Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure why you have a hard time worshiping a 'natural' God with incredible powers, but I personally think that God is the single most "natural' thing in the universe.
It would mean that God *is* the highest expression of the laws of physics as we understand them. Whether we even understand *all* of those laws is yet another issue entirely.
Just so everyone can understand your way of putting things better:
I observe that the world we live in is overwhelmingly theistic. I observe that you're in the minority position.
Are you actually claiming that because you feel a majority of the world is theistic, than it must than be true? If majority opinion determined the truth, this world would be in serious trouble. Again, check out the latest data on how many people don't believe in a God in; France, UK, Germany, Sweden, and several other intellectually advanced nations and you will see believe below 50% in many. The United States is one of a declining number of intellectual nations who is over 50%. Unless you are muslim, belief in a personal God has been declining around the world for several years.
Um, according to "science", you can't even directly observe 95 percent of what's in the visible universe and we can't even see the whole thing!
So what! You don't have to observe 100% to have a high degree of confidence in what is going on. Science has come quite a long way in understanding the world we live in the last 100 years, would you agree?
I really don't know why you keep coming back to a single book when I've made it clear that I intend to stick with pure physics when comparing panetheism to Lambda-CDM.
You say you are Christian correct? As a Christian, you must rely on the bible to some degree correct? If you are Christian, you believe in Jesus and follow him so what are your thoughts on the reliability of the bible when it comes to the basic Christian story?
My primary reason for believing in a "personal" God has do to with my experiences during prayer and meditation, but in terms of any sort of scientific comparison between Lambda-CDM and panentheism, it's really almost (but not quite) irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? What are your experiences during prayer and medication that have convinced you that there is a personal God who answers prayers, watches everything we do and intervenes on earth?
I think we should all start with the premise that my ideas and beliefs are 'unique'.
I see, thanks!
It tends to be more annoying than helpful if people's reactions are any indication, but it's a hard habit to break. Just getting WORD off that list took *weeks* of effort on my part.
Which of the is wavelength dependent?
FYI, you can't every actually 'falsify' a form of pure empirical physics. That's not even possible, particularly as it relates to events in space, and the various and numerous configurations of "PC theory". You might as well be trying to falsify the whole of EV theory. Unlike your invisible sky nonsense, PC theory works in the lab, and in space.
My eyes are wide open to all those electrical discharges that we observe in the solar atmosphere. My eyes are wide open to all that magnetic "pseudoscience" that Alfven warned me about because unlike you, I've actually read his material. Your eyes are closed, and closed by choice. You don't even have a power supply left to even explain those magnetic "lines" in the solar atmosphere since your convection predictions were outright falsified last year.
You're right, that's a dishonest series of statements alright, and all of them are yours. You might as well be trying to falsify everything we've ever learned about plasma physics while you're at it.
You don't account for *any* inelastic scattering however, which really makes your calculations pointless, and dubious. You invented a mythical universe where the behaviors of plasma and photons in space acts nothing like they do in the lab! In the real laboratory plasma, inelastic scattering happens. Only in your magical mythical universe could photons traverse light years of various plasmas at various temperatures and EM field levels and experience *no* inelastic scattering.
How ironic considering you demand empirical evidence of God. Why? You just got through saying that it doesn't have to happen in the lab! If you can have faith in your invisible friends without lab support, why does anyone else have to provide you with squat? Nothing like shooting your own credibility in both feet at the same time! Wow!
And likewise you have never demonstrated that photon redshift is caused by any of your invisible friends. It's only a cosmic scale affirming the consequent fallacy!
If God is in fact the entire electric universe, even that viewpoint might actually have empirical scientific merit some day, which is more than you'll even get with your invisible friends in your lifetime, or *any* human lifetime.
Names for God aside, in the final analysis, you don't even actually *know* if that statement is ultimately true or false.
The only one pulling supernatural invisible rabbits out of their hat is you, and only you. The only things I've ascribed to God or to the universe are EM fields and awareness, both of which show up on Earth.
You don't even have any actual evidence of expansion, just evidence of photon redshift! What do you know about "evidence" anyway? What you call 'evidence' of your claims isn't even *evidence* in the first place!
Oh no you did not! You *claimed* a whole bunch of things, none of which you actually demonstrated. You didn't demonstrate that inflation actually exists in nature. You didn't show that inflation had any effect on even a single photon in a real experiment. You didn't show that dark energy exists in nature. You didn't show that it has any effect on even a single photon at even one wavelength. You didn't show that 'space expands', you just *claim it does*! You didn't demonstrate exotic matter exist in nature, you just *claim it does*! You failed to demonstrate *any* of your claims in controlled cause/effect experimentation.
You don't have any "objective observations'. You have *subjective interpretations* of the photon redshift phenomenon. You don't even have the integrity to admit that much! All we *actually* observe is photon redshift, not expansion, not inflation, not dark energy, and not supernatural particles.
The only thing that can actually demonstrate cause/effect relationships *empirically* is controlled experimentation. Without control mechanisms, and real lab tests, you have nothing but handwaves. You can take a pure form of physics approach if you like, but there goes most of cosmology theory today, leaving *only* PC theory standing. You won't do that. Oh no. You cling to your supernatural invisible friends with the emotional attachment of a mother to her young.
You turn right around and chastise everyone else for doing the same thing you do.You're the one that is being dishonest. There is a difference between something that does show up in *controlled experiment* and one that doesn't. Empirically, all you can claim is "redshift is observed". The rest of your mythology is based upon a purely *subjective* and highly dubious *assumption* as to the cause.
It merely then warns you not to interpret the things seen as a god themselves, making an image of him, because God is what can not be seen, his invisible qualities - his power - being understood from what has been made.
FYI, this conversation ties back into this conversation about what constitutes "evidence" in terms of "observation" vs. *claims about cause".
You're right. *Religion* generically is a 'method' people have used since the dawn of time to describe reality as a whole. Science itself is also a *method*. Lambda-CDM is a *belief* (a series of beliefs). Likewise Panentheism is a "belief" as you said. We should be able to compare specific "beliefs" of science and religion and compare them in terms of pure empirical physics that can be demonstrated in a lab.
Indeed. That's where the other conversation about "evidence" comes in. We're specifically defining the term "evidence" when cause/effect relationships cannot (or have not) been demonstrated on Earth.
The only actual "effects" we observe on the natural world are redshift of photons, and signal broadening in a plasma medium. There is no cause/effect demonstration between photon redshift and "dark energy". This is a "belief" that defies empirical laboratory support, just like any other "act of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).
True. It would also be a part of "religion" and it's origin's would have come from a "religious" background.
