An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

FYI, not one of you creationists can tell us where God comes from, let alone how to "measure"him in experiments on Earth.

Actually he's composed of the materials in/of spacetime, and I HAVE proposed physical experiments to demonstrate/look for the EM interconnection between humans and the universe/God. I've even showed that external EM field CAN and DO have a tangible effect on human thoughts.

You really have absolutely no idea how science works do you! Anyone with any training in any science field would not even ask silly questions! If dark energy is proven to exist or it is proven not to exist; it is a plus for science either way.

So shouldn't that also apply to the topic of God? IMO science will one day provide all sorts of evidence of the existence of God. Even if the scientific method eventually disproves the concept of an "intelligent creator", God theory is a viable scientific theory today. SUSY theory on the other hand, and "cold dark matter" claims in mainstream astronomy theories have already been falsified in the lab, yet you seem to (falsely) believe that mainstream cosmology theory is "rock solid". Go figure....

 

[Nabobalis]

I think you'd at least agree that many of the various subatomic particles have been observed in a lab. They must be composed of something with mass. Electrons and positrons have mass. They can collide and form larger units of mass that we associate with subatomic particles. The breakdown of subatomic particles (like a neutron) release electrons. Electrical discharges through atoms release positrons. If there is a "next logical" option related to particle physics theory (beyond Higgs theory), IMO it's likely to be related to the arrangement of electrons/positrons, inside the subatomic lattice.

Just saying....

I understand that, but its something I've never come across and was just interested in either if you came out with that yourself or heard/read it somewhere.

 

[Michael]

I understand that, but its something I've never come across and was just interested in either if you came out with that yourself or heard/read it somewhere.

I've been thinking about a positron/electron model of the atom for a very long time, but standard particle physics theory seemed "complete" to me, at least until the LHC started ruling some of the more logical/possible Higgs territory. IMO it might be worth revisiting if the the Higgs remains elusive through 1.2 Gev.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Actually he's composed of the materials in/of spacetime, and I HAVE proposed physical experiments to demonstrate/look for the EM interconnection between humans and the universe/God. I've even showed that external EM field CAN and DO have a tangible effect on human thoughts.

So shouldn't that also apply to the topic of God? IMO science will one day provide all sorts of evidence of the existence of God. Even if the scientific method eventually disproves the concept of an "intelligent creator", God theory is a viable scientific theory today. SUSY theory on the other hand, and "cold dark matter" claims in mainstream astronomy theories have already been falsified in the lab, yet you seem to (falsely) believe that mainstream cosmology theory is "rock solid". Go figure....

Here's a point I find somewhat interesting.

Let's assume some distant time in which scientists find some strange statistical signal indicating some EM field/Quantum mechanical evidence of "God".

My question is: How did the ancient israelites know this such that they could found a religion that is extremely well defined and codified so perfectly?

What I find interesting about the concept of one day "proving" God's existence is that it doesn't really explain how some people claim to know of God while others can't find him using every conceivable method available to humanity over the course of several millenia.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist (but being an atheist I fail to see any evidence that he does, but I can't make a universal negative claim), but my bigger question is: if one does one day find out God exists using some super advanced technology that can tease out a tiny signal in a universe of noise: how did the people who originally told us all about God and what he Commanded know all this stuff about Him?

(And please don't say "God inspired them" or "God appeared to them", because that obviates the need to even bother with a scientific proof of God.)

 

[Michael]

Here's a point I find somewhat interesting.

Let's assume some distant time in which scientists find some strange statistical signal indicating some EM field/Quantum mechanical evidence of "God".

My question is: How did the ancient israelites know this such that they could found a religion that is extremely well defined and codified so perfectly?

What I find interesting about the concept of one day "proving" God's existence is that it doesn't really explain how some people claim to know of God while others can't find him using every conceivable method available to humanity over the course of several millenia.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist (but being an atheist I fail to see any evidence that he does, but I can't make a universal negative claim), but my bigger question is: if one does one day find out God exists using some super advanced technology that can tease out a tiny signal in a universe of noise: how did the people who originally told us all about God and what he Commanded know all this stuff about Him?

(And please don't say "God inspired them" or "God appeared to them", because that obviates the need to even bother with a scientific proof of God.)

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

Laboratory experiments have already demonstrated that an externally generated EM field, properly directed into the appropriate areas of the brain, can directly effect the thoughts and experiences of human beings.

In other words, I have already provided empirical evidence that there is a tangible, physical way for God/The EM Universe to manifest into human thoughts and experiences, right here, right now.

 

[mzungu]

In other words, I have already provided empirical evidence that there is a tangible, physical way for God/The EM Universe to manifest into human thoughts and experiences, right here, right now.

WRONG! All you have shown is that the brain can be influenced by EM; The same way a bullet travelling at 2000fps can affect the brain were it to collide with it!

Now show me evidence of God's whereabouts, God's composition. I want testable evidence. In Short I want Empirical evidence!

So far you have failed miserably to give any evidence. Saying so does not make it so.

Oh boy these creationists know as much about how science as my dog knows physics!

 

[Michael]

WRONG! All you have shown is that the brain can be influenced by EM; The same way a bullet travelling at 2000fps can affect the brain were it to collide with it!

Even were that true (were it actually destructive), it would still be WAY more than you can do with multiple mythical forms of mainstream matter and energy! I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Dark stuff doesn't do ANYTHING to ANYTHING, not even a human brain.

Now show me evidence of God's whereabouts, God's composition. I want testable evidence. In Short I want Empirical evidence!

So far you have failed miserably to give any evidence. Saying so does not make it so.

The fact you wish to remain in pure denial is no skin off my nose. You can't get mythical forms of matter and energy to do anything to anything in a real experiment, but EM fields are guaranteed to influence plasma and they've already been shown to have an effect on human thought.

Oh boy these creationists know as much about how science as my dog knows physics!

I'll bet your dog understands the difference between real food and real EM fields and "dark dog food" that fails to show up in his bowl!

 

[mzungu]

The fact you wish to remain in pure denial is no skin off my nose. You can't get mythical forms of matter and energy to do anything to anything in a real experiment, but EM fields are guaranteed to influence plasma and they've already been shown to have an effect on human thought.

WOW! I asked this question which was based on your line of argument in your question and all you did was give me a totally unrelated to my question answer: Now show me evidence of God's whereabouts, God's composition. I want testable evidence. In Short I want Empirical evidence!

So far you have failed miserably to give any evidence. Saying so does not make it so.

I ask you again to give me evidence based on my question!

I'll bet your dog understands the difference between real food and real EM fields and "dark dog food" that fails to show up in his bowl!

OH BROTHER

Since you have failed to give a straight answer to any of my questions I shall as of now cease to debate with you!

 

[Michael]

WOW! I asked this question which was based on your line of argument in your question and all you did was give me a totally unrelated to my question answer: Now show me evidence of God's whereabouts, God's composition.

According to any "pantheistic" theory, God *IS* every physical thing we can touch, taste, smell, and experiment with in a lab. There is nothing that exists that isn't COMPOSED of elements that God/The Universe is composed of. Do you even understand the concept of pantheism when you ask for me to describe God's "composition" and location to you? What else could God be in pantheism *OTHER* than everything that exists in nature?

I want testable evidence. In Short I want Empirical evidence!

No other kind of evidence is possible. Just out of curiosity, what did you say "dark energy" and 'dark matter' are made of? Where can I go to get some?

So far you have failed miserably to give any evidence. Saying so does not make it so.

Actually, so far you've refused to even deal with any of the evidence. I haven't heard a peep out of you in reference to all those 'circuits in space' papers and books that I provided you with. I haven't heard *ANYONE* come up with an alternative to life and/or intelligent design when explaining all those circuits in space.

I ask you again to give me evidence based on my question!

Your "questions" about composition and location aren't even logical questions in reference to pantheism! Holy Cow. Talk about pure denial of concept. I've seen people try to dance around the key points of a theory before, but this is absurd. God *IS* the physical universe in any pantheistic theory. God *IS* everywhere that we can observe in pantheistic theory. Do you grasp the basic concept of pantheism, yes or no?

OH BROTHER

Since you have failed to give a straight answer to any of my questions I shall as of now cease to debate with you!

Oh brother is right. Whereas I have handed you a 100% empirical theory of God/The Universe, one that precludes anything OTHER THAN empirical evidence from being considered, you can't even describe where dark matter or dark energy come from. You can't tell me how to get some "dark" stuff to play with in a lab, whereas you can find some "God" in my theory anywhere and everywhere you look! If you want to "experiment" with God in pantheism, you can pick up an ordinary pencil (or anything else) and play. In your supposedly "rock solid" belief system "dark" stuff controls the universe and you have no idea where I can find some "dark" stuff to play with in a lab. Notice a *GIANT* empirical problem in your logic and your supposedly "rock solid" claims?

If you're going to deal with this topic rather than run from it, you best start by defining the term 'empirical' and show me some 'empirical' evidence for 'dark energy', not simply evidence of "acceleration" based on some personal interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Even if I grant you that "acceleration happens", what *EMPIRICAL* evidence can you provide that "dark energy did it"?

 

[mzungu]

According to any "pantheistic" theory, God *IS* every physical thing we can touch, taste, smell, and experiment with in a lab. There is nothing that exists that isn't COMPOSED of elements that God/The Universe is composed of. Do you even understand the concept of pantheism when you ask for me to describe God's "composition" and location to you? What else could God be in pantheism *OTHER* than everything that exists in nature?

OK thanks for clearing that up because as of now I will pray for forgiveness from my coffee mug all the way to ants and the chillies I use on my food

No other kind of evidence is possible. Just out of curiosity, what did you say "dark energy" and 'dark matter' are made of? Where can I go to get some?

I never claimed it exists. It is hypothesised to exist and that is why SCIENCE is searching for it. If it is shown to exist or not makes no difference as the mere discovery of or the evidence to the contrary will only further our knowledge.

Actually, so far you've refused to even deal with any of the evidence. I haven't heard a peep out of you in reference to all those 'circuits in space' papers and books that I provided you with. I haven't heard *ANYONE* come up with an alternative to life and/or intelligent design when explaining all those circuits in space.

Sorry but I am not a member of the tin foil hat crowd!

Your "questions" about composition and location aren't even logical questions in reference to pantheism! Holy Cow. Talk about pure denial of concept. I've seen people try to dance around the key points of a theory before, but this is absurd. God *IS* the physical universe in any pantheistic theory. God *IS* everywhere that we can observe in pantheistic theory. Do you grasp the basic concept of pantheism, yes or no?

Pantheistic Theory? There is no such theory. Theories explain the facts and evidences and there is nothing more than suppositions and philosophical waffle regarding pantheism.

Oh brother is right. Whereas I have handed you a 100% empirical theory of God/The Universe, one that precludes anything OTHER THAN empirical evidence from being considered, you can't even describe where dark matter or dark energy come from. You can't tell me how to get some "dark" stuff to play with in a lab, whereas you can find some "God" in my theory anywhere and everywhere you look! If you want to "experiment" with God in pantheism, you can pick up an ordinary pencil (or anything else) and play. In your supposedly "rock solid" belief system "dark" stuff controls the universe and you have no idea where I can find some "dark" stuff to play with in a lab. Notice a *GIANT* empirical problem in your logic and your supposedly "rock solid" claims?

Please take the time to learn what the meaning of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE means before you make such remarks. I know Americans are fond of changing the English language but Empirical Evidence is a universally defined scientific term.

If you're going to deal with this topic rather than run from it, you best start by defining the term 'empirical' and show me some 'empirical' evidence for 'dark energy', not simply evidence of "acceleration" based on some personal interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Even if I grant you that "acceleration happens", what *EMPIRICAL* evidence can you provide that "dark energy did it"?

What is it about the following sentence that you do not understand?: Science is searching for evidence of Dark energy, for it has not yet discovered what it is and thus no one knows yet.

 

[GA777]

The great+smart design proves the existance of a great and smart designer.

 

[Michael]

OK thanks for clearing that up because as of now I will pray for forgiveness from my coffee mug all the way to ants and the chillies I use on my food

I'm sure some gratitude for the food would suffice.

[/b]I never claimed it exists.

You did say that current BB theory was "rock solid". Would you like to rescind that claim, or at least explain what exactly is "solid" about it?

It is hypothesised to exist and that is why SCIENCE is searching for it.

Likewise God is hypothesized to exist and that is why SCIENTISTS are searching for God. It seems that you too will have "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) as long as someone slaps the label "science" to the side of the concept. You don't even seem to be the least concerned that SUSY theory seems to be going down in flames.

If it is shown to exist or not makes no difference as the mere discovery of or the evidence to the contrary will only further our knowledge.

How has that "evidence to the contrary" that we've seen thus far affected your 'rock solid' statement?

Sorry but I am not a member of the tin foil hat crowd!

Huh? In other words, Nobel prize be damned, you haven't even bothered to read Alfven's work on MHD theory, or circuits in space, so really we have nothing to talk about. Is that about how it goes down?

Pantheistic Theory? There is no such theory. Theories explain the facts and evidences and there is nothing more than suppositions and philosophical waffle regarding pantheism.

Ok, I'll take the wrap on that one. Even still, what the heck are you hoping to achieve by asking me about location and composition questions in relationship to pantheism?

Please take the time to learn what the meaning of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE means before you make such remarks. I know Americans are fond of changing the English language but Empirical Evidence is a universally defined scientific term.

Awhile ago, you seemed to think you had empirical evidence to support BB theory. If that is true, you've never provided any. Like I said, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that term.

What is it about the following sentence that you do not understand?: Science is searching for evidence of Dark energy, for it has not yet discovered what it is and thus no one knows yet.

I love how you'll just ignore the fact that the very same argument applies to the topic of God. And you really think Lambda-SUSY FAILED TO MATERIALIZE theory isn't a "religion"?

315 Physicists Report Failure In Search for Supersymmetry - NYTimes.com

Notice that this article was written in 1993.

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1377032?ln=en
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1377324?ln=en

Guess what? More and more physicists keep reporting a failure in the search for supersymmetry over the years, but that has NEVER once stopped astronomers from pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it!

arXiv.org Search

If that isn't absolute and pure "faith" in the unseen, what is? Nearly 20 years of pure laboratory failure and not once has that deterred a single mainstream astronomer from claiming some SUSY particle did it.

 

[sandwiches]

The great+smart design proves the existance of a great and smart designer.

The cold, dark, empty, and hostile design proves the existence of a cold, dark, empty, and hostile designer.

Am I doing it right?

 

[Michael]

The cold, dark, empty, and hostile design proves the existence of a cold, dark, empty, and hostile designer.

Am I doing it right?

I think you're doing it right. Fortunately the universe I live in isn't cold, dark, empty or particularly hostile.

 

[GA777]

The cold, dark, empty, and hostile design proves the existence of a cold, dark, empty, and hostile designer.

Am I doing it right?

You didnt understand my point.
And there is no such design.You need to try harder next time.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I think you're doing it right. Fortunately the universe I live in isn't cold, dark, empty or particularly hostile.

Yes, it is. You are just sheltered from it by a series of fortunate events.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it is. You are just sheltered from it by a series of fortunate events.

You mean "planned events".

 

[GA777]

You still didnt get the point.Without this design,there could be no life.And this design is All this complexity on earth,in the earth,the complexity of humans and of the universe.1 minute change and life would be impossible to exist.All this of course is a coincindence and the result of chance and luck.

 

[sandwiches]

I think you're doing it right. Fortunately the universe I live in isn't cold, dark, empty or particularly hostile.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to human life in that its average temperature 2.725 degrees Kelvin and has no matter or usable energy. And its average brightness is around apparent magnitude 30 or more.

Yep. Empty, cold, dark, and hostile to human life, like I said.

You didnt understand my point.
And there is no such design.You need to try harder next time.

That's the universe, bro. You don't have to accept it but that's what the universe is. It's beautiful, I think, but it doesn't change any of its other attributes.

 

[sandwiches]

You still didnt get the point.Without this design,there could be no life.

Sure there could be. In fact, there is.

And this design is All this complexity on earth,in the earth,the complexity of humans and of the universe.1 minute change and life would be impossible to exist.

Nope.

All this of course is a coincindence and the result of chance and luck.

Not a coincidence, but chance, yes.