An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[sandwiches]

You are right that science is a method, just as sometimes "religion" has been a method used to describe reality. They both create "beliefs/hypotheses" on the topic of how humans got here.

Can you elaborate on this by explaining the religious method?

 

[Michael]

Can you elaborate on this by explaining the religious method?

It typically begins with an observation, followed by an "explanation" for that observation. Lightning for instance was observed. It was *associated* with "God/Zeus", and it was assumed to be "controlled by" God". Likewise religion seeks to explain how the universe got here, how the Earth got here, etc. It was simply mankind's first attempt to "rationalize" and "explain" the universe we live in.

IMO religion was simply mankind's first "method" of trying to make sense of the universe and the observations we see in the universe. It was simply a primitive and less structured form of "science". The "explanations" it offers vary from the "supernatural" to the entirely "natural" in the case of panentheism.

Lambda-CDM simply represents a "scientific" attempt to explain how the universe got here, how it works, etc.

They ultimately seek to explain "reality", albeit in slightly different ways.

 

[Clairvoyance]

IMO religion was simply mankind's first "method" of trying to make sense of the universe and the observations we see in the universe. It was simply a primitive and less structured form of "science". The "explanations" it offers vary from the "supernatural" to the entirely "natural" in the case of panentheism.

Lambda-CDM simply represents a "scientific" attempt to explain how the universe got here, how it works, etc.

They ultimately seek to explain "reality", albeit in slightly different ways.

I understand your point. Some things that we call science must be taken on "faith" which is to say that we don't have direct, casual evidence of it... But I feel like the way you are saying it is trying to make science seem like a religion.

As methods of inquiry, they are VASTLY different. The religious method assuming a preferred conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. The scientific method looks at the evidence first then forms conclusions.

If the religious method ever gets it right, it's only by the blindest of chance. Science, on the other hand, systematically experiments and through process of elimination arrives at a conclusion with far better precision.

But you are acting like these physicists have some kind of blind faith or reverence for things like dark energy... This just isn't true. Ever heard Lawerance Krauss talk about dark energy? He will flat out tell you that we just call it dark energy but we really don't have the slightest clue about what is it.

This is nothing like religion! Scientists don't walk around acting like they know everything. They will be the first to tell you how ignorant we are about reality... Whereas religious people think they know everything about EVERYTHING but they don't even have the observations to begin with.

 

[mzungu]

The moment we have FAITH in science is the day science will cease to be science. We ACCEPT science. Big difference!

 

[Michael]

The moment we have FAITH in science is the day science will cease to be science. We ACCEPT science. Big difference!

It all depends on how you "accept" scientific claims. If you accept *all* beliefs/claims that come from science, without ever "questioning" the claims, such "faith" can be exactly like religious faith. It can be just like someone who simply puts their faith in the leaders of their church, without really questioning the claims for themselves.

In fact, in my experience atheists tend to know very little about astronomy theory in general, yet the accept the claims being made, pretty much hook line and sinker, and will often start trying to justify the claims without even first *understanding or thinking* about them for themselves.

 

[Michael]

I understand your point. Some things that we call science must be taken on "faith" which is to say that we don't have direct, casual evidence of it... But I feel like the way you are saying it is trying to make science seem like a religion.

FYI, I see no hierarchy between "science" and "religion" as do most atheists. I see little or no functional difference between "faith in the unseen" in the lab, between scientific claims and religious ones. String theory seems as "out there" as any religious claim on the planet, particularly since it requires *faith* in many extra dimensions of spacetime.

SUSY theory pretty much bit the dust at LHC. Admittedly it came with some mathematical descriptions, but even when it's popular maths were falsified, and it failed it's own "golden test", SUSY proponents still "have faith' they'll find some support for that hypothesis in 2015. Since the mathematical goal posts keep moving, it's actually an "exotic matter of the gaps" arguments, and family of connected "hypotheses" (multiple), not just *one* hypothesis. It's quite a bit like any ordinary supernatural concept of God in that respect.

Guth actually did make some unique an testable predictions with his supernatural construct called inflation, but each of them was actually falsified. Astronomers still cling to the claim with unwavering support, but now they intend to add a *new* supernatural construct and simply move the mathematical goal posts again.

FYI they did exactly the same thing with "dark energy", and again it lacks any controlled empirical lab support.

As methods of inquiry, they are VASTLY different. The religious method assuming a preferred conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. The scientific method looks at the evidence first then forms conclusions.

Not always. The *core assumptions/claims* of BB theory have *never* been demonstrated and could never be demonstrated in controlled experimentation on Earth. Hubble himself wrote about *two* possible explanations for photon redshift, inelastic scattering (he called it tired light), and expansion.

Upon hearing of the redshift phenomenon a *Catholic Priest* was actually the first proponent of a "creation event", a creation event that coincides with Genesis, and the statement "Let there be light". The whole *idea* of a massive creation (of matter) event actually stems from religion, with a single observation of photon redshift as the impetus for several "blind leaps of faith" on the part of the believer.

For example, the concept requires one believes in the "metric expansion of space", where the objects themselves don't move, but the space between them changes anyway. Such a claim has not and could not ever be demonstrated in a lab. It's just the "opening act" however in a *multiple* supernatural construct called Lambda-CDM that was actually falsified by the Planck data set.

If the religious method ever gets it right, it's only by the blindest of chance.

Was it really just "chance" that caused the Catholic Priest to promote a creation event theory, or did he have a "bias" that came from religion, which he then applied to "science"?

Science, on the other hand, systematically experiments and through process of elimination arrives at a conclusion with far better precision.

I can easily demonstrate to you that they don't do any such thing, particularly as it relates to the photon redshift phenomenon.

But you are acting like these physicists have some kind of blind faith or reverence for things like dark energy... This just isn't true.

Well, when you been virtually executed for the sins of "lack of belief" for such claims, you start to see clear evidence of "blind faith" rather than honest scientific doubt/

Ever heard Lawerance Krauss talk about dark energy?

Ya, apparently he's a giant fan of Gutheology which immediately discredits everything else he has to say. His militant attitude toward "religion" also demonstrates his irrational biases. You'll need a better role model in astronomy if you expect to impress me. Guth and Krauss won't cut it for me, starting with their irrational claims about a "zero net energy" universe.

The whole "creation ex-nihilo" was also a "religious" concept to begin with.

He will flat out tell you that we just call it dark energy but we really don't have the slightest clue about what is it.

I can tell you *exactly* what it *actually* is. It's supernatural ad hoc gap filler to save one otherwise *falsified* cosmology theory from instant empirical falsification. It serves no other purpose whatsoever.

This is nothing like religion! Scientists don't walk around acting like they know everything.

Go read the rule system over at Cosmoquest, and tell me that again with a straight face.

They will be the first to tell you how ignorant we are about reality... Whereas religious people think they know everything about EVERYTHING but they don't even have the observations to begin with.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've been virtually lynched at astronomy websites for my "heresy". In fact the only forum that ever actually held a "witch hunt" was "Bad Astronomy" (apt name), now called "Cosmoquest". You can't even discuss "non standard" beliefs on their website for more than 90 days, and you cannot discuss any topic that has already be "dealt with" in the past.

Unfortunately scientists are people too. They have "faith" in ideas and concepts that lack empirical support just like everyone else. Some of the ideas are really *out there* like string theory with multiple extra dimensions of spacetime. Some are in fact falsifiable, others not so much.

An atheists blind allegiance to "science" is often like a theists blind allegiance to their "religion". Even falsification, such as that Planck data set is *rationalized* away as though it no longer matters. The original assumption is assumed to be true (metric expansion of space), the secondary assumption is assumed to be true (inflation causes metric expansion), and the *third* claim is assumed to be true (dark energy cause metric space *acceleration*), and a *new* ad hoc entity is added to the mix to simply sweep the bad data right under the rug!

The problem for astronomers now is they can't even make up their mind as to how they want to "fix" the problem, and what *metaphysical* claim they want to rally behind this time. They're incapable of coming to any consensus right now as to what to even *do about* Planck data sets, but they've all decided to 'fix" the problem by creating *yet another* supernatural construct, and *assuming everything else was true*.

 

[Clairvoyance]

In a meeting with french astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, Napoleon, after listening to him explain how he could calculate the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter with such mathematical precision, asked him where did God reveal himself in the design? To which Laplace responded:

"I had no need of that hypothesis."

 

[Michael]

In a meeting with french astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, Napoleon, after listening to him explain how he could calculate the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter with such mathematical precision, asked him where did God reveal himself in the design? To which Laplace responded:

"I had no need of that hypothesis."

That same statement also applies to dark energy, inflation, exotic matter claims, string theory, etc. Gravity is but one force of nature, EM fields being another. Lambda-CDM includes no calculations related to EM fields in spacetime, even though the universe is mostly in a plasma state. That should be your first clue that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[Clairvoyance]

That same statement also applies to dark energy, inflation, exotic matter claims, string theory, etc. Gravity is but one force of nature, EM fields being another. Lambda-CDM includes no calculations related to EM fields in spacetime, even though the universe is mostly in a plasma state. That should be your first clue that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

To say that the dark matter hypothesis is not needed is wildly inaccurate... There is obviously some measurable force that we have not identified that is responsible for these predictions. We decided to call it "dark energy"

You seem to be interested in science but you must still be under the influence of your "god genes"

You just can't seem to shake it... You make the same bad analogies and misrepresentations as regular religious people. You fall victim to the temptations to slip into straw-men arguments and go after red herrings. Just like the fundamentalists.

You can't possibly believe the comparison you are making between a mysterious, undefined "god-force" and what we call "dark energy".

They are totally different.

Also, you are beating a straw-man when you mention string theory... No physicist is seriously putting much credence into it. They will tell you "eh... string theory is really more like a HYPOTHESIS".
They will tell you that there isn't any evidence for it. Strawman...

Lastly, I don't know what you are going on about with Lambda-CDM but I'm sure you are over-exaggerating something...

If your hypothesis has any merit you should probably publish an article about it so that people who actually know about the subject can review it cuz you use a lot of big words and I'm not a physicist.

 

[Michael]

To say that the dark matter hypothesis is not needed is wildly inaccurate...

In relationship to movements of objects inside the solar system that are described in that actual quote, my statement still stands.

I'd grant you that if we look at galaxy rotation patterns, there is evidence of "missing mass", but they found a whole lot of that missing mass just last year in the form of ordinary plasma. Not coincidentally it's located *exactly* where "dark matter" is supposedly located.

Giant Gas Cloud Surrounds Our Milky Way Galaxy | LiveScience

They don't even have the common decency to call it a "plasma", instead they ignore it's EM properties and call it a "hot gas".

There is obviously some measurable force that we have not identified that is responsible for these predictions. We decided to call it "dark energy"

Dark energy is actually based upon supernova studies of signal broadening in plasma, which they utterly ignored in favor of "time dilation" assumptions. Originally they predicted that the universe was slowing down over time due to the pull of gravity. By misinterpreting the signal broadening event as "time dilation" they convinced themselves that the universe must be "speeding up" instead. They quite literally *invented* "dark energy" to fix that "problem" they had with their original "failed prediction".

Again however, the entire claim is based upon photon redshift and there is no demonstrated cause/effect relationship between photon redshift and "dark energy". The cause/effect relationship is *assumed*. Likewise there is no demonstrated cause/effect relationship between "metric expansion of space" and photon redshift. It's *assumed*. Triple play when we add inflation. Not one of them enjoys any empirical connection to photons redshift in any lab on Earth.

You seem to be interested in science but you must still be under the influence of your "god genes"

FYI, I saw a good History Channel show today called "Proving God". It was well worth watching and talked about "God genes". I thought the brain studies were fascinating and the scientist conducting them was extremely fair in the way he presented both sides of the debate. You might check it out sometime.

You just can't seem to shake it... You make the same bad analogies and misrepresentations as regular religious people. You fall victim to the temptations to slip into straw-men arguments and go after red herrings. Just like the fundamentalists.

You can't possibly believe the comparison you are making between a mysterious, undefined "god-force" and what we call "dark energy".

They are totally different.

In terms of what actually can be shown in the lab, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. What's the difference? Where does "dark energy" come from? What physical experiment shows that it has any effect on a photon?

Also, you are beating a straw-man when you mention string theory... No physicist is seriously putting much credence into it.

The string theorists certainly do. Even calling it a "theory" however (M-Theory) is *outrageously misleading* since it makes no actually testable predictions and it requires faith in multiple extra dimensions.

Lastly, I don't know what you are going on about with Lambda-CDM but I'm sure you are over-exaggerating something...

Such as?

What else can we compare a "religious" based idea to if not a "scientific" hypothesis that also describes spacetime?

If your hypothesis has any merit you should probably publish an article about it so that people who actually know about the subject can review it cuz you use a lot of big words and I'm not a physicist.

Been there, done that already in the terms of the pure physics aspects.

arXiv.org Search

The panentheism aspect isn't even something I'd even revisited yet in 2005-2006, and it's not like it's going to get published in the APJ anytime soon. Even getting the mainstream to recognize the role of electrical current in space is like pulling teeth at the moment. It's pointless at this point in time to even *think* about publishing panentheistic concepts in mainstream publications.

I'd be *more than* happy just to get them migrate over to PC/EU theory with or without any panentheistic overtones. Even a baby step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.

 

[mzungu]

It all depends on how you "accept" scientific claims. If you accept *all* beliefs/claims that come from science, without ever "questioning" the claims, such "faith" can be exactly like religious faith. It can be just like someone who simply puts their faith in the leaders of their church, without really questioning the claims for themselves.

In fact, in my experience atheists tend to know very little about astronomy theory in general, yet the accept the claims being made, pretty much hook line and sinker, and will often start trying to justify the claims without even first *understanding or thinking* about them for themselves.

WRONG! We have peer review in science for the simple reason that it checks for the validity and adherence to the rules of science. Faith has nothing to do with it. It seems that you judge everything according to your beliefs and since your beliefs are based on faith then I can assure you others do not abide by your reasoning!

 

[Michael]

WRONG! We have peer review in science for the simple reason that it checks for the validity and adherence to the rules of science. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Ah, but all the *predictions* of your published and peer reviewed papers went up in hemispheric smoke in the Planck data set. Guth's claim about homogeneity on the largest scales was *falsified outright* by that data.

So now the 'fix is on' to find *yet another* supernatural construct to "save the day" from *outright* empirical falsification. All the *other claims* will be *assumed to be true* and yet *another* ad hoc entity de jour will be added into "Lambda-metaphysical-kludge" hypothesis. Worse yet they keep *right on ignoring* the EM field effects of a mostly plasma universe.

What *value* is all that published material about *predictions* you made worth if all you're going to do is *make up new supernatural constructs* every time your predictions fail, and *assume* everything else is true?!?!?!?

There's no falsification process going on. It's pure *supernatural nonsense*, akin to a *multiple supernatural god claim*.

It seems that you judge everything according to your beliefs and since your beliefs are based on faith then I can assure you others do not abide by your reasoning!

Since you cannot demonstrate any of the *original* claims of Lambda-CDM to work out in the Planck data set, you're *praying for a supernatural miracle* again. You're hoping the public doesn't find out that Guth *blew his last useful prediction* in spectacular fashion before you've come up with a 'consensus' on a new supernatural invisible friend to *fix* your now falsified cosmology theory.

Boloney you don't have 'faith'. You're not even sure *which* supernatural construct will be 'agreed upon' as the "fix" for that hemispheric fiasco you have going in the Planck data set!

 

[Clairvoyance]

Ok, Ill accept your claim about science being the same as religion if only one thing were true:

religious leaders must submit to peer review.

Just think about that for a minute. They would NEVER reach any kind of agreement of any kind! You put 50 theologians in a room and you get 50 different opinions.

Now put 50 scientists in a room and you usually get a consensus because science only offers claims which can be VERIFIED. That is to say that a scientific theory only has merit to the extent to which it CAN be verified.... If it's not verifiable then it's probably better to call it a "hypothesis". At least until some evidence is uncovered.

 

[Michael]

Ok, Ill accept your claim about science being the same as religion if only one thing were true:

religious leaders must submit to peer review.

They typically have a leadership dynamic just like any other organization. "Bad" leaders get removed from leadership roles. New leaders emerge. The Pope(s) publish things in the media, and write public statements to other religious leaders and even atheists, etc.

Just think about that for a minute. They would NEVER reach any kind of agreement of any kind! You put 50 theologians in a room and you get 50 different opinions.

How about starting with some simple things like, monotheism, or "God is loving and merciful"? Would we find *no* agreement, or just some 'crackpot dissent" among a minority?

Now put 50 scientists in a room and you usually get a consensus because science only offers claims which can be VERIFIED.

You really think you'll get 100 percent consensus on something like 'global warming'? How about the minority views?

That is to say that a scientific theory only has merit to the extent to which it CAN be verified.... If it's not verifiable then it's probably better to call it a "hypothesis". At least until some evidence is uncovered.

Evidence at some point becomes subjective, particularly in things that are *not* empirical. If there isn't 100 percent consensus in science, why would you require that of religion?

 

[JWGU]

Actually, Michael, you would probably get fairly close to 100% consensus on global warming (or evolution) in a room full of scientists. You don't need 100% consensus, however, because the field of statistics has provided us with likelihood tests that allow us to decide what level of disagreement we are willing to put up with before we call something a fact. Usually the bar is set at 90% at the lowest, 95% is more standard, and for some extreme applications even higher percentages of consensus are required. But these are not necessarily a simple percentage of the people who agree with something--they're our percentage of confidence that the true belief of the group lies in one direction or another. In other words: we formulate a hypothesis, test it, and then check to see if our results failed to disprove the null hypothesis (the null hypothesis for most models being "there is no consensus.") The reason the scientific method is so powerful is because it can be applied to practically anything--even scientific consensus. And there are frequently studies of scientific consensus that appear in real scientific journals.

 

[Michael]

MIT professor: global warming is a 'religion' | The Daily Caller

 

[Clairvoyance]

Evidence at some point becomes subjective, particularly in things that are *not* empirical. If there isn't 100 percent consensus in science, why would you require that of religion?

I didn't say 100% consensus... Real life isn't that black and white. There will always be some small pieces of evidence that don't quite fit the current theory.

But the beauty of science is that it makes predictions about the actual world. We don't completely throw out Newton's gravity even though we now know about relativity because his theory still WORKS even though it's not 100% correct.

Religion has nothing like this. it's true because the pope said it's true! The pope and other religious leaders can make something dogma just by saying so!

That's NOT science. That's NOT peer review.

 

[Michael]

I didn't say 100% consensus... Real life isn't that black and white. There will always be some small pieces of evidence that don't quite fit the current theory.

Likewise, there is general consensus in religion that monotheism is correct, but there are minority viewpoints.

But the beauty of science is that it makes predictions about the actual world.

In cosmology theory they've all failed rather spectacularly over the past 5 years.

We don't completely throw out Newton's gravity even though we now know about relativity because his theory still WORKS even though it's not 100% correct.

Guth threw out GR theory when he claimed gravity is a "negative energy" and that we live in a net zero energy universe. Is that even a "majority" claim in "science"? Individuals make all sorts of goofy claims, scientists too.

Religion has nothing like this. it's true because the pope said it's true! The pope and other religious leaders can make something dogma just by saying so!

Apparently you haven't tried playing the role of skeptic as it relates to inflation theory. The original individual that 'made up the claim' attributed his "deity" with supernatural capabilities *galore*, not just one. It then become "dogma". The dogma must be right now, even though all of it was actually falsified by the hemispheric variations in the Planck data set. The *fix* (a new supernatural construct) must show that the original inflation dogma was *right* (even though it was actually wrong), it was just 'incomplete'. The need to protect the dogma is financially and emotionally important to scientists too.

That's NOT science. That's NOT peer review.

What kind of publication would you suggest we call our new "Religion Peer Review' publication anyway? Do atheists get to play too, or not?

 

[JWGU]

.

If global warming were a fragile enough theory that it could be taken down by a single doctor (not even a geological scientist, mind you, and one who makes absolutely no evidence-based claims in that article), it would hardly be a scientific consensus, would it? Certainly the comparison to eugenics in the article would indicate that the doctor, whatever his other talents, does not fully understand global warming. Global warming is not a theory of human behavior. It is a theory of climate change with excessive amounts of evidence and well-understood processes. There is no meaningful scientific controversy around it.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, Ill accept your claim about science being the same as religion if only one thing were true:

religious leaders must submit to peer review.

Just think about that for a minute. They would NEVER reach any kind of agreement of any kind! You put 50 theologians in a room and you get 50 different opinions.

Now put 50 scientists in a room and you usually get a consensus because science only offers claims which can be VERIFIED. That is to say that a scientific theory only has merit to the extent to which it CAN be verified.... If it's not verifiable then it's probably better to call it a "hypothesis". At least until some evidence is uncovered.

Put 50 biblical historians/scholars in a room and you will get a wide variety of opinions/interpretations as well although it wouldn't quite be as bad as the theologians, who basically make up stuff to make the God of the bible work and the stuff they make up is all over the map.