An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Only that this "awareness" is not in any way, shape or form is comparable to what we/I would understand as "awareness."

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

Well then, the next logical question is how do you define awareness, and how does that definition explain the behaviors of single celled organisms?

(Or, alternatively if it is, then awareness is trivial.)

Pervasive yes, trivial no.

Yes, you are. If I simply reject your terminology ("God"/"Awareness") you are dead in the water.

Likewise if you deny/reject my terminology about electrons, MHD theory, GR theory, whatever the topic, there's no way to communicate with you on the subject. So what?

It is not even 'standard theology' (if any such beast even exists!).

Actually, it's 100% compatible with what Jesus taught which is why I included one of his quotes in the opening sentences. Who gets to decide what is "standard theology' anyway? This isn't a "religious' theory by the way, it's an 'empirical physics' theory that has nothing at all to do with "religion" and can be discussed in a religiously neutral way. It can be discussed purely in terms of atheism/theism and physics.

 

[Michael]

We are part of the universe. We are aware of ourselves and the universe. We are the universe being aware of itself.

Are we god?

What marvelous questions. We are certainly one IN God.

 

[sandwiches]

As an analogy, Yes.
In reality, Yes.

And that is what I think the OP aims to show.
__________________

So, everything in the universe is alive because it's part of the universe, which itself is alive.

Well, I think we're stretching the definition of "living" beyond what it's normally used for and all it does is water down its usefulness and its meaning as the living part would be implicit when talking about anything that exists and we could simply go back to using the word "living" the way we normally do. Then, we're back to where we started and, yet, there is still no empirical evidence that the universe has a consciousness.

 

[sandwiches]

What marvelous questions. We are certainly one IN God.

You didn't answer the question. If we're part of the universe and aware, we're the universe being aware of itself. Are we god, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

So, everything in the universe is alive because it's part of the universe, which itself is alive.

Yes.

Well, I think we're stretching the definition of "living" beyond what it's normally used for and all it does is water down its usefulness and its meaning as the living part would be implicit when talking about anything that exists and we could simply go back to using the word "living" the way we normally do. Then, we're back to where we started and, yet, there is still no empirical evidence that the universe has a consciousness.

Well, how would you account for the following:

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

Does a single celled organism even have a 'brain'?

Links to Spirituality Found in the Brain - Yahoo! News

Why does an individual's sense of "self" change toward an identification with the "universe as a whole" when physical changes are made in the brain?

Then of course there is evidence of organic materials galore that long predate this solar system.

BBC News - Space rock contains organic molecular feast

 

[Michael]

You didn't answer the question. If we're part of the universe and aware, we're the universe being aware of itself. Are we god, yes or no?

That's a bit like asking if a bacteria inside my body is me isn't it? If I identify "myself" strictly with a physical form or a physical connection, sure, that bacteria is a part of me physically. If I identify with "awareness" however, it's a whole different question.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes.

Well, how would you account for the following:

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

Does a single celled organism even have a 'brain'?

Links to Spirituality Found in the Brain - Yahoo! News

Why does an individual's sense of "self" change toward an identification with the "universe as a whole" when physical changes are made in the brain?

Then of course there is evidence of organic materials galore that long predate this solar system.

BBC News - Space rock contains organic molecular feast

I honestly fail to see how amoeba eating habits, humans' tendency to want to believe in the supernatural, or organic material in the universe is indicative of anything.

Again, do you have empirical evidence of a consciousness in the universe, yes or no?

 

[sandwiches]

Duplicate post.

 

[sandwiches]

Triplicate post.

 

[Michael]

I honestly fail to see how amoeba eating habits,

Those "habits" demonstrate that a very sophisticated sense of "awareness" can manifest in fairly "uncomplicated" circuitry. That makes sense if awareness is intrinsic to the universe itself.

humans' tendency to want to believe in the supernatural,

This is called an "assumption" on your part. This theory suggests God is not "supernatural" in any way.

or organic material in the universe is indicative of anything.

It's indicative of an ancient universe full of life.

Again, do you have empirical evidence of a consciousness in the universe, yes or no?

Yes. The "circuitry" in space is well defined and widespread. Humans report having experiences with a macroscopic consciousness in the present moment, and have done so since the dawn of recorded human civilization. The answer is therefore yes.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

(Deleted. Same content as #193. Blame the database.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

(Deleted. Same content as #193. Blame the database.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

Well then, the next logical question is how do you define awareness, and how does that definition explain the behaviors of single celled organisms?

The question as to how to exactly define awareness is a tricky one, and generally opens whole truckloads of cans of worms. What I don't understand is, how it would follow that I would have to explain the behaviour of single celled organisms with my definition of awareness. I don't think I have to.

Pervasive yes, trivial no.

Very trivial in fact. What keeps you from ascribing awareness to motion sensors (is that the right word?), single celled organisms, plants, TV sets, ant hills, you name it? It is trivial. (But I give you that, it would be pervasive as well.)

And it is nowhere near what is normally understood by awareness, consciousness, etc especially from a theistic standpoint. (From an atheist's, materialist's, and the like standpoint - maybe.)

Likewise if you deny/reject my terminology about electrons, MHD theory, GR theory, whatever the topic, there's no way to communicate with you on the subject. So what?

(As an aside, why the heck would you want to communicate with me about electrons, MHD theory, GR theory anyway?? While I am not totally clueless when it comes to scientific matter, I am not exactly a hot-shot either. "So what?" So nothing.)

I think we are communicating quite well, albeit not so much over scientific issues.

Actually, it's 100% compatible with what Jesus taught which is why I included one of his quotes in the opening sentences.

Oh, pleeeease. What isn't compatible with what Jesus taught?

*runs for cover*

Who gets to decide what is "standard theology' anyway?

Now that is a brilliant question. But to give an answer here: Everyone in general and nobody in particular, roughly.

This isn't a "religious' theory by the way, it's an 'empirical physics' theory that has nothing at all to do with "religion" and can be discussed in a religiously neutral way. It can be discussed purely in terms of atheism/theism and physics.

No, atheism/theism has little to do with it, I feel. Because of the very thing that I pointed out in my previous post; it is not even standard theology. Read: When I, for instance, say that I don't believe in God, I don't mean the universe by it. And I think the vast majority of people (a) would not understand it that way and (b) would not mean the universe either when making similar statements.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

(Deleted. Same content as #193. Blame the database.)

 

[sandwiches]

Those "habits" demonstrate that a very sophisticated sense of "awareness" can manifest in fairly "uncomplicated" circuitry. That makes sense of awareness is intrinsic to the universe itself.

I never argued that complex behavior can't arise from simple systems.

This is called an "assumption" on your part. This theory suggests God is not "supernatural" in any way.

First off, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Second, the article you linked does indicate that humans have a tendency to believe the supernatural.

It's indicative of an ancient universe full of life.

Again, I never argued that the universe is young or that it couldn't be full of life. By the way, we don't know that the universe is indeed full of life, just yet. So, don't jump the gun on that one until we find it.

Yes. The "circuitry" in space is well defined and widespread. Human report having experiences with a macroscopic consciousness in the present moment, and have do so since the dawn of recorded human civilization. The answer is therefore yes.

Finally an answer. So, your evidence that the universe is god is anecdotes. Got it. Not empirical. So, your answer is, therefore, a resound 'no.'

 

[sandwiches]

Duplicate post

 

[Spacewyrm]

Those "habits" demonstrate that a very sophisticated sense of "awareness" can manifest in fairly "uncomplicated" circuitry. That makes sense if awareness is intrinsic to the universe itself.

It is an assumption on your part that complex hunting behavior in amemoas is indicitive of awareness. If I were so inclined, I could probably build a robot that had behavior exactly as complicated as these single-celled bugs. Is my robot then aware?

It's indicative of an ancient universe full of life.

Organic compounds in space don't really indicate a universe filled with life, though it does raise the odds somewhat, I suppose. Then again, that doesn't really go one way or the other for your God = Universe hypothesis; organic compounds wound up on Earth, and the Earth is a big space rock that was formed from a bunch of smaller space rocks that formed from smaller space rocks, that formed from space dust that was released by some exploding star(s), so we might expect to see organic compounds in elsewhere in space, even according to conventional cosmology (I don't know how you plasma cosmology guys figure planets formed, but I figure I could make an analogous argument there, that even is an electric universe, we could expect to see organic compounds without the Universe needing to be aware).

Also, I don't see how that would say anything in particular about the ancient-ness of the universe.

Yes. The "circuitry" in space is well defined and widespread. Humans report having experiences with a macroscopic consciousness in the present moment, and have done so since the dawn of recorded human civilization. The answer is therefore yes.

The "circuitry" in space is well defined and widespread, huh? I don't think many people here would agree with you on that...

 

[sandwiches]

Again, triplicate post

 

[Michael]

The question as to how to exactly define awareness is a tricky one, and generally opens whole truckloads of cans of worms.

Nobody ever said science would be "simple".

What I don't understand is, how it would follow that I would have to explain the behaviour of single celled organisms with my definition of awareness. I don't think I have to.

You don't "have" to do anything, but if you can't provide any scientific definition of awareness or an explanation of awareness that fits the observations of awareness in nature then I'd have to go with any theory that did. Awareness IMO is an intrinsic part of nature and it can and does manifest itself through every living thing.

Very trivial in fact. What keeps you from ascribing awareness to motion sensors

They aren't "alive", nor do they exhibit any signs of life. Anything living is potentially a candidate for "awareness". Awareness does seem to be connected to living things.

And it is nowhere near what is normally understood by awareness, consciousness, etc especially from a theistic standpoint. (From an atheist's, materialist's, and the like standpoint - maybe.)

I don't really see awareness as being a theistic or atheistic issue. You can claim awareness is related to circuit processes, but even that gets dicey when we start talking about why single cell organisms go out of their way to eat a balanced diet.

(As an aside, why the heck would you want to communicate with me about electrons, MHD theory, GR theory anyway?? While I am not totally clueless when it comes to scientific matter, I am not exactly a hot-shot either. "So what?" So nothing.)

All I'm noting is that for any two individuals to communicate, we need to agree upon terms and make some effort at communication. The topic is virtually irrelevant. If I was talking about a magnetic rope, I'd have to use terms related to MHD theory, and you'd either have to accept them or not. If not, we wouldn't have much to talk about.

I think we are communicating quite well, albeit not so much over scientific issues.

Well, we'll see how things go. So far we only seem to be scratching the surface.

Oh, pleeeease. What isn't compatible with what Jesus taught?

*runs for cover*

Sure. The second sentence in my post is a direct quote from Jesus. He also said that the kingdom of heaven is found within. What did he mean by these statements in your opinion?

Now that is a brilliant question. But to give an answer here: Everyone in general and nobody in particular, roughly.

That's not really much help actually. My point is that "religious belief" does and has changed over time. It can continue to change over time. You can't simply assume this (or any) theory is wrong based upon a popular opinion. Just because you (or someone else) perceives God to be "supernatural" doesn't mean he is in fact 'supernatural'. You don't even believe God exists, so your use of the term is simply used in a derogatory manner and irrelevant to this or any other empirical theory.

No, atheism/theism has little to do with it, I feel. Because of the very thing that I pointed out in my previous post; it is not even standard theology.

I never suggested we were discussing "standard theology". I was discussing "empirical physics". I have no desire to fixate overtly on the "theology" because it is by definition an "empirical" theory that is unrelated to any particular "theology".

Read: When I, for instance, say that I don't believe in God, I don't mean the universe by it. And I think the vast majority of people (a) would not understand it that way and (b) would not mean the universe either when making similar statements.

But once it has in fact been explained to you, you must then choose again to 'believe in God" or not. By definition, the "not" option would imply that you simply "lack belief' that the universe is "aware", not that it "exists".

 

[Michael]

I never argued that complex behavior can't arise from simple systems.

We still need to understand and explain why that happens. This theory attempts to do that by suggesting that awareness is intrinsic to nature and can "manifest" inside many different "forms".

First off, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Second, the article you linked does indicate that humans have a tendency to believe the supernatural.

Most theists I've talked to simply do not know how to even begin to physically describe God. They don't even try to do that in my experience. They simply "believe" that God is "real" and they leave it at that. It's not that they necessarily reject any specific physical description, they simply don't even know where to start and probably haven't heard a "plausible" option in the first place.

God doesn't "have to be" anything other than "natural". I do not personally believe in anything 'supernatural' and yet I do believe in God. Whatever definition of the term of "God" that we agree upon, it has to begin with the understanding I'm not discussing anything "supernatural". I don't really care if other individuals believe in or do not believe in "supernatural" entities. This empirical theory has nothing whatsoever to do with anything "supernatural".

Again, I never argued that the universe is young or that it couldn't be full of life. By the way, we don't know that the universe is indeed full of life, just yet. So, don't jump the gun on that one until we find it.

Fair enough. Keep in mind however that the universe is ancient and for all we know life has always existed in it.

Finally an answer. So, your evidence that the universe is god is anecdotes. Got it. Not empirical. So, your answer is, therefore, a resound 'no.'

Er, no. My evidence is accumulated on several levels, including the fact that humans can and do claim to interact with a being they call 'God', in the present moment, and consider it to be "real" and valid. That is completely congruent with this scientific theory and is in fact a "prediction" of this theory. All theories are graded on how well the predictions match reality. In this case, the "prediction" of human interaction with a higher level of consciousness is verified by empirical observation. Your personal subjective experiences are irrelevant as are mine. I do however see that other humans make such a claim just as this theory 'predicts".

Likewise this theory "predicts" that electrical currents connect objects in space. Indeed we find direct empirical evidence in modern satellite images of exactly such currents. Again, the theory successfully predicts something that has and can be empirically verified.

Now I'm not claiming that the theory is "proven true" at this point in time. I am simply simply noting that it is an empirical theory, it can be "tested" in the standard empirical manner, and it makes very specific predictions that have in fact been shown to be accurate.