dead horse a dead horse anyway?

I don't see this is true at all. Maybe you should do away with the analogy, it doesn't really fit that well and it's just starting to become confusing.

Actually, it's quite appropriate in terms of analogies IMO. SUSY theory, like God theory does make predictions. In terms of empirical support however, SUSY theory is a total dud in the lab. Why would you entertain SUSY theory today yet reject the theory of God that I posted in the Empirical theory of God thread?

In what way?

God quite literally sustains everything (in pantheism).

Not really.

I'm not sure what you mean by that response. I'd be willing to measure EM fields both inside and outside of the human brain during prayer and meditation to look for empirical EM connections between them. At least I can conceive of A way to test the idea. If nobody on the planet can tell me where to get some "dark energy", or explain where it comes from, what are the odds of putting the idea to a real physical test with actual control mechanisms?

For example...?

How about we start with near death experiences for starters. Why do even atheist report meeting someone they call God during such events?

1) Expansion of space under laboratory conditions is unobservable because of the scales required to see it.

How inconvenient. In other words it's so impotent in the lab and on Earth, it's presumed to be more impotent than the average religious deity. Got it.

2) When someone makes an argument to discredit a scientific theory, they must also posit a newer, better theory in its place.

First of all, that is a fallacy. I can reject any theory for any legitimate scientific reason without positing a 'better' one.

So give us your idea.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

IMO it beats mainstream metaphysical cosmology theory to an empirical pulp.

3) I never said there weren't problems with the explanation. If there were no problems it would cease to be exciting.

It's hard to be excited about the likelihood of discovering exotic forms of matter when there have been 20 years of nothing but failure. When exactly should I give upon on exotic dark matter theories anyway?

 

[Michael]

The agenda was to show how religion and the belief in God comes directly from the way the mind has evolved to function.

The same could be said for belief in the theory of light and belief in Big Bang theory. So what?

In particular the way the mind has evolved to deal with social interaction with other humans and our recognition that other humans have minds like our own. This mechanism is so powerful that we we can't switch it off and limit it just to other humans. We automatically attribute human intentions and purposes to things that don't have a human mind. This is where the trouble starts.

It's only "trouble" if it's not the case. Do you have evidence that the universe acts "randomly"?

He added a large number of other psychological mechanisms that can work together with the theory of mind to give us a pretty complete picture of where religion comes from.

But it also gives us a complete picture of where belief in virtually ANYTHING comes from. I've demonstrated that belief is SUSY theory is no different. Did you folks abandon cold dark matter theories based on those LHC NULL results? If not, why not?

Was he successful? Partially. I think the presentation assumes some background knowledge in the subject otherwise you just get a jumble of points about psychology that might not obviously form a coherent whole. Having read 2 or 3 popular science books on the subject I could join the dots fairly easily and see how strong and complete the picture is, but I can appreciate that a more in depth coverage of certain areas might help some people newer to the topic.

I don't believe you've looked at the presentation from a skeptical position. His entire presentation comes off as a rant against a single KIND of belief system, when in fact it all relates to ALL human beliefs and processes that involve GROUPS. That same argument could be used to smear Republicans, or Democrats, or SUSY proponents, or mainstream cosmologists, or any specific group you happened to decide to single out! That's the problem!

I assume the agenda you are looking for is the science versus religion debate he introduced at the end,

No, that was just another example of his bias and the bias in the room. Nobody called him on it and it was an ASSUMPTION on his part. In fact his whole rant seems to be directed at very small subset of a single religion, although he applied it to all religions evidently.

but for me this isn't terribly important as I don't live in America.

FYI, if they taught YEC here in a school district anywhere near me, you'd see me at the school meetings complaining. Fortunately they teach genetics and they don't teach creation oriented astronomy classes either.

It might however come as a bit of a shock to creationists to find out that modern evolutionary psychology has swept up religious belief and explained its origins in terms of the very theory they dare not accept.

Unfortunately for you (and any point he was trying to make to his theistic audience) many if not most "Christians" accept the tenets of evolutionary theory including all Catholics, many protestants, etc. You're/he is essentially tilting at windmill of his own design and railing against a small subset of one religion. Big deal. It's hardly a scientific argument since the same thing could be said about the "consensus" of any human topic under the sun, literally. No group is immune from the peer pressures and things that he mentioned.

So that's my take on it. A very interesting introductory lecture on an area of psychology that completely unravels religious belief and shows us where it comes from and why we, as a species, have a predisposition for it.

I really don't grok that argument. We also have a predisposition to believe in light, EM fields, gravity, all the other things we do believe in that I know exist in nature. I really don't see how his argument singles out religious belief per se, other than the fact he personally decided to rant against a small subset of fundamentalism. It certainly didn't have a 'good' effect from my perspective. I guess that just shows the conformational bias that you feel toward the argument because it's definitely now working for me.

 

[British Bulldog]

The same could be said for belief in the theory of light and belief in Big Bang theory. So what?

No it can't. That is complete nonsense.

It's only "trouble" if it's not the case. Do you have evidence that the universe acts "randomly"?

Did you not read what I wrote?

But it also gives us a complete picture of where belief in virtually ANYTHING comes from. I've demonstrated that belief is SUSY theory is no different. Did you folks abandon cold dark matter theories based on those LHC NULL results? If not, why not?

This is getting surreal.

I don't believe you've looked at the presentation from a skeptical position. His entire presentation comes off as a rant against a single KIND of belief system, when in fact it all relates to ALL human beliefs and processes that involve GROUPS. That same argument could be used to smear Republicans, or Democrats, or SUSY proponents, or mainstream cosmologists, or any specific group you happened to decide to single out! That's the problem!

How exactly does the theory that humans attribute human like minds to things that do not possess a human mind relate to politics or cosmology?

No, that was just another example of his bias and the bias in the room. Nobody called him on it and it was an ASSUMPTION on his part. In fact his whole rant seems to be directed at very small subset of a single religion, although he applied it to all religions evidently.

Your obsession with bias in the room is blinding you to what the speaker was saying.

FYI, if they taught YEC here in a school district anywhere near me, you'd see me at the school meetings complaining. Fortunately they teach genetics and they don't teach creation oriented astronomy classes either.

Good.

Unfortunately for you (and any point he was trying to make to his theistic audience) many if not most "Christians" accept the tenets of evolutionary theory including all Catholics, many protestants, etc. You're/he is essentially tilting at windmill of his own design and railing against a small subset of one religion. Big deal. It's hardly a scientific argument since the same thing could be said about the "consensus" of any human topic under the sun, literally. No group is immune from the peer pressures and things that he mentioned.

He touched on peer pressure once, for about 30 seconds, and in the most passing way, and yet this is the only part of the presentation you remember. The rest of it apparently completely passed you by.

I really don't grok that argument. We also have a predisposition to believe in light, EM fields, gravity, all the other things we do believe in that I know exist in nature. I really don't see how his argument singles out religious belief per se, other than the fact he personally decided to rant against a small subset of fundamentalism. It certainly didn't have a 'good' effect from my perspective. I guess that just shows the conformational bias that you feel toward the argument because it's definitely now working for me.[/

I despair. How you can you misunderstand so completely? HOW? I don't get it. You must be doing it deliberately. I really can't see any other sensible alternative. The man talks specifically about how our minds have evolved to work socially with other humans and the resulting evolved mechanism to recognise that other humans have minds just like our own with emotions and intentions like our own and that humans do this intuitively and automatically and that this mechanism is so powerful that we have a predisosition to inventing a relationship with non-existent minds and yet you somehow think this can apply to the theory of light, gravity and EM fields? You're not making any sense. It's like trying to discuss with someone the reason that rain comes from clouds and all they keep saying is how this can equally apply to the workings of their lawnmower. It's bizarre.

 

[Michael]

I despair. How you can you misunderstand so completely? HOW? I don't get it. You must be doing it deliberately.

I'm being deliberately "skeptical" of his claims if that is what you mean?

I really can't see any other sensible alternative.

That is because you have a conformational bias in play, and I do not. You're hearing what you want to hear, and automatically 'believing' it, because that is want you want to believe. That's called a conformational bias.

The man talks specifically about how our minds have evolved to work socially with other humans....

....therefore theism. That's essentially the statement he's making without any evidence or real empirical support whatsoever! He shows a couple of MRI brain scans where the frontal lobes light up while he asks folks about God, and he then claims that activity is somehow evidence that the development of social skills automatically leads to what he calls "religion". What a crock. You could show that same frontal lobe activity while someone reads a textbook, and you could claim "science" is "artifact" that is false, and came about because of social development in human beings! The whole thing is a complete sham! There were no control groups. There were no real empirical links shown. The whole thing is based on a rant against a SMALL SUBSET of religion, specifically it's a rant against YEC theory in the final analysis.

and the resulting evolved mechanism to recognise that other humans have minds just like our own with emotions and intentions like our own and that humans do this intuitively and automatically and that this mechanism is so powerful that we have a predisosition to inventing a relationship with non-existent minds

That claim was never demonstrated. You keep ALEDGING this claim to be true, but you've provided ABSOLUTELY NO supporting scientific evidence, just repetitious CLAIMS that you keep pulling out of your back pocket. Was there ANY published scientific study that he actually cited in his work to support that claim?

The claim your essentially making boils down to "Humans have developed a mind that is capable of imagination, therefore "name your rant of choice".

and yet you somehow think this can apply to the theory of light, gravity and EM fields?

You never demonstrated OTHERWISE! Have you ever heard of a 'control group'? That's where you make some appropriate attempt to actually demonstrate that the link you're trying to make is really there. In order to do that, you have to try to establish that same link between something else and the thing that you're trying to link to. That was NEVER done! Not once did they show a brainscan of an individual being asked questions about photons, or gravity or any specific scientific theory. Had they actually done that, they would have found those same frontal lobe activities also were present. There was nothing particularly SPECIAL about various brain activities and religion. They never tried to establish that the brain activity in question related ONLY to religion and/or social interactions, and did not apply to say something like a scientific topic. That was NEVER done! There WAS NO CONTROL GROUP, no CONTROL MECHANISM that was ever established. He just LEAPED to that that conclusion. So did you evidently. In fact your evidently so emotionally attached to their being some link between the two, that you refuse to acknowledge his methods were flawed! You won't even acknowledge the fact that he cited no published studies, and he used no control mechanisms at ALL!

You're not making any sense. It's like trying to discuss with someone the reason that rain comes from clouds and all they keep saying is how this can equally apply to the workings of their lawnmower. It's bizarre.

Did you ever see him ask his victims any questions about a lawn mower to see if it stimulated frontal lobe activity? Give me a break! This guy pulled the whole thing out of his back pocket and every claim he made lacked any sort of control mechanism. It's all based on his BELIEF, one he never actually established in a real controlled scientific manner. If he had cited a few studies that showed that the frontal lobe activity in question related ONLY to religion and social interactions, then perhaps his claim might have made sense. To simply show a little frontal lobe activity and then leap to the conclusion that this is somehow unique to religious belief ONLY is a pure leap of faith on his part.

Honestly, you need to rewatch that video with both a critical scientific eye, a lot less conformational bias on your part. Specifically look for published studies that actually support any specific link to his rant of choice (in this case religion) and any specific human developmental process. There were absolutely none that were provided in the video. What does that tell you?

Honestly, without any sort of control mechanism, you might as well try to claim that a human's DNA leads to the creation of imagination, and therefore that automatically leads to X, X being your rant of choice.

 

[Michael]

Oh, and by the way...

When you watch the video with a skeptical eye this time, pay attention to how he reads letters from Darwin's wife, and how much time he REALLY spends on the peer pressure issue. You're underplaying the importance he placed on that idea.

The flaw in his peer pressure claims is that they relate to ALL social groups, not a single social group. Again, the individual doing the speech made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to rule out other possible reasons, other possible connections to the same things he linked to 'religion'. In fact the lack of such control mechanisms is always the first thing that raises red flags, regardless of the topic in question. If there are no control mechanism, no control groups, no attempt to falsify your own theory, it's not a real theory, it's a self fulfilling prophesy of your own design.

 

[Evie12]

I honestly believe that the odds of starting new life out of nothing can only be Gods work, I'm with the creationists! And even though, and God knows how much I love all those Darwin-therories, but there's no real missing link.

am I going too much off topic here?

 

[AV1611VET]

am I going too much off topic here?

No, mam!

Welcome to CF!

Just be prepared to be ridiculed for what you take a stand for.

 

[British Bulldog]

Oh, and by the way...

When you watch the video with a skeptical eye this time, pay attention to how he reads letters from Darwin's wife, and how much time he REALLY spends on the peer pressure issue. You're underplaying the importance he placed on that idea.

The flaw in his peer pressure claims is that they relate to ALL social groups, not a single social group. Again, the individual doing the speech made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to rule out other possible reasons, other possible connections to the same things he linked to 'religion'. In fact the lack of such control mechanisms is always the first thing that raises red flags, regardless of the topic in question. If there are no control mechanism, no control groups, no attempt to falsify your own theory, it's not a real theory, it's a self fulfilling prophesy of your own design.

Let's start from square one. Do you accept that as a human your mind has a predisposition to try and recognise other human minds like your own? Do you recognise in yourself a tendency to think of things you don't understand, like the existence of the universe, in terms of causation by a mind like your own? If you are struggling to see the connection with religion here, think of primitive religion's tendency to ascribe events like the sun rising, the harvest, and the weather to the action of gods with a human like mind; then think of children anthropomorphising inanimate objects like their toys and dolls - starting to see a connection yet? If not we cannot proceed.

 

[Evie12]

No, mam!

Welcome to CF!

Just be prepared to be ridiculed for what you take a stand for.

I know it might seem ridiculant. But SO many things don't fit Especially the ape became men issue I know best I'm a fan on that topic I used to defend the evolution from Darmin to the bones but I'm flipped.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know it might seem ridiculant. But SO many things don't fit Especially the ape became men issue I know best I'm a fan on that topic I used to defend the evolution from Darmin to the bones but I'm flipped.

Solomon, the man who had apes imported:

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... concluded that God made man "upright":

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Many like to tell me that "upright" simply means "moral", but I don't see why it can't mean both.

Note too in this passage, that Solomon calls evolution an "invention" -- not a "discovery", like evolutionists would like us to believe.

 

[Michael]

Let's start from square one. Do you accept that as a human your mind has a predisposition to try and recognise other human minds like your own?

Sure, as well as photons, gravity, sound, tastes, smells, etc.

Do you recognise in yourself a tendency to think of things you don't understand, like the existence of the universe, in terms of causation by a mind like your own?

I suppose from the laws of physics that I know that the universe has a cause of some sort, but I have no idea what it might be. Whether the CAUSE of the universe was intelligent or not, the universe itself is intelligent IMO. Believe it or not I could actually live with a randomly caused, now living universe. In fact I don't really care if God was "caused" intelligently because it's WAY beyond anything I could ever hope to understand or experience.

If you are struggling to see the connection with religion here, think of primitive religion's tendency to ascribe events like the sun rising, the harvest, and the weather to the action of gods with a human like mind; then think of children anthropomorphising inanimate objects like their toys and dolls - starting to see a connection yet? If not we cannot proceed.

I can see the connection. Can you see the connection that *IF* pantheism turns out to be true, there may in fact be a legitimate reason that humans feel that way?

 

[British Bulldog]

Sure, as well as photons, gravity, sound, tastes, smells, etc.

Good. So you understand that the mechanism is as innate as your senses.

I suppose from the laws of physics that I know that the universe has a cause of some sort, but I have no idea what it might be. Whether the CAUSE of the universe was intelligent or not, the universe itself is intelligent IMO. Believe it or not I could actually live with a randomly caused, now living universe. In fact I don't really care if God was "caused" intelligently because it's WAY beyond anything I could ever hope to understand or experience.

Your assumption that the universe itself is intelligent is exactly what we are talking about. You are placing a human mind in the picture.

I can see the connection. Can you see the connection that *IF* pantheism turns out to be true, there may in fact be a legitimate reason that humans feel that way?

If your beliefs turn out to be true then you were justified in believing them? That's putting the cart before the horse. What is more important is that you can see the connection. It's taken several pages but we have made progress.