An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

Look up research on the "God Helmet" and there is tons of other work being done in regards to the psychology of belief.

Been there, done that. We talked all about it in the first thread on this topic by the way. It's one of the pieces of 'evidence' I used to suggest that external EM fields (from an electric universe) are able to have a tangible effect on human thought.

Most humans by nature, tend to hold onto certain core beliefs, even in the absence of evidence or evidence pointing the other direction.

Yes, I see that 4 billion light year long structure that points us away from Lambda-CDM, and those failures of SUSY theory at LHC, but apparently the astronomers keep turning their head away from the evidence that they find "objectionable" (presumably to their preconceived ideas). Even so called 'scientists' engage themselves in that behavior.

It is very uncomfortable (psychologically) to acknowledge a long held belief was wrong, and a practice of rationalization will take place to secure that belief (ignoring facts as being wrong, making non-verifiable evidence rock solid, etc. etc.).

In the case of BB theory, they keep inserting more ad hoc elements (most recently dark energy) to prop up their otherwise falsified beliefs. The ad hoc entities simply multiply, along with the complexity of the rationalizations.

Have you ever known someone who holds onto a belief that goes against logic; The Kennedy assasination is one example. Despite massive evidence that points to one guy, most Americans still believe there is a conspiracy and they bend and twist the evidence to make it fit there belief. Just one small example of denying reality, because it is more painful (psychologically) to accept you were wrong.

You're effectively suggesting that the vast majority of humans that have experienced God in their lives are "twisting" something, vs the 4-5 percent of the population that labels themselves an "atheist". Why?

I don't see how we can begin a conversation about 'evidence' and what you consider to be "objective evidence". What 'objective evidence" do you believe supports BB theory? If I had some idea of what kind of 'evidence" you'll accept, I might be able to proceed to provide you with ample evidence. Without some definition of "objective evidence" however, the 'twisting of evidence' can't even begin.

 

[bhsmte]

Been there, done that. We talked all about it in the first thread on this topic by the way. It's one of the pieces of 'evidence' I used to suggest that external EM fields (from an electric universe) are able to have a tangible effect on human thought.



Yes, I see that 4 billion light year long structure that points us away from Lambda-CDM, and those failures of SUSY theory at LHC, but apparently the astronomers keep turning their head away from the evidence that they find "objectionable" (presumably to their preconceived ideas). Even so called 'scientists' engage themselves in that behavior.





In the case of BB theory, they keep inserting more ad hoc elements (most recently dark energy) to prop up their otherwise falsified beliefs. The ad hoc entities simply multiply, along with the complexity of the rationalizations.



You're effectively suggesting that the vast majority of humans that have experienced God in their lives are "twisting" something, vs the 4-5 percent of the population that labels themselves an "atheist". Why?

I don't see how we can begin a conversation about 'evidence' and what you consider to be "objective evidence". What 'objective evidence" do you believe supports BB theory? If I had some idea of what kind of 'evidence" you'll accept, I might be able to proceed to provide you with ample evidence. Without some definition of "objective evidence" however, the 'twisting of evidence' can't even begin.

I am suggesting that individual psychological needs play the major role in one who believes in something, based on faith and not evidence.

 

[Michael]

I am suggesting that individual psychological needs play the major role in one who believes in something, based on faith and not evidence.

I would agree that it *can* work that way, but I wouldn't necessarily assume it works that way for all people on all topics.

We still need to define 'evidence' in some cosmological and physical sense here. If I understood what you consider to be 'evidence' of BB theory, I might be able to provide you with similar "evidence" of God. What is 'evidence' in your opinion, and what makes it 'objective' evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

I would agree that it *can* work that way, but I wouldn't necessarily assume it works that way for all people on all topics.

We still need to define 'evidence' in some cosmological and physical sense here. If I understood what you consider to be 'evidence' of BB theory, I might be able to provide you with similar "evidence" of God. What is 'evidence' in your opinion, and what makes it 'objective' evidence?

What is your objective evidence of God?

 

[Michael]

What is your objective evidence of God?

Like I said, we first need to define the term "evidence", and come to some agreement as to what constitutes 'objective' evidence in cosmology.

If you can explain to me what type of "objective evidence" that you believe supports current BB theory, I can explain what kind of objective evidence supports panentheism. Until we can agree on what constitutes *evidence* in terms of various competing cosmology theories, it's not really possible to proceed.

 

[bhsmte]

Been there, done that. We talked all about it in the first thread on this topic by the way. It's one of the pieces of 'evidence' I used to suggest that external EM fields (from an electric universe) are able to have a tangible effect on human thought.



Yes, I see that 4 billion light year long structure that points us away from Lambda-CDM, and those failures of SUSY theory at LHC, but apparently the astronomers keep turning their head away from the evidence that they find "objectionable" (presumably to their preconceived ideas). Even so called 'scientists' engage themselves in that behavior.



In the case of BB theory, they keep inserting more ad hoc elements (most recently dark energy) to prop up their otherwise falsified beliefs. The ad hoc entities simply multiply, along with the complexity of the rationalizations.



You're effectively suggesting that the vast majority of humans that have experienced God in their lives are "twisting" something, vs the 4-5 percent of the population that labels themselves an "atheist". Why?

I don't see how we can begin a conversation about 'evidence' and what you consider to be "objective evidence". What 'objective evidence" do you believe supports BB theory? If I had some idea of what kind of 'evidence" you'll accept, I might be able to proceed to provide you with ample evidence. Without some definition of "objective evidence" however, the 'twisting of evidence' can't even begin.

Forgot to add:

Why is it, that the US is the only major nation that has over 50% of the population (I believe it is about 85%) that say they believe in a personal God? IMO, the answer is that it is very much politically unacceptable in the US to be deemed a non-believer. Could you imagine a politician (no matter how qualified) winning an election if he claimed to be a non-believer? The other scary piece, is around 50% of the US population also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, which substantiates the culture in which people simply believe what they were told when they were young and never question it.

IMO, that 85% number is actually much lower, because people feel it is the right thing to say they believe, when a much larger number actually don't.

In regards to BB evidence, I would rely much more on the discoveries of science than I would on the flawed writings of the bible or someone's personal feeling they get in believing (that can be explained away easily by psychology). We can all believe anything if we have a psychological need to and our brains will work overtime to rationalize that belief. You see, religion has had to adapt their story and beliefs over time because of what science has discovered, but science has not required any adjustments based on religious beliefs.

Are there gaps we don't yet know, absolutely and science is quick to point those out. Consider how many gaps have been closed in just the last 100 years and you can bet, those gaps will continue to close even more and will cause religion to continue to adapt its story.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said, we first need to define the term "evidence", and come to some agreement as to what constitutes 'objective' evidence in cosmology.

If you can explain to me what type of "objective evidence" that you believe supports current BB theory, I can explain what kind of objective evidence supports panentheism. Until we can agree on what constitutes *evidence* in terms of various competing cosmology theories, it's not really possible to proceed.

Let me put it this way; use the same evidence standard one would judge someone in a court. Evidence that a reasonable, unbiased, logical person can say is what most likely happened or didn't happen.

 

[Michael]

Forgot to add:

Why is it, that the US is the only major nation that has over 50% of the population (I believe it is about 85%) that say they believe in a personal God? IMO, the answer is that it is very much politically unacceptable in the US to be deemed a non-believer.

That "rationalization" sure sounds great and all, but how can you be sure that it's not you just "twisting the data" to suit yourself?

Could you imagine a politician (no matter how qualified) winning an election if he claimed to be a non-believer?

Don't you figure that might have something to do with the *actual* beliefs of the majority?

The other scary piece, is around 50% of the US population also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old,

I've heard that figure bantered around a bit, but where does it come from? The largest sect of "Christians" (Catholics) believe in an ancient earth and embrace evolutionary theory as I do.

which substantiates the culture in which people simply believe what they were told when they were young and never question it.

I'd have to give you *some* latitude on that point, but again it sure sounds like a convenient rationalization to me. Many Christians like myself go through all sorts of changes in beliefs over the years, even embracing atheism for awhile, yet still remain or return to being "Christians".

IMO, that 85% number is actually much lower, because people feel it is the right thing to say they believe, when a much larger number actually don't.

Here's where things get really subjective, really fast. You can 'rationalize' away all you like, but that 85 percent figure remains. If you don't really have any empirical or physical evidence to support your position, you're pretty much limited to "pure subjective speculation" as far as I can tell. It's a bit like a guy that's never seen a Kangaroo *assuming* that nobody has ever seen one, no matter what they say.

In regards to BB evidence, I would rely much more on the discoveries of science than I would on the flawed writings of the bible or someone's personal feeling they get in believing (that can be explained away easily by psychology). We can all believe anything if we have a psychological need to and our brains will work overtime to rationalize that belief. You see, religion has had to adapt their story and beliefs over time because of what science has discovered, but science has not required any adjustments based on religious beliefs.

In your opinion, what exactly did science "discover" about the universe that supports current scientific cosmology theory and how exactly did they 'discover' it? I'll need a little more than a "science is better than religion' slogan to work with.

Are there gaps we don't yet know, absolutely and science is quick to point those out.

It's pretty quick to create "new gaps" too, at least in terms of 'dark energy' and inflation and exotic matter theory. Over 95 percent of current "scientific" theory is composed of "hypothetical' entities that have never been seen in the lab.

Consider how many gaps have been closed in just the last 100 years and you can bet, those gaps will continue to close even more and will cause religion to continue to adapt its story.

You should see how fast SUSY theory proponents have changed their stories in terms of the energy state of SUSY particles in the past couple of years. Is it a 'huge sin' (sign of a problem) for science to change their opinions based upon newer data, or are only 'religions' supposed to never change in your opinion? I fail to see why you would 'rebuke' religion for doing what scientists do on a regular basis. How do you figure that Lamba-CDM proponents came up with "dark energy"?

 

[Michael]

Let me put it this way; use the same evidence standard one would judge someone in a court. Evidence that a reasonable, unbiased, logical person can say is what most likely happened or didn't happen.

So lets see you show some of 'court level' evidence that supports the 'scientific' view of the cosmos.

How do you know a 'big bang' is what "most likely" happened?

 

[CabVet]

So lets see you show some of 'court level' evidence that supports the 'scientific' view of the cosmos.

How do you know a 'big bang' is what "most likely" happened?

Of course, you want that before you present any evidence for God, right?

 

[Michael]

Of course, you want that before you present any evidence for God, right?

We need to agree upon some "standard" of evidence in cosmology that doesn't put him personally in the judgement seat, while I play the role of lawyer and watch him subjectively toss out various ideas on a personal whim.

I'd be fine with a completely *empirical* comparison of current "scientific' theory vs panentheism, but Lambda-CDM doesn't have a prayer's chance in pagan hades of surviving that kind of scrutiny. It wouldn't even be a fair fight in term of pure empirical physics.

I have to at least understand his subjective concept of 'evidence' so I know how to proceed. What court of law would accept the claim that "dark energy did it"?

 

[CabVet]

What court of law would accept the claim that "dark energy did it"?

Do you have any examples of someone claiming that?

 

[bhsmte]

Of course, you want that before you present any evidence for God, right?

This is the double standard that is utilized by believers. They will look for any slight gap in scientific discovery, yet don't want to get into the large gaps/contradictions with evidence of God.

It comes down to credibility. Which is more credible; what science has discovered over the years (which by the way, are things we all enjoy in our everyday lives and take advantage of) or what a book states, that was written during mythical times, with many authors unknown, writings not completed until 50-100 years after events supposedly happened and in the end a group of people decided what would be in this book, what would be deleted from the book and what would be added to aid the storyline.

From a historical standpoint, the bible would be tossed out as credible in a court of law, because even biblical scholars (most of which are Christian) agree the book is not reliable from a historical standpoint. Now, you look at science and the rigoris method it utilizes to gain credibility as a comparison and where would an objective judge have to lean when it comes to what is credible?

Again, religion has had no choice but to adjust its story over time because of scientific discoveries and I don't think too many scientists are turning to the bible to verify their findings.

I will say again, to believe the Christian or other personal God story a person must selectively cherry pick when they choose to open up their ears and learn about the reality of the world we live in. I must say, they do it well.

 

[Michael]

This is the double standard that is utilized by believers. They will look for any slight gap in scientific discovery, yet don't want to get into the large gaps/contradictions with evidence of God.

Oh, I don't mind comparing "gaps", nor do I mind comparing hypothetical entity counts with you. I still can't let you personally play the role of judge, jury etc, without *at least* having some agreement on what constitutes 'evidence' for something (anything).

It comes down to credibility. Which is more credible; what science has discovered over the years (which by the way, are things we all enjoy in our everyday lives and take advantage of) or what a book states,

I have no idea why you keep fixating on one particular *book* since I have no personal intention of doing so as we start to compare various cosmology theories. If you intend to use that argument with me, forget it. Unless you have some objection, I intend to stick to pure physics when comparing panentheism to Lambda-CDM. I have no idea why you even keep bringing up one particular religious text.

Again, religion has had no choice but to adjust its story over time because of scientific discoveries and I don't think too many scientists are turning to the bible to verify their findings.

Um, I assume you didn't realize that big bang proponents had to change their stories based on those same supposed 'discoveries'? You seem fine when "scientists" change their mind and *invent* hypothetical entities on a whim, yet you scream bloody murder when religions change? Talk about double standards! If you never allow religion to 'evolve' like science, that's *your* problem, not mine.

I will say again, to believe the Christian or other personal God story a person must selectively cherry pick when they choose to open up their ears and learn about the reality of the world we live in. I must say, they do it well.

Likewise you seem to "cherry pick' in terms of what constitutes "evidence'. Even without defining it, you've already decided I *cannot* present you with evidence! What's up with that?

 

[Michael]

Do you have any examples of someone claiming that?

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

Care to try to support any of that nonsense in a "court of law"?

 

[CabVet]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

Care to try to support any of that nonsense in a "court of law"?

Trash it then, let's compare your hypotheses for the existence of God with the theory of evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I don't mind comparing "gaps", nor do I mind comparing hypothetical entity counts with you. I still can't let you personally play the role of judge, jury etc, without *at least* having some agreement on what constitutes 'evidence' for something (anything).



I have no idea why you keep fixating on one particular *book* since I have no personal intention of doing so as we start to compare various cosmology theories. If you intend to use that argument with me, forget it. Unless you have some objection, I intend to stick to pure physics when comparing panentheism to Lambda-CDM. I have no idea why you even keep bringing up one particular religious text.



Um, I assume you didn't realize that big bang proponents had to change their stories based on those same supposed 'discoveries'? You seem fine when "scientists" change their mind and *invent* hypothetical entities on a whim, yet you scream bloody murder when religions change? Talk about double standards! If you never allow religion to 'evolve' like science, that's *your* problem, not mine.



Likewise you seem to "cherry pick' in terms of what constitutes "evidence'. Even without defining it, you've already decided I *cannot* present you with evidence! What's up with that?

Lets start out in a basic sense.

My foundational reasoning for being agnostic is based on my observations of the world we live in (and everything in it) and that includes scientific discovery and a thorough historical analysis of the bible.

What is your foundational reasoning for being a Christian? or is it a Panentheist Christian? There are so many variances in Christian belief systems, I can't keep up with them.

 

[Michael]

Trash it then, let's compare your hypotheses for the existence of God with the theory of evolution.

It wouldn't be fair at all to attempt to compare Lambda-CDM concepts to evolutionary theory. They are completely different branches of science and the standards of what is considered 'acceptable evidence' are completely different.

It *might* actually be a more valid comparison to attempt to compare an electric God concept to EV theory however since panentheism is much closer to "pure empirical physics" than Lambda-CDM. Even still, the gaps in any "hands off" field of science like cosmology theory are bound to be much greater than any "hands on" field of physics.

Shall I begin supporting an electric universe theory by pointing out all of Kristian Birkeland's work with "cathode sun" theories?

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

 

[CabVet]

It wouldn't be fair at all to attempt to compare Lambda-CDM concepts to evolutionary theory. They are completely different branches of science and the standards of what are considered 'acceptable evidence' are completely different.

It *might* actually be a more valid comparison to attempt to compare an electric God concept to EV theory however since panentheism much closer to "pure empirical physics" than Lambda-CDM. Even still, the gaps in any "hands off" field of science like cosmology theory are bound to be much greater than any "hands on" field of physics.

Shall I begin supporting an electric universe theory by pointing out all of Kristian Birkeland's work with "cathode sun" theories?

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

Your hypothesis is only going to be as good as the ones you compare it with. If you compare it with dark matter, but you say that the dark matter hypothesis has no support, you hypothesis, well... Has none either.

 

[Michael]

Lets start out in a basic sense.

My foundational reasoning for being agnostic is based on my observations of the world we live in

I observe that the world we live in is overwhelmingly theistic. I observe that you're in the minority position.

(and everything in it) and that includes scientific discovery

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!

and a thorough historical analysis of the bible.

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.

What is your foundational reasoning for being a Christian?

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.

or is it a Panentheist Christian? There are so many variances in Christian belief systems, I can't keep up with them.

I think we should all start with the premise that my ideas and beliefs are 'unique'. I'm fine just comparing a *basic* brand of panentheism (unrelated to any specific religion) to what passes for "science" today. It's not even a fair comparison IMO. The only things I'm ascribing to the observable universe are EM fields and awareness, and even awareness shows up on Earth in a variety of forms. "God/The Universe" is completely visible in panentheism, whereas 95 percent of the universe is "dark"/invisible according to "science".