The stumbling block for atheists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... This line of argument is very tiring as your only justification for your ideas is to attempt to point out the flaws in other arguments.

Yes, it's very tedious - it's an indirect form of the 'tu quoque' fallacy ("Well they do X, which is just as bad, or worse..."). The sad thing is, it's based on a misapprehension of the other arguments (i.e. the fallacy content is itself fallacious).

If I presented a new idea to you and my only justification was, "well there are a lot of stupid ideas that people believe" you would have no reason to believe me either.

 

[Michael]

Analogs have to work the same way, not just be used in an analogy.

In terms of current flow and their generation of magnetic fields, they do work the same way.

Again analogs need to have some similarity.

You're proposing a scale change from the movement across a neuron being almost instantaneous to taking billions of years.

I'm not sure how you're defining a single "neuron" in space. All structures in space and here on Earth are limited by the speed of the flow of current. Scaling issues will certainly apply, but as I said, I have no idea what the speed of awareness might be.

This would mean God would be relatively dim compared to a mouse.

You could argue that it "thinks more slowly", but not "dim". There's more circuits in space than there are inside of a mouse.

You would have to show some evidence that there are congruence between the brains of living organisms and the layout of the universe, as you have not yet done so. You showed me one picture.

You're welcome to read through Alfven's work, or or Peratt's work on circuit theory as it applies to objects and structures in space.

We need the circuitry to act like a semi unified being for it to be aware like a brain is aware yes.

Well, it might.

Well your floating brain concept was first hypothesized as a purposefully absurd concept so It wasn't looking very promising when I started.

The term "big bang" was originally used to ridicule that idea too, so I don't see how that makes any difference in terms of actual science or physics.

Right, sometimes things look the same, but those two things are pretty differn't.

Other than scale you haven't demonstrated that they are all that different.

Again, YOU were the one comparing the cosmic scale thing to a neuron.

I'm simply noting the similarity in terms of mass layouts and the flow of current.

Fantasy when compared to well evidenced reality.

Is "dark matter" a fantasy or "well evidence reality" in your opinion? Are we comparing it to other scientific ideas, or empirical lab demonstrated physics only?

You've not demonstrated any similarity though.

You mean *besides* the constant flow of current and the mass layouts?

The coincidence would be that there are some natural phenomena you can call or view as "circuits", because that's all you have here.

That's all I have or that's all you'll acknowledge? You seem to be ignoring the "useful predictions" I can make with respect to humans and the higher power they seem to have been experiencing since the dawn of written civilization.

An example? If you found some sort of recognizable pattern that would denote something like "brain activity", it would be fairly convincing.

*Other than* current flow through circuits, what is "brain activity"?

It's generally very ill defined in terms of what kind of observations would be very likely to exist if it indeed existed, and more importantly what observations should be excluded and falsify the idea. I don't consider you much of a reputable source on the matter because "people tend to believe in it" is one of your observations leading you to believe.

Actually my argument was that humans report an *experience* of God, not just that they believe in it.

What exactly is the evidence for exotic forms of matter? Sometimes 'popularity' exist in the *absence* of direct evidence and there is no direct evidence for many ideas in the realm of science.

You're not just arguing physics, you are arguing that the universe is aware like a life form.

That is a physics argument, unless you're claiming that biology isn't about physics.

So, any discipline that has something to say about how awareness works could weigh in.

Ok.

Yes the "body" of the thing is pretty important to your idea, but, I am talking about the awareness not being carried by a living organisms body.

We're talking past each other then because I'm suggesting that "God" has a physical body, namely the entirely physical universe.

Regardless, neuronal brains are built to be part of a living organism in a very intimate way that I don't see an analog for with the universe.

You don't want to see an analog as far as I can tell.

The information transfer and storage is what they are FOR, and the scaling is an obvious problem.

It depends on where storage takes place doesn't it?

I'll pick up where I left off when I get time.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it's very tedious - it's an indirect form of the 'tu quoque' fallacy ("Well they do X, which is just as bad, or worse..."). The sad thing is, it's based on a misapprehension of the other arguments (i.e. the fallacy content is itself fallacious).

Atheists are constantly putting themselves into the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to the term "evidence" as it relates to the topic of God while turning a blind eye to how "evidence" actually works in "science".

Sooner or later whatever you wish to compare Panetheism to will need to be "more justifiable" in some way. Given the current state of affairs in astronomy today, I fail to see how that's even possible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheists are constantly putting themselves into the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to the term "evidence" as it relates to the topic of God while turning a blind eye to how "evidence" actually works in "science".

I don't know if you intended that ironically, but it's a typical example of the indirect 'tu quoque' I was describing - complete with nested fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Technically the *effect* of something can be detected even if the hypothetical mass/energy cannot. We can see the effect of God on peoples lives.

Actually, what you see there is the effect of their beliefs.

Atheists don't necessarily reject all ideas that fail to show up in controlled experimentation in the lab, just any ideas that relate to the topic of "God".

Seems obvious, since the word "atheist" literally means "someone who doesn't believe in god(s)".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists are constantly putting themselves into the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to the term "evidence" as it relates to the topic of God while turning a blind eye to how "evidence" actually works in "science".

Sooner or later whatever you wish to compare Panetheism to will need to be "more justifiable" in some way. Given the current state of affairs in astronomy today, I fail to see how that's even possible.

Must you really do everything in your power to turn every thread into a discussion about this nonsense?

 

[Cearbhall]

Technically the *effect* of something can be detected even if the hypothetical mass/energy cannot. We can see the effect of God on peoples lives.

What effect?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What effect?

The placebo?

 

[Michael]

I don't know if you intended that ironically, but it's a typical example of the indirect 'tu quoque' I was describing - complete with nested fallacy.

Not at all. I'm just noting that atheists tend to define the term "evidence" with respect to the concept of God to suit themselves, and they don't use that term in any scientific sense.

 

[Michael]

Must you really do everything in your power to turn every thread into a discussion about this nonsense?

Not every thread.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I'm just noting that atheists tend to define the term "evidence" with respect to the concept of God to suit themselves, and they don't use that term in any scientific sense.

I suspect you'll find that's true of pretty much anyone who is unfamiliar with the scientific definition or sense of 'evidence' - and that would probably be the majority of people.

Most of the few atheists I know who talk about such things seem to have basically scientific requirements, i.e. for 'hard' evidence; necessarily fairly general requirements - it's not possible to be specific about an ill-defined phenomenon that many proponents claim to be implicitly undetectable...

But perhaps can you describe the two different definitions you think they use?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not every thread.....

True - there are threads on which you haven't posted.

 

[Michael]

True - there are threads on which you haven't posted.

Exactly.

 

[Michael]

I suspect you'll find that's true of pretty much anyone who is unfamiliar with the scientific definition or sense of 'evidence' - and that would probably be the majority of people.

Well, after watching the mainstream publish a paper that claimed to find "proof" of dark matter, I don't think that most people in general (including professionals) use the terms 'evidence' and 'proof' correctly.

If you simply look at how the term "evidence' is used in science, it's not restricted to empirical cause/effect demonstrations. An empirical standard of evidence is typically applied only by atheists (although I do too), but atheists only tend to apply it to topic of God, and nowhere else in "science" or the universe.

Most of the few atheists I know who talk about such things seem to have basically scientific requirements, i.e. for 'hard' evidence;

Define "hard evidence" for me as it applies to something like cosmology or particle physics theory? Does "dark matter" enjoy "hard evidence" when it's been a complete dud in the lab? By "hard", are you implying *empirical cause/effect* forms of evidence?

necessarily fairly general requirements -

The tend to get real "vague" about it when we start comparing atheists particle physics beliefs or their cosmology beliefs to their lack of beliefs related to God and evidence. There's usually a highly subjective use of evidence going on there.

It's not possible to be specific about an ill-defined phenomenon that many proponents claim to be implicitly undetectable...

Ya, dark stuff has that "vibe" about too.

But perhaps can you describe the two different definitions you think they use?

Generally speaking atheists tend to apply a purely empirical cause/effect standard of evidence to the topic of God, and they use and apply a more "scientific' definition with respect to every other topic under the sun. Science has never been restricted or limited to purely empirical cause/effect demonstrations in the lab, or there would be no "non standard" particle physics theories, or anything akin to LCDM theory.

There is a bit of a hypocrisy in there too somewhere since they typically aren't applying the same standard of evidence consistently to all of their beliefs/lack thereof.

I'm going to cop to the fact that I too prefer a purely *empirical* standard of evidence which puts me at odds with only one specific mainstream cosmology theory, and it's why I tend to prefer a purely empirical definition of God. I do however tend to apply the very same standard across the board, even though it's not particularly popular with scientists or fellow theists.

 

[Michael]

It's generally very ill defined in terms of what kind of observations would be very likely to exist if it indeed existed, and more importantly what observations should be excluded and falsify the idea. I don't consider you much of a reputable source on the matter because "people tend to believe in it" is one of your observations leading you to believe.

FYI, if that were actually a motivation, I'd tend to embrace LCDM like everyone else. The fact that people believe in things doesn't make them right by default and I tend to reject the consensus whenever and wherever it deviates from pure empirical physics.

I can't simply *assume* that the 'experience" called "sight" is a mass delusions simply because I might personally be born blind. I wouldn't assume that everyone who experiences gravity is experiencing a mass delusion either, even if every math formula that presently exists to describe gravity turns out to be replaced by something new. I likewise wouldn't assume that every reported experience of God in a human life is a mass delusion either. I don't walk in their shoes.

Where did I leave off now:

How would you even begin to "tell"?

Their shape and function seem to be my first indication that they do resemble living structures in living things. Since I don't really 'control' the universe however, it's not going to be easy to verify it, the way it might be easy to verify the awareness of various lifeforms on Earth.

I supposed I could try poking it with a needle to see what happens, but my 'needle" is bound to be downright puny compared to the scale of a whole universe. About the best I could continue to do is look for biological similarities.

Simplicity is NOT what we find in biological brains when they are fully functional. Biology is usually only simple when we're dealing with the building blocks, not the formed structure as part of a whole organism.

Therein lies the rub in terms of cosmology. I might be able to trace circuity and such, but all the chemical transfer processes and such will be harder to detect.

The elegance is how you take simple pieces and make them into something so complex it is mind boggling.

True, but it's unlikely that I can even observe the entire universe from my current vantage point. I can only see so far before photons are redshifted into oblivion and light is simply absorbed and scattered. I could only hope to detect biological features in a the universe, and I can't be sure I even see much of the physical universe in terms of percentages.

You would need to find evidence for the information your "nerves" are transmitting and how that works.

Those would be called Birkeland currents (large and small), and mostly electrons and ions are exchanged through the circuitry. Electrons tend to do most of the work inside of our solar system in terms of current flow.

Universes would need to exist as population and evolve with respect to a larger environment like lifeforms do.

Based on the limits of light, you may be, and probably are asking for the impossible. An Ameba might be able to figure out what I look like on the inside, and that I'm a living thing, but they wouldn't be able to tell you who my friends might be. That's a bit beyond the scope of anything I would expect to be able to do.

Also there would need to be a method for keeping the info about how to build universes as they do.

I didn't technically build my own body, but it was all encoded in few bits of DNA.

I don't think it's even reasonable to ask expect every answer to every possible question, nor do I believe that is a requirement of any cosmology theory.

 

[variant]

FYI, if that were actually a motivation, I'd tend to embrace LCDM like everyone else. The fact that people believe in things doesn't make them right by default and I tend to reject the consensus whenever and wherever it deviates from pure empirical physics.

Well you did actually proffer that as your argument.

So it works for "God" but not LCDM, so, all that demonstrates is that you can cherry pick your justifications for belief.

I can't simply *assume* that the 'experience" called "sight" is a mass delusions simply because I might personally be born blind. I wouldn't assume that everyone who experiences gravity is experiencing a mass delusion either, even if every math formula that presently exists to describe gravity turns out to be replaced by something new. I likewise wouldn't assume that every reported experience of God in a human life is a mass delusion either. I don't walk in their shoes.

I don't assume it. From MY frame of reference I can't tell the difference between people being delusional about God and actually experiencing it so it can't be used as evidence.

World A where God exists and people are actually experiencing it, can not be differentiated from world B where people merely think they are.

Since this isn't a type of thing where I can rely on other people to be a good judge of what they are talking about, It's simply not evidence.

Their shape and function seem to be my first indication that they do resemble living structures in living things. Since I don't really 'control' the universe however, it's not going to be easy to verify it, the way it might be easy to verify the awareness of various lifeforms on Earth.

There you go again. You don't know their "function". That is the end point of your argument not the beginning.

I supposed I could try poking it with a needle to see what happens, but my 'needle" is bound to be downright puny compared to the scale of a whole universe. About the best I could continue to do is look for biological similarities.

Well until you find some, it's simply going to be a pretty weak inference.

Therein lies the rub in terms of cosmology. I might be able to trace circuity and such, but all the chemical transfer processes and such will be harder to detect.

It's the information you should be looking for as I said.

True, but it's unlikely that I can even observe the entire universe from my current vantage point. I can only see so far before photons are redshifted into oblivion and light is simply absorbed and scattered. I could only hope to detect biological features in a the universe, and I can't be sure I even see much of the physical universe in terms of percentages.

Then you understand the difficulty in actually demonstrating what you are proposing.

Those would be called Birkeland currents (large and small), and mostly electrons and ions are exchanged through the circuitry. Electrons tend to do most of the work inside of our solar system in terms of current flow.

Well if you have access to the current and flow then you should have some access to any patterning that would occur at our scale as well.

If the circuit is acting like a nerve it should give off some sign that you would be able to predict for demonstration purposes..

Based on the limits of light, you may be, and probably are asking for the impossible. An Ameba might be able to figure out what I look like on the inside, and that I'm a living thing, but they wouldn't be able to tell you who my friends might be. That's a bit beyond the scope of anything I would expect to be able to do.

I think it would be very interesting to see what intelligent amoebas would be capable of.

You are much smaller than an amoeba in terms of the scales you have proposed though.

I didn't technically build my own body, but it was all encoded in few bits of DNA.

Not YOU proper thinking you no, but maybe a differn't version. And, regardless, the universe probably lacks DNA so that is a difficulty in your "cosmology".

I don't think it's even reasonable to ask expect every answer to every possible question, nor do I believe that is a requirement of any cosmology theory.

Well the fundamental problems for how you think such a "being" would come to exist seems fair to me.

 

[variant]

In terms of current flow and their generation of magnetic fields, they do work the same way.

So you think current flow and the generation of magnetic fields are how neuronal structures 'work' and do so in the same manner?

I'm not sure how you're defining a single "neuron" in space. All structures in space and here on Earth are limited by the speed of the flow of current. Scaling issues will certainly apply, but as I said, I have no idea what the speed of awareness might be.

I do have an "idea" about how fast brains have to operate to form consciousness actually. How your proposed structures work, I haven't a clue.

You could argue that it "thinks more slowly", but not "dim". There's more circuits in space than there are inside of a mouse.

Maybe there are more, we would have no idea what number are actually capable of what you suppose and we don't actually know how your circuits would work, so, I suppose you are simply scaling up a parallel processor idea, but are there more that can actually communicate with each other in some sort off efficient way?

You're welcome to read through Alfven's work, or or Peratt's work on circuit theory as it applies to objects and structures in space.

Could you narrow it down to the parts that actually deal with your "circuits" acting like neurons?

Well, it might.

And, you wonder where my skepticism comes from don't you?

The term "big bang" was originally used to ridicule that idea too, so I don't see how that makes any difference in terms of actual science or physics.

The issue here is that the anthropic principle taken to it's extreme is quite properly criticized by the idea.

Other than scale you haven't demonstrated that they are all that different.

Scale, speed, structure and method of formation are all radically differn't.

Your similarities don't seem to add up to much in comparison.

I'm simply noting the similarity in terms of mass layouts and the flow of current.

I understand what your point is, I just find it to be incredibly lacking.

Is "dark matter" a fantasy or "well evidence reality" in your opinion? Are we comparing it to other scientific ideas, or empirical lab demonstrated physics only?

Dark matter is a theory for why some equations and observations don't match up.

You are spinning a tale to tie together for some observations you've made.

It's hard to take seriously when you can't bring yourself to do anything other than criticize others when asked for defenses of your own ideas.

You mean *besides* the constant flow of current and the mass layouts?

If I thought that a flow of electrons was all it took to make a brain you would have sold me a long time ago.

That's all I have or that's all you'll acknowledge? You seem to be ignoring the "useful predictions" I can make with respect to humans and the higher power they seem to have been experiencing since the dawn of written civilization.

Make some predictions that I can actually use as evidence and I would be more impressed.

*Other than* current flow through circuits, what is "brain activity"?

Well we can use gross oversimplifications like saying the brain is "a bunch of circuits" or "some current flow through circuits" but we both know that is a gross oversimplification of what it takes for awareness to exist.

Actually my argument was that humans report an *experience* of God, not just that they believe in it.

Humans believe they experience God, but beyond that we can't say without begging the question. If you can demonstrate that humans in fact are experiencing God and that God resembles the idea you've constructed then your argument would be complete and this would be your conclusion rather than a question begging premise.

That is a physics argument, unless you're claiming that biology isn't about physics.

It really isn't. I've never actually seen any physics arguments for how brains work.

The people who do that sort of work are neurobiologists.

We're talking past each other then because I'm suggesting that "God" has a physical body, namely the entirely physical universe.

Which would mean it would need to be organized that way somehow.

You don't want to see an analog as far as I can tell.

Don't confuse skepticism for desire.

It depends on where storage takes place doesn't it?

It DOES depend on that. You have any ideas?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The tend to get real "vague" about it when we start comparing atheists particle physics beliefs or their cosmology beliefs to their lack of beliefs related to God and evidence. There's usually a highly subjective use of evidence going on there.

As I've said before, the main difference is that the theories and hypotheses of physics and cosmology are not beliefs but provisional explanatory models for multiple observations, and are subject to continuous testing and revision. Atheists are typically unpersuaded by God concepts because those concepts are broadly antithetical to that methodology - ill-defined, dogmatic, lacking observational evidence, untestable (often by definition), and lacking explanatory and predictive power.

 

[Michael]

As I've said before, the main difference is that the theories and hypotheses of physics and cosmology are not beliefs but provisional explanatory models for multiple observations, and are subject to continuous testing and revision.

If that were actually true, astronomers wouldn't be claiming to "know" that dark matter exists, or "know" that dark energy exists, or "know" anything. They're constantly misusing those terms in every video I've ever seen on cosmology, and even in published papers. They talk about finding "proof" of dark matter instead of claiming to have found "evidence" that their galaxy mass estimates are *way* off as has since be verified repeatedly in later studies.

Casting Doubt on all three LIGO detections through correlated calibration and noise signals after time lag adjustment • r/Physics

Astronomers and other scientists are human beings just like everyone else. They "hold" beliefs and they "hold" on to them tightly and with an emotional vengeance. Just look at the personal attacks that are being leveled at that Danish group over their paper that is critical to the LIGO findings of gravitational waves. You have Phd's being referred to as "crackpots" even though these are *professionals*. The emotions are running high and the "beliefs" are being clung to with a vengeance.

If the beliefs of astronomy aren't held to be "sacred", so what? For all intents and purposes there's no functional difference in their emotional attachment to being right, and there's certainly a financial interest involved in the beliefs they hold.

Atheists are typically unpersuaded by God concepts because those concepts are broadly antithetical to that methodology - ill-defined,

Give me a break! A Panentheistic definition of the universe is certainly not *less defined* than big bang theory. Nobody has a clue what "dark matter" is. Nobody has a clue where 'dark energy' might come from, or how it retains near constant density over exponential increases in volume. There are tons of different inflation models to choose from too. Talk about ill defined....

Even your claim of "ill-defined" is ultimately nothing more than a 'personal subjective opinion". Lot's of scientific ideas are "ill defined".

dogmatic, lacking observational evidence,

Again, in comparison to what? We've already spent *billions* of dollars looking for exotic matter and we've found absolutely nothing, yet astronomers are dogmatically (and scientifically) attached to the existence of exotic matter. Nobody has spent billions of dollars testing any part of Panentheism. What "observational' evidence is there to support *exotic* matter as opposed to *bad mass estimation techniques*?

untestable (often by definition),

How would I go about "testing" dark energy without having a clue where to get any? "Space expansion"? How would I 'test' that claim?

and lacking explanatory and predictive power.

Does current dark energy theory have any real "predictive" value, and does it have any "explanatory" value?

You seem to be imposing a *much* more stringent standard on Panentheism than upon LCDM descriptions of the universe. What's up with that?

 

[Michael]

Well you did actually proffer that as your argument.

I didn't proffer that as my argument, I said that Panentheism would tend to "predict" the observation that humans would hold belief in God, as opposed to LCDM which wouldn't predict anything of the sort. That simply turns out to be an example of a 'useful prediction' made by one cosmology theory vs. another cosmology theory which makes no such prediction.

So it works for "God" but not LCDM, so, all that demonstrates is that you can cherry pick your justifications for belief.

I'm absolutely not doing any cherry picking. I'm not ascribing anything to the universe/God which doesn't show up here on Earth. Unlike LCDM, I'm not introducing even a single supernatural element into the discussion to describe God as the universe. All I'm doing is noting that one purely empirical definition of God happens to "predict" that people will/do hold belief in God. Even after introducing 4 supernatural constructs to describe the universe, LCDM doesn't even make such a prediction. Score one useful "prediction" about the nature of the universe for Panentheism.

I don't assume it. From MY frame of reference I can't tell the difference between people being delusional about God and actually experiencing it so it can't be used as evidence.

How would I tell the difference between between someone claiming to experience love for me, vs. someone being delusional?

World A where God exists and people are actually experiencing it, can not be differentiated from world B where people merely think they are.

So this basic criticism applies to emotions in general?

Since this isn't a type of thing where I can rely on other people to be a good judge of what they are talking about, It's simply not evidence.

Can I rely upon someone to be a good judge of what they're talking about with respect to something like "dark energy' when they can't even name a single source of the stuff? You could choose to rely upon other people to be a good judge of their own experiences, but you choose not to.

There you go again. You don't know their "function". That is the end point of your argument not the beginning.

By function I meant that they're carrying current like similar living structures. Yes, I can know that particular function (carrying current) as well as anything else I might "know" about the universe.

Well until you find some, it's simply going to be a pretty weak inference.

I cited another example of a neutron crust containing structures are similar to structures found in living cells.

I think we'd have to have some prior agreement on what types of "evidence" you might accept. We certainly see the same basic elements in the universe as we find on Earth and in our bodies.

It's the information you should be looking for as I said.

Then you understand the difficulty in actually demonstrating what you are proposing.

Well if you have access to the current and flow then you should have some access to any patterning that would occur at our scale as well.

If the circuit is acting like a nerve it should give off some sign that you would be able to predict for demonstration purposes.

I think it would be very interesting to see what intelligent amoebas would be capable of.

You are much smaller than an amoeba in terms of the scales you have proposed though.

Not YOU proper thinking you no, but maybe a differn't version. And, regardless, the universe probably lacks DNA so that is a difficulty in your "cosmology".

Well the fundamental problems for how you think such a "being" would come to exist seems fair to me.

I'm going to be running around having fun this weekend, and I need to leave soon, so I'm going to stop here for now. This conversation isn't likely to be resolved anytime soon, certainly not over the long weekend.

Suffice to say that even without any of the things that you seem to be personally requiring of me, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the cosmology model which I'm proposing is at least "equal" to current cosmology theory in explaining various observations from space, and it's far superior in the sense that it is based strictly upon empirical physics. LCDM can't even answer basic questions about the supernatural elements that are being inserted into it, like where dark energy comes from, or how I'd go about testing "space expansion' in controlled experimentation. You're definitely requiring a *much* higher standard of evidence of me, and a much *broader and more detailed* level of evidence of me than you're requiring of LCDM. I assume you 'lack belief' in every cosmology theory under the sun at this point in time?