An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Doveaman]

Okay, then we really don't have much to discuss. I'm not against speculation, but I am against treating speculation as having an equal (or superior) standing to established science.

I agree that I’m speculating, but so are you.

The point is that none of us have an adequate explanation for human intelligence, or the human mind for that matter.

As a theist, my explanation will always include what the Bible has to say about the human mind, such as:

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

As an atheist, such biblical claims are pointless to you, and I can understand why.

But the fact remains, scientists are light-years away from understanding the human mind despite so many years of study. Their inability so far may be due to the fact that the human mind is more than just a brain.

 

[roach]

I agree that I’m speculating, but so are you.

The point is that none of us have an adequate explanation for human intelligence, or the human mind for that matter.

As a theist, my explanation will always include what the Bible has to say about the human mind, such as:

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

As an atheist, such biblical claims are pointless to you, and I can understand why.

But the fact remains, scientists are light-years away from understanding the human mind despite so many years of study. Their inability so far may be due to the fact that the human mind is more than just a brain.

Are they really light years away from understanding? I challenge you to find one thing the mind does that is not "just a brain" firing neurons.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I agree that I’m speculating, but so are you.

The difference is that I'm speculating based on what is known. I have Occam's Razor on my side. You are the one rewriting what is known about brain function.

We don't have any reason to think that the mind does something other than what neurons are doing. And the complexity of neural connections certainly makes it plausible that this is the source of intelligence, and that scientists are at least on the right track in their investigations. Your speculations, while certainly interesting as speculations, are not well supported by the evidence.

As a theist, my explanation will always include what the Bible has to say about the human mind

And that is why you twist science and engage in woo to support your religious views.

But the fact remains, scientists are light-years away from understanding the human mind despite so many years of study.

That's not a fact. It's your pessimism.

Their inability so far may be due to the fact that the human mind is more than just a brain.

There's no good reason to leap to such a conclusion when brain science has falsified such speculations so far. The idea of a "ghost in the machine" has been around for some time and has been investigated by brain scientists, including those who actually expected to find that ghost, but brain science consistently finds reasons to think that the brain is self-contained in its functioning, and that there isn't any spiritual "organ" that does the thinking for us.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

That's not a valid reason to claim: The President must not exist because everyone has different opinions about him.

As soon as I will make that claim you will be invited and welcome to give this objection. Until then, I´d kindly ask you to read my posts carefully and respond to what I am actually saying. Thanks.

In any case: If person A describes the President as young, female, brunette, big, and person B describes the President as old, male, blonde and small, this doesn´t exactly suggest that they are thinking of the same person. (There would be a couple of other options that make at least as much sense).

 

[quatona]

Welcome to theism. Do you believe "God" is "aware"?

Are you trying to make my point?

 

[Michael]

Are you trying to make my point?

I think you're sort of waltzing around a couple of key points. Nobody denies that there are "character differences" associated with God.

Let's just pretend for a second that a thousand years have passed and this empirical theory of God that I have laid out in these threads becomes "mainstream scientific theory". Let's further suppose it's accepted both in terms of astronomy theory (electric universe theory) *and* in terms of empirical agreements about the physical makeup of God in various religious groups.

Even if we assumed that humans eventually all agreed that God *is* the physical universe, that would not remove the 'character' variations associated with God by various religions. We might all eventually agree that the various suns and nebula we observe are physical structures of God, but that still would not bridge the philosophical differences of humans, anymore than agreeing on the color and sex of the President resolves all human political differences.

IMO you're also ignoring the fact that everyone has the "freedom" to label themselves any way they wish. Atheists can do it to. Statistically speaking however, 85+ percent of the planet labels themselves a "theist", and they do believe that God exists. Only about 4% of planet hangs the label "atheist" around their neck. In terms of RAW STATISTICS/Probability, the "consensus" is "theism".

My question to ns, was whether or not he/she considered that to be a scientific consensus" on this specific topic, or whether he/she viewed that overwhelming acceptance of theism in the human population as an "appeal to popularity" fallacy? I'm still curious.

 

[Michael]

To my knowledge, that simply isn't so.

I encourage you to think again. Please show me any EMPIRICAL cause/effect evidence in a lab the shows that the acceleration of material objects is caused by "dark energy". Show me some cause/effect empirical evidence that "inflation" wasn't a figment of Guth's highly overactive imagination? When did 'inflation' ever do anything to any atom in a lab? There are *NO* (zero, none, nada, zip) cause/effect demonstrations that "dark energy" does anything to anything in any controlled experiment. Current astronomers might as well be pointing at the sky and claiming "God energy" did it. None of them even know where the stuff comes from!

The inflation genie is dead now so it can't possibly have any material effect on anything in any lab on Earth. It is therefore impossible to ever establish any "cause/effect" relationships in the lab. On the other hand I can *EASILY* demonstrate that EM fields accelerate plasma and everyone agrees that the universe is mostly made of plasma.

Certainly? Not to my knowledge. You are likely talking about woo of the sort Deepak Chopra indulges in.

Wait a moment. I've already demonstrated cause/effect links between external EM fields and their influence on human thought. I've established cause/effect links between acceleration of plasma and EM fields.

The mainstream cosmologist currently peddle "woo" that is empirically impotent in the lab. They have no less than THREE impotent on Earth sky gods that they cannot justify in any empirical manner. No cause effect relationships were ever established in a lab. They just pointed at the sky and added impotent on Earth sky gods to do all the "explaining" of the universe and they've relegated normal matter and energies to "bit players" (4%).

Nevertheless, this is an important enough philosophical consideration to make it worth mentioning.

Maybe it's a question worth "asking" but the answer seems pretty darn obvious by any historical standard.

No, what we seem to have are at best accounts of people who have heard that there was someone named Jesus who did such-and-such, but had never met him personally.

No, that is not the case. Letters from James (his brother), Peter and John are all recorded in the Bible and all of them professed to have spent time with Jesus the man. Are those letters pure fiction in your opinion? Fraud?

We don't have anything like a first hand account, which might run something like this: "I was in Jerusalem during the 19th year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar in Rome, and I saw a gathering around a man called Jesus, who preached of salvation in another world. I had assumed that he was just another doomsayer, but he seemed unusually kind and wise. I didn't know what to make of him, but I had pressing business in Jerusalem, so I went to see Pontius Pilate on matters of governance."

That's only true if you ignore the actual letter and *ASSUME* that the Gospel of John wasn't mostly composed by the apostle John and his first generation students. It's certainly written as a first hand account, and it's written in an authoritative tone, with a number of very long quotes attributed to Jesus the man that could only have been recorded by a first hand apostle.

That would be impressive, but no accounts of this sort have ever been found.

Except in the Bible itself?

That doesn't mean that they don't exist, of course, but there's no reason why they must either.

IMO you're simply 'overlooking' the ones that have already been found and put into the book in the first place!

Writings about Jesus, for instance from Paul, seem to fit in to an established form of apocalyptic literature popular at the time. They use certain literary devices, such as claims of visions, to give weight to the teachings to follow. It might seem to you that Paul's writings, and the Gospel, are entirely unprecedented and could only have arisen in response to a historical Jesus, but when one takes the full context, there's some reasonable doubt about that.

I'll be reasonable to some degree. We'll just exclude the books related to Paul and fixate on the letters from John, Peter, James and the Gospel of John. What's wrong with the letters again?

I don't pray, and I meditate occasionally. I also practice certain spiritual exercises on a semi-regular basis, but they aren't theistic ones.

Hmm. Ok.

I doubt that these "techniques" would do anything other than to create the illusion of this by making changes in my brain. I'm a big fan of spiritual techniques, but not as mystical sources of knowledge. They may be effective for spiritual goals such as peace of mind, but are epistemologically empty.

If they are epistemlogically empty for you personally, does that mean they are necessarily the same for everyone?

Not laziness as such, but rather wisdom in knowing that nothing is to be gained in that way.

FYI, the fact that you meditate at all pretty much excludes you from my criticisms actually.

Likewise, if someone were to suggest to me to take LSD in order to "see God", it wouldn't matter to me if other users had claimed to see God in that way. I would not have any reason to think that they were seeing anything other than what was produced by their own psyches.

I would probably tend to agree with you on that point.

 

[Non sequitur]

My question to ns, was whether or not he/she considered that to be a scientific consensus" on this specific topic, or whether he/she viewed that overwhelming acceptance of theism in the human population as an "appeal to popularity" fallacy? I'm still curious.

It could be considered a "scientific consensus", that x% are theists, because the results are gathered and determined in a "scientific way".

But the word "scientific" lends more credit than is necessary.

The Best Ice Cream Flavor could be done in the same way, but I doubt the results would be labeled of a "scientific consensus".


Might =/= right, especially in the realm of the supernatural.

 

[Michael]

Two religions that take many things at face value without secondary proof.

They do however agree that Jesus (the man) was an 'expert' on the topic of God. Between the two religions they represent more than half the planet.

The question about whether Jesus was real is quite important. Once you establish Jesus reality then you have to establish his connection to God either as a "prophet" or the incarnation of God as man.

I agree with you on both points. The first question is easily answered by the contents of the Bible IMO, specifically the letters by James, Peter, and John.

Which means you have to first establish God's existence such that it doesn't require a "religion" to provide the foundation.

FYI, that's the point of this thread. I'm exploring pantheism as a scientific theory, and as an alternative to mainstream cosmology theory. This specific empirical theory of God is not dependent on any particular "religion', just empirical scientific data.

Are there any contemporary accounts? Even the Josephus account is questionable as to its veracity.

How about the letters from James, Peter and John?

So I need to focus my imagination on itself so intently that I "experience" God as a separate being from my imagination?

Interesting.

Actually no. The purpose (benefit) of meditation IMO is learning how to control your ones own thoughts and feelings, not to 'imagine' things.

Guth just fine "imagining/conjuring" up his dead inflation entity, but I'm sure that had very little to do with "meditation".

 

[quatona]

I think you're sort of waltzing around a couple of key points. Nobody denies that there are "character differences" associated with God.

...but I was not talking about "character differences". That was your term.

Let's just pretend for a second that a thousand years have passed and this empirical theory of God that I have laid out in these threads becomes "mainstream scientific theory". Let's further suppose it's accepted both in terms of astronomy theory (electric universe theory) *and* in terms of empirical agreements about the physical makeup of God in various religious groups.

Even if we assumed that humans eventually all agreed that God *is* the physical universe, that would not remove the 'character' variations associated with God by various religions.

You are quoting your own strawman.

We might all eventually agree that the various suns and nebula we observe are physical structures of God, but that still would not bridge the philosophical differences of humans, anymore than agreeing on the color and sex of the President resolves all human political differences.

You are very good at shifting the goalposts, Michael.
You may dream that at one point all theists agree with your ideas, but at this point they clearly don´t. When people talk about "god" it´s pretty much unforeseeable what concept they will present to me. They don´t agree on concepts, they use the same term for different concepts. These aren´t "character differences" - these are substantially different concepts.

IMO you're also ignoring the fact that everyone has the "freedom" to label themselves any way they wish.

ROTFL. You really crack me up.
Here is my very first post in this thread from which our conversation began:

Seeing that everyone has the freedom to define "God" as they wish that´s not really surprising.

...and consequently everyone has the freedom to label them theist/atheist.

Atheists can do it to. Statistically speaking however, 85+ percent of the planet labels themselves a "theist", and they do believe that God exists.

Seeing that everyone has the freedom to define "God" as they wish that´s not really surprising.
Do we have to repeat the whole conversation?
I don´t want to. I would like you to give a short summary as to what my point was - just to make sure I don´t have to deal with the ever same strawmen time and again, and you are at least trying to understand it before you go down on of your favourite "But atheists....!" routines.

My question to ns, was whether or not he/she considered that to be a scientific consensus" on this specific topic, or whether he/she viewed that overwhelming acceptance of theism in the human population as an "appeal to popularity" fallacy? I'm still curious.

I´m not ns, but I consider the appeal to those numbers an "appeal to authority" fallacy, because the world population is not an authority (as would be required for what´s called "scientific consensus").

Your response is predictable ("yeah, but Jesus was an expert...") - but we both know that that would be a different issue altogether.

 

[Michael]

You are very good at shifting the goalposts, Michael.
You may dream that at one point all theists agree with your ideas, but at this point they clearly don´t.

We're evidently still talking past one another. From the perspective of pure physics (and only physics) there are only two physical choices in theism, pantheism and panentheism. The physical differences really aren't that substantial or important. I'd currently be in a "minority" viewpoint, whereas the majority viewpoint is likely to fall under the category of panentheism, not pantheism.

Even *IF* we all agreed that God is the physical universe, we would NOT be likely to agree on other "attributes" of God. So what? That is "typical" rather than "unusual" as it relates to virtually any topic, including attributes assigned to the President of the country.

When people talk about "god" it´s pretty much unforeseeable what concept they will present to me.

Not really. Statistically speaking they'll likely fall into one of two camps, Christianity and Islam and many of the "concepts" will likely be related to which of the two religious viewpoints.

 

[quatona]

We're evidently still talking past one another. From the perspective of pure physics (and only physics) there are only two physical choices in theism, pantheism and panentheism. The physical differences really aren't that substantial or important. I'd currently be in a "minority" viewpoint, whereas the majority viewpoint is likely to fall under the category of panentheism, not pantheism.

And those 85+ % you are referring to all understand themselves as pantheists or panentheists?
And they all feel that the perspective of physics is the appropriate and most significant aspect of their god concept?
Come on.

 

[Doveaman]

The difference is that I'm speculating based on what is known.

So am I. I just happen to know more.

I have Occam's Razor on my side. You are the one rewriting what is known about brain function.

What you know about brain function does not explain intelligence. Therefore, nothing is really known on the subject except neurons firing, which you admitted is only a start.

And the complexity of neural connections certainly makes it plausible that this is the source of intelligence, and that scientists are at least on the right track in their investigations.

Super computers are complex but still require intelligent human input.

And that is why you twist science and engage in woo to support your religious views.

You mean like how atheists twist history to support their atheistic views?

I am not twisting the science. I agree intelligence is associated with neurons, just as you do. I am speculating on the how, and so are you.

There's no good reason to leap to such a conclusion when brain science has falsified such speculations so far.

If “ghost” exists as they are typically understood then scientists have no way of falsifying them. The best that you can come up with is an explanation for human intelligence that does not require “ghost”, and you haven’t.

The idea of a "ghost in the machine" has been around for some time and has been investigated by brain scientists, including those who actually expected to find that ghost, but brain science consistently finds reasons to think that the brain is self-contained in its functioning, and that there isn't any spiritual "organ" that does the thinking for us.

If that spiritual "organ" exists it would be a part of who we are as human and would be our own thinking as human. Maybe that "organ" enables our brain to think.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Doveaman]

Not only is it possible, it has happened.

Actually you have no evidence that awareness and intelligence can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter. You simply have faith that it did without any evidence.

Yeah, so? Why does that bother you?

Well, you atheists like to claim God cannot be scientifically tested therefore there is no reason to believe He exists. But then you claim dark energy exists and is expanding the whole universe, despite not being able to test it.

To me it looks like a double standard.

 

[quatona]

Well, you atheists like to claim God cannot be scientifically tested

I was more under the impression that that´s what mainstream Christianity keeps claiming.

But then you claim dark energy exists and is expanding the whole universe, despite not being able to test it.

Who is "you" in this sentence? Eudamonist, all atheists or who?

To me it looks like a double standard.

Let´s assume for the sake of the argument that "god" and "dark energy" were on the same level from a scientific pov. Now how would you like to see such ideas approached? Do you accept "God" and "dark energy" as existent or as not existent?

 

[Michael]

And those 85+ % you are referring to all understand themselves as pantheists or panentheists?

From the standpoint of physics, at least as it relates to *THIS* thread and THIS theory, it really doesn't make any difference if they do or they don't. I frankly had not even heard of panentheism until this conversation. However, in terms of pure empirical physics, and religious theologies, it's one or the other. If God isn't the LIVING UNIVERSE, he's using an electric universe as a tool to raise humans and interact with them through the EM field. Nothing has dramatically changed in terms of the plasma physics aspects of science by going with "intelligently designed universe" rather than "intelligent universe". In terms of how each theory relates to EU theories and plasma physics, there's very little difference between the two.

As far as pure empirical theories go, either one of them (an EU oriented version of pantheism or panentheism) is better than "dark, impotent on Earth, dead and/or invisible sky gods did it", AKA "Lambda-magic-dark-stuff-did-it" theory.

And they all feel that the perspective of physics is the appropriate and most significant aspect of their god concept?
Come on.

If one believes that God is in fact "real" and has a tangible and "real" effect on human beings, the rubber has to meet the road at some level of "physics". It really doesn't matter HOW it's physically done, there must be a PHYSICAL way for God to interact with human lives, and it has to be "measurable" at some level of physics. Come on!

 

[quatona]

From the standpoint of physics, at least as it relates to *THIS* thread and THIS theory, it really doesn't make any difference if they do or they don't.

...not until you appeal to a "consensus". In which case I will point out that the majority of theists take comfort in declaring their gods "supernatural", beyond human comprehension, beyond time and space, beyond logic even.

I frankly had not even heard of panentheism until this conversation. However, in terms of pure empirical physics, and religious theologies, it's one or the other. If God isn't the LIVING UNIVERSE, he's using an electric universe as a tool to raise humans an interact with them through the EM field. Nothing has dramatically changed in terms of the EU physics simply by going with "intelligently designed universe" rather than "intelligent universe". In terms of how each theory relates to EU theories and plasma physics, there's very little difference between the two.

I go to churches and speak with believers on a regular basis, but for some strange reason I have rarely if ever heard "God" defined this way. So I don´t buy into this 85+ consensus (actually not even agreement) that you feel so comfortably included in.

As far as pure empirical theories go, either one of them (an EU oriented version of pantheism or panentheism) is better than "dark, impotent on Earth, dead and/or invisible sky gods did it", or "Lambda-magic" theory.

Discuss that with whomever wants to discuss that with you. It´s irrelevant to our conversation.

If one believes that God is in fact "real" and has a tangible and "real" effect on human beings, the rubber has to meet the road at some level of "physics". It really doesn't matter HOW it's physically done, there must be a PHYSICAL way for God to interact with human lives, and it has to be "measurable" at some level of physics. Come on!

Not that I necessarily disagree, but the majority of those 85+ % believers - who you would me believe are in "consensus" with you - do.
That´s my entire point. Saying you believe in "God" does not necessarily mean agreement and even less "consensus" with others .who also say they believe in "God".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually you have no evidence that awareness and intelligence can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter.

I never said that it did. You are putting words in my mouth.

Awareness and intelligence arise from living beings that have the biological structure to actualize such emergent phenomena. Brain science supports this conclusion, even if not everything is yet understood about the process. You only have woo.

Well, you atheists like to claim God cannot be scientifically tested therefore there is no reason to believe He exists.

No, it's Christians who claim that.

But then you claim dark energy exists and is expanding the whole universe, despite not being able to test it.

Cosmology involves empiricism just as much as biochemistry done in a laboratory. It simply involves different methods.

To me it looks like a double standard.

That's because you don't understand science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So am I. I just happen to know more.

Stockholm is waiting.

What you know about brain function does not explain intelligence.

If you mean a complete explanation, such that the workings of intelligence are completely laid bare, then I agree. But that doesn't mean that what I know isn't on the best track. You are inventing woo to explain things.

Super computers are complex but still require intelligent human input.

Yes, so? They can still produce unexpected results, such as with genetic algorithms.

And speaking of genetics, the reason I make the point that "input" is not itself intelligent is that it could have either an intelligent or a nonintelligent source. There is no requirement that the source be intelligent. IOWs, natural selection could provide this basic structure that allows for intelligence.

You mean like how atheists twist history to support their atheistic views?

This is coming out of left field, so I have no idea what you are referring to. In any case, whether this has happened or not doesn't mean that you aren't doing what I say that you are doing.

I am not twisting the science.

Yes, you are. You don't know empirically that a spiritual organ could direct intelligent neural function like a piano player tapping on keys. At best, one could say that fields FROM NEURONS influence nearby neurons, such that neural communication happens by one more way than synapses.

What you are suggesting with a spiritual source of intelligence is woo.

I agree intelligence is associated with neurons, just as you do. I am speculating on the how, and so are you.

The difference, as I have already pointed out, is that I am following Occam's Razor, and you are leaving that behind with woo.

I find that we've entered into a cycle of saying the same things to each other. I recommend that we move on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Michael]

...not until you appeal to a "consensus".

Well, if the theistic participants in this thread are any indication, the consensus simply leans toward panentheism rather than pantheism (my preference). In that respect, you may have point as it relates to my personal preference for pantheism.

In terms of empirical plasma physical processes however, and how EU theories apply to cosmology and the structures of 'spacetime', it's virtually 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

In which case I will point out that the majority of theists take comfort in declaring their gods "supernatural",

What exactly does the term "supernatural" actually mean to them or to you?

beyond human comprehension,

I'd agree that the totality of "God" is probably beyond the comprehension of the little 'brain' inside of a human form. We can't even see the whole physical universe for instance, just our tiny little sliver of it.

beyond time and space,

In terms of God's "awareness", God's "presence", I do believe that God operates outside of our concept of "spacetime", or specifically "faster than" what we think of as light speed. It may however have a "physical cause", just like all other "natural processes".

beyond logic even.

Beyond our human concept of logic? Sure! Atheists in general can't seem to grok or accept the concept of an "aware" universe, but by and large they seem to have virtually no complaints about dark, invisible space expanding monkeys in the sky. Go figure.

I go to churches and speak with believers on a regular basis, but for some strange reason I have rarely if ever heard "God" defined this way.

Which brings us right back to the original question I asked (and was actually answered pretty well by NS IMO).

In terms of how the debate typically goes down on the EU vs. Lambda "cosmology" discussions I've had with "scientists" that I've met, I would call such arguments "appeals to popularity" fallacies, and/or appeals to authority fallacies, or both. FYI, EU oriented theories about the universe represent a TINY MINORITY cosmology theory in comparison to standard theory for instance. That's even *BEFORE* we slap pantheism (and it's requirements) onto an EU oriented view of the universe. Many EU enthusiasts are probably atheists for all I know.

IMO it all still comes back to *EMPIRICAL PHYSICS*, not popularity, which is why this particular emperical theory of "God/The Universe" is intriguing to me personally in the first place. In terms of pure empirical physics, there really isn't a "better" theory than "God is the Living Universe" IMO. No other cosmology theory even comes close in terms of empirical physics and what can be demonstrated empirically in the lab.

So I don´t buy into this 85+ consensus (actually not even agreement) that you feel so comfortably included in.

FYI, ultimately neither do I, or at least I would admit it's not a best barometer of 'truthiness'.

Assuming that God is real and does exist, there is a physical, empirical, cause/effect relationship in play between humans and God that can and should be "measured" in every scientific way possible. IMO science is simply the study of God.

That´s my entire point. Saying you believe in "God" does not necessarily mean agreement and even less "consensus" with others .who also say they believe in "God".

In terms of statistical percentages of how many people believe that God is "real" and has a "real" effect on their lives, it really doesn't matter. They do believe him to exist, to be "real", and to have a "real, tangible effect" on them, or at least he is capable of doing so. The "consensus" is that God exists and is he is physically "real" in every sense, just as the "consensus" is that 'dark energy did it'. Whether those statistics alone are a valid scientific argument or not is another story, hence my question in the first place.