An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Nostromo]

This is 1 condition,I'm talking about an infinite number of conditions,that's when intelligence comes and not when there are a few,and resulting in something very difficult to have,which is our life

So gravitation is 1. The others are the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. Everything that exists is in the state it is in because of those 4 interactions. Out of simple rules come massive complexity.

Think about your computer, it's just a machine that manipulates 1s and 0s according to a few simple rules. By using different combinations of those rules it's possible for you to use a computer to play music, create graphics, browse shops on the internet and buy things from 5000 miles away, do your accounts, chat to friends and many others things.

But in order for all right conditions to meet,it would be ~~100% impossible.Let's say this happened.Then How did the 1st humans would/could have survived?

In 1906 it would have been impossible to predict exactly what the conditions would be today. That doesn't mean they couldn't or didn't happen.

But there's a difference here.It is not very hard to prevent himself from surviving that long,but in order to get all those possibilities,there can be no more hardness.

???

That's the period I meant,1k years is even so long according to astronomy,because any mistake in astronomy will make life cease to exist on earth for example (there are too many of examples and i can cite some if you want)

Please, do.

Because the possibility would have been 1 in an infinite numbers,while if it is for creationism,the possibility would be ~100% and much more logical

How can you use probabilities to decide what is logical?

If I told you that there was a 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that humans evolved like this, would you say it was impossible?

 

[Michael]

Life did not appear randomly and neither by accident.

Ah, then we're in agreement on that point.

When are you creationists ever going to understand that given the right conditions and the fundamental laws of chemistry in place then the building blocks of life will be created.

Nobody disputes that. A simple electrical discharge process creates plenty of 'building blocks" for life. Where does the "awareness" part come from?

What were you before you were a sperm and egg?

A "being of light".

Life does not just appear!

Ok.

It starts by having the chemicals and conditions that give rise to the first building blocks ie: proteins that go into building DNA etc.

Again, that's fine by me, but it fails to explain a fully living organisms that can maintain it's diet at will. Where's the "will" part coming from?

Of course it is VASTLY more complex than that and I am not going to do your homework for you.

You completely dodged my two key points IMO. Nobody disputes that chemistry is involved in living organisms, or that electricity is involved in living processes. I dispute the idea that life was created 'on accident', and evidently we both agree on that key point so I guess there's not a lot to argue about.

 

[GA777]

So gravitation is 1. The others are the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. Everything that exists is in the state it is in because of those 4 interactions. Out of simple rules come massive complexity.

Think about your computer, it's just a machine that manipulates 1s and 0s according to a few simple rules. By using different combinations of those rules it's possible for you to use a computer to play music, create graphics, browse shops on the internet and buy things from 5000 miles away, do your accounts, chat to friends and many others things.
In 1906 it would have been impossible to predict exactly what the conditions would be today. That doesn't mean they couldn't or didn't happen.
???
Please, do.
How can you use probabilities to decide what is logical?

If I told you that there was a 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that humans evolved like this, would you say it was impossible?

there are countless laws like gravity too,so you'd have to multiply that by a lot.By seeing how everything is very complex,you'll understand that there's a great designer.

Because it was designed in a good way,therefore there's a designer,and it is the humans who created it.So it completely agrees with what I'm saying.

???

For example,any big meteor/comet could hit earth and destroy it from outer space,the earth rotates in a great speed which doesnt allow it to be get to the sun etc. etc . You should know many of these of course.

Lets say, I tell you to gaze at the stars,and exactly tell me which one I gazed at 10 minutes ago.There's like 0.001% you'll know which one,and 99.999% that you wont know which one.So the very logical answer would be that you wont know which one.I hope I cleared up more what I meant before,and the conditions are so great in numbers anyways.So it means that there is like 99.999999999...% chance that there is a very intelligent designer,and a 0.0000...%1 that there is no designer.Which would be much more logical than the other?

I'm talking about the meeting of all great conditions during 1 time,and there arent many ways describing how we could have been evolved,or if there were any,they would be based on interpretation and logic of each person,and not about facts (like the conditions of life).

 

[Nostromo]

there are countless laws like gravity too,so you'd have to multiply that by a lot.By seeing how everything is very complex,you'll understand that there's a great designer.

That's news to me... could you give me a few examples?

Because it was designed in a good way,therefore there's a designer,and it is the humans who created it.So it completely agrees with what I'm saying.

You said that there were infinite conditions as evidence for creation, I'm telling you there aren't, so it doesn't agree with what you're saying.

For example,any big meteor/comet could hit earth and destroy it from outer space

There are a few large asteroids which people think might actually hit Earth in the next couple of hundred years.

the earth rotates in a great speed which doesnt allow it to be get to the sun etc.

The Earth formed from the accretion disc of the Sun, a large disc of dust spinning around it. We wouldn't expect it to be any different.

Lets say, I tell you to gaze at the stars,and exactly tell me which one I gazed at 10 minutes ago.There's like 0.001% you'll know which one,and 99.999% that you wont know which one.So the very logical answer would be that you wont know which one.

It's not about logical, and you can't use the probabilities after the event has happened to tell me if it did happen or not. Let's use your example. We're both standing looking at the sky, just you and I, and you ask me which star you gazed at.

What if I pick the right one?

Does that mean I used magic, or mind-reading, or God told me? No. It's unlikely I'd pick the right one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and the fact that it did happen doesn't mean something supernatural occurred.

Let's say we ask 1000000 people to gaze at the stars and tell you which one you looked at. On average, 10 people will give you the right answer.

There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and somewhere between 100 billion and 1000 billion galaxies. If you got the entire population of Earth to count 1 star every second from the day they were born, they still wouldn't have finished by the time everyone was dead. That's an awful lot of stars, and you're telling me there's no way that somewhere in the universe one star could have a planet with the right conditions for life?

I hope I cleared up more what I meant before,and the conditions are so great in numbers anyways.So it means that there is like 99.999999999...% chance that there is a very intelligent designer,and a 0.0000...%1 that there is no designer.Which would be much more logical than the other?

But what has chance got to do with it? Surely it's not a matter of chance whether or not there is a designer, either there is one, or there isn't. Either it happened naturally, or it didn't.

You can't use probability to decide that, you use evidence to support each case.

I'm talking about the meeting of all great conditions during 1 time,and there arent many ways describing how we could have been evolved,or if there were any,they would be based on interpretation and logic of each person,and not about facts (like the conditions of life).

Mmm, that's just wrong, there are plenty of facts about the evolution of life.

 

[quatona]

Where does the "awareness" part come from?

Can you produce a gram of awareness for me?

 

[mzungu]

Can you produce a gram of awareness for me?

Not all living things have the capability of self awareness. Elephants, apes (this includes us), dolphins, are some animals that have self awareness: http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html

Perhaps if you can define awareness?

 

[Michael]

Not all living things have the capability of self awareness. Elephants, apes (this includes us), dolphins, are some animals that have self awareness: Elephant Self-Awareness Mirrors Humans | LiveScience

Perhaps if you can define awareness?

Start with something "simple". What motivates a single celled organism to eat a balanced diet?

Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia

 

[Michael]

Can you produce a gram of awareness for me?

No, but I can demonstrate that awareness exists in empirical laboratory tests. That's lots more than can be said for "dark energy".

 

[Davian]

Start with something "simple". What motivates a single celled organism to eat a balanced diet?

Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia

(@ about 21 min into the audio)
"25% of the proteins that you can find in human synapses, you
can find in animals that don’t have any synapses at all – in unicellular animals.

In other words, synapse has its ancestral origins - the mammalian human synapse -has its ancestral origins, in an ancient set of proteins, which predate the first nervous system and are found in unicellular animals. We looked carefully at those proteins, and we asked ourselves, what is it that they do? What’s so interesting about those proteins?

Well, this is really I think quite enlightening, because what we find is that those proteins that are found in unicellular animals are used by those animals in their response to their environment. Environment for unicellular animals, a change in nutrients, pH, stress and other external stimuli, and the unicellular animal will respond and change its pattern of gene expression, its growth rate and other kinds of features. And that’s precisely what these ancestral synapse proteins were involved with. In other words they’re involved with behavior of this ancient animal."

Surprising Discoveries about Synapse Evolution with Seth Grant (BSP51) - Home - Brain Science Podcast

Transcript
http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/storage/transcripts/bsp-year-2/51-brainscience-Grant.pdf

 

[mzungu]

No, but I can demonstrate that awareness exists in empirical laboratory tests. That's lots more than can be said for "dark energy".

Can you demonstrate God exists in empirical laboratory tests?

NO?

Why am I not surprised

 

[GA777]

That's news to me... could you give me a few examples?

You said that there were infinite conditions as evidence for creation, I'm telling you there aren't, so it doesn't agree with what you're saying.
There are a few large asteroids which people think might actually hit Earth in the next couple of hundred years.
The Earth formed from the accretion disc of the Sun, a large disc of dust spinning around it. We wouldn't expect it to be any different.
It's not about logical, and you can't use the probabilities after the event has happened to tell me if it did happen or not. Let's use your example. We're both standing looking at the sky, just you and I, and you ask me which star you gazed at.

What if I pick the right one?

Does that mean I used magic, or mind-reading, or God told me? No. It's unlikely I'd pick the right one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and the fact that it did happen doesn't mean something supernatural occurred.

Let's say we ask 1000000 people to gaze at the stars and tell you which one you looked at. On average, 10 people will give you the right answer.

There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and somewhere between 100 billion and 1000 billion galaxies. If you got the entire population of Earth to count 1 star every second from the day they were born, they still wouldn't have finished by the time everyone was dead. That's an awful lot of stars, and you're telling me there's no way that somewhere in the universe one star could have a planet with the right conditions for life?
But what has chance got to do with it? Surely it's not a matter of chance whether or not there is a designer, either there is one, or there isn't. Either it happened naturally, or it didn't.

You can't use probability to decide that, you use evidence to support each case.

Mmm, that's just wrong, there are plenty of facts about the evolution of life.

Laws for the light,for energies,mechanics,liquids,gases etc. and for each one there are countless laws,laws we discovered and laws which have yet to be discovered.We have discovered pretty much nothing yet,not even the 0.000000001% we would discover in the next 1000 years.

And about the conditions,it is agreed by many scientists that they are pretty much infinite till now,even tho. we have pretty much discovered nothing yet.

And I'm talking about the last 6 000 years,while it isnt hard at all for such thing to happen,and there are estimations,and the world should end before that time,much before it.

I talked about 1 condition which got to existance because of numerous ones.

You said "what if" like it's something easy to happen,but you wouldnt be able to,and this is just an example, so these numbers are nothing compared to the conditions,tho. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to pick the right star from the 1st try,but if they were as many as the conditions,it would of course be mind reading or something like that.

Right.But this isnt the number of conditions.I just stated this as an example (so not to be taken and judged as it is,but just to clear things up).

You have a good point here.But for all conditions to meet,it would still be impossible,there are countless and countless of subconditions for each simple condition , other than the complexity of animals and humans structure and behaviours.I cant prove this tho. accurately,because the numbers are so high.

And I have a question, how was the universe before the big bang (the hot state) come to existance?Did it come from nothing?

 

[GA777]

Can you demonstrate God exists in empirical laboratory tests?

NO?

Why am I not surprised

Can you demonstrate that any of us here exist through these tests?
NO?
I'm surprised !

 

[mzungu]

Can you demonstrate that any of us here exist through these tests?
NO?
I'm surprised !

Of course I can! Finding empirical evidence for the existence of matter and or energy is simple enough. Now prove the existence of God through Empirical testing. After all you called the challenge, you come through.

 

[Michael]

Can you demonstrate God exists in empirical laboratory tests?

I don't know yet, I haven't used "devices" to try it out yet. I have however proposed a way to do it.

NO?

Why am I not surprised

You don't seem to grasp the whole "empirical" concept really well, so let's recap a bit, and put things in some context.

Every single thing that I have proposed, every quality that I have ascribed to the universe is a KNOWN force of nature and it can be demonstrated in the lab, including 'awareness'. I have proposed nothing exotic, nothing new. No new energies, no new exotic forms of matter, nothing we don't experience here on Earth every single day of our lives. I've even gone so far as to demonstrate that with ORDINARY EM fields, there is already a known physical link between human thought and external inputs.

The only thing left to empirically "demonstrate" in pantheism is that the universe itself is "aware". That's it. That's the only empirical link left to demonstrate. I've even proposed an "experiment", complete with control mechanisms, that actually "might" someday provide such evidence *IN A LAB*. There's nothing about this idea that cannot be put to the empirical test in real, controlled laboratory experiments.

Compared to the only other competing theory of the universe, it's not even an empirical contest. According to mainstream theory, the inflation deity is dead now, supposedly giving it's very life for our existence. The mythology of organized "science" is like a "deistic religion". It's creation deity is dead now so we can never hope to put the inflation deity to the "test" in an experiment here on Earth.

Nobody on the planet has clue where the mythical "dark energy" god might come from, so there no way in hell that anyone could hope to "test" the concept of "dark energy causes acceleration" in a real experiment in a real lab on Earth. The only part of mainstream theory that MIGHT actually show up in a lab are SUSY related "dark matter" gods, but evidently that possibility is looking pretty unlikely these days.

A full 96 percent of mainstream cosmology theory is composed of impotent on Earth "sky gods" that have absolutely no empirical effect on any atom in any lab on Earth. Compared to what you are calling "science", my "religion" kicks mainstream "science"'s empirical behind!

 

[mzungu]

I don't know yet, I haven't used "devices" to try it out yet. I have however proposed a way to do it.

You don't seem to grasp the whole "empirical" concept really well, so let's recap a bit, and put things in some context.

Every single thing that I have proposed, every quality that I have ascribed to the universe is a KNOWN force of nature and it can be demonstrated in the lab, including 'awareness'. I have proposed nothing exotic, nothing new. No new energies, no new exotic forms of matter, nothing we don't experience here on Earth every single day of our lives. I've even gone so far as to demonstrate that with ORDINARY EM fields, there is already a known physical link between human thought and external inputs.

The only thing left to empirically "demonstrate" in pantheism is that the universe itself is "aware". That's it. That's the only empirical link left to demonstrate. I've even proposed an "experiment", complete with control mechanisms, that actually "might" someday provide such evidence *IN A LAB*. There's nothing about this idea that cannot be put to the empirical test in real, controlled laboratory experiments.

Compared to the only other competing theory of the universe, it's not even an empirical contest. According to mainstream theory, the inflation deity is dead now, supposedly giving it's very life for our existence. The mythology of organized "science" is like a "deistic religion". It's creation deity is dead now so we can never hope to put the inflation deity to the "test" in an experiment here on Earth.

Nobody on the planet has clue where the mythical "dark energy" god might come from, so there no way in hell that anyone could hope to "test" the concept of "dark energy causes acceleration" in a real experiment in a real lab on Earth. The only part of mainstream theory that MIGHT actually show up in a lab are SUSY related "dark matter" gods, but evidently that possibility is looking pretty unlikely these days.

A full 96 percent of mainstream cosmology theory is composed of impotent on Earth "sky gods" that have absolutely no empirical effect on any atom in any lab on Earth. Compared to what you are calling "science", my "religion" kicks mainstream "science"'s empirical behind!

Pantheism is not a Theory and is just a philosophical idea without any scientific merit! You have dismissed contemporary cosmology in favour of your hypothetical and philosophical Pantheism!

I have no more to say here as I do not comment on the supernatural!

MZUNGU Signing off this thread

 

[Michael]

Pantheism is not a Theory and is just a philosophical idea without any scientific merit!

You obviously haven't read any of those links yet.

You have dismissed contemporary cosmology in favour of your hypothetical and philosophical Pantheism!

No, I have dismissed mythical forms of matter and energy, and creation event mythologies (young universe creationism or YUC) in favor of empirical physics. EM fields work in a lab and show up in consumer products whereas dark energy is a myth from one creation mythos. EM fields accelerate plasmas all the time but "dark energy" can't move a single atom in a real controlled experiment.

I have no more to say here as I do not comment on the supernatural!

MZUNGU Signing off this thread

Oh the irony. Mainstream "science" has endowed their sky gods with all sorts of "supernatural" powers, including but not limited to the ability to expand faster than light speed! Everything I have proposed is completely 'natural', where 96 percent of mainstream cosmology is based on 'supernatural' entities that have never been seen in a lab. Oh the irony!

 

[GA777]

Of course I can! Finding empirical evidence for the existence of matter and or energy is simple enough. Now prove the existence of God through Empirical testing. After all you called the challenge, you come through.

So you proved my existance now through these laboratory tests?Can you please tell me how?Because i cant find a way for it.

 

[Michael]

From the other cosmology thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7583750-23/#post58592283

If as you say the universe is one big intelligent being then I am afraid it will take light years for it to make any decision let alone an intelligent one due to the distances involved. After all electrons cannot travel faster than C.

We already covered that issue somewhere around here. It depends entirely on whether or not it's a "distributed" system. The solar atmosphere alone is composed of billions if not trillions of coronal loops, large and small. Alfven describes all coronal loops in terms of a "circuit". That's just he circuitry we can observe on the OUTSIDE.

 

[Michael]

From the other cosmology thread:

I quickly checked out some of the links you gave here. While they all seem to deal with electrical currents and circuits in astrophysical settings, none of them give any hint to the existence of consciousness.

So where is the empirical data for your theory?

All cosmology theories are judged based on how well they "predict" things. A "living" interpretation of the circuitry of the cosmos allows us to "predict" a whole host of human behaviors and experiences that can then be "confirmed" or falsified in the data. For instance, we can "predict" that this "macroscopic awareness" can and might interact with humans. We can then 'predict' that humans well be overwhelmingly theistic. We can "predict" that the circuity of spacetime will show signs of both cyclical components as well as spontaneous components that are consistent with living circuitry. We can "predict" that humans will 'experience' this macroscopic awareness directly, via direct manipulation of the EM fields. We can even cross check our work in the lab in the case of the last prediction. In fact the very existence of 'circuitry' in spacetime is a "prediction" of a pantheistic view of the universe. It only makes sense that as above, so below in pantheism as it relates to sophisticated circuitry. It's all about the "predictions" we can make and "test" in real life "experiments" with real control mechanisms.

 

[Michael]

You really have no idea about the limit of C do you?

Shall I assume from your question that you believe in something that mainstream astronomers do not? According to mainstream theory, how old is the universe and how large is it? Do they honor that "speed limit" you're so worried about?

You cannot have the universe as one intelligent entity simply because it cannot process information faster than the C and thus it is impossible for it to make any decision.

That is false. You ASSUMED it was a "centralized" intelligence rather than distributed one. There are probably trillions of visible circuits on the OUTSIDE of every sun. How about the ones on the INSIDE?

If you cannot understand this then consider this: It takes approximately 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth. So imagine if the whole universe was God then how long it would take for his sentient parts to intercommunicate in order for him to make a decision!

About 8 minutes, or considerably less depending on whether it controls the EM fields of every planet not just every sun.

Dear me!!!1

Dear me is right. You seem to believe that C is an absolute speed limit, but NO empirical theory of the universe I am aware of makes such a claim. Show me ANY cosmology theory that treats C as an absolute speed limit.