An Empirical Theory Of God

[sandwiches]

These high energy events are clear evidence of variable EM fields that are consistent with variable biological processes. The sun has a consistent 22 year cycle related to the rotation of the suns magnetic field that creates 11 year high and low cycles of solar energy output. We see variations galore even during "quiet" phases of the sun, and certainly during the sun's active phases. We observe all sorts of unusual energy exchanges between the photosphere and the heliosphere, particularly during active phases. All of these observations are consistent with macroscopic biological processes.

The emphasized phrase implies that we have observed macroscopic biological processes, which gives us a frame of reference. What macroscopic biological processes is this consistent with?

 

[Spacewyrm]

Unless your robot runs on the energy it collects, and rebuilds it's own damaged structures from the environment around it, and it's "alive", it's really only a 'replica" or "simulation" of a living process.

What is "alive"? I could make my robot run on energy it collects, and rebuild damaged structures from the environment. Maybe not with modern technology (I don't know), but the technology is certainly conceivable. In any event, I would say that the Universe, by this metric, is also not alive, even if it is aware in some fashion.

The ameboa is "alive". Once it's dead it can't be turned back on again. There an element of "life" that your robot lacks.

But my robot can die, just the same as the ameboa. If either is damaged enough it will cease to function. Perhaps we can repair a "dead" robot more easily than a dead cell, but perhaps not. If the robot is damaged enough, it may just as irreparable as the cell.

On the other hand, if being able to die is a requirement for life, how does the Universe fit this definition? Can the Universe die?

You seem to have faith that someone is going to be able to "create life' from raw chemicals.

I don't have faith that someone is going to be able to "create life" from raw chemicals. At this point, I think it may be possible to do that one day, but I'm no expert on biochemistry and I don't even know how one would go about starting to try to do something like that. However, it stands to reason that if there is nothing supernatural involved that it should be possible to figure out how the cell works and build one from scratch. Do you not agree? I thought you didn't care much for the notion of supernatural things (that's the impression I get from your responses to Lord Emsworth anyway). I wouldn't call this faith though; more like a hunch. I could be wrong, and I don't much care if I am since I don't know enough about the subject to suspect that I should be right.

Then again, I'm not sure if your 'robot' is actually alive, so maybe I just don't understand your argument very well.

Ah, well, I'm not sure if my robot is technically alive, either! And I don't blame you if you don't understand my argument, I'm not sure I do either. Well, I may have wandered a bit with the robot, but it's difficult to keep track of my arguments when a conversation is as drawn out as this.

Originally I was objecting to the notion that a single cell could be aware, based on nothing more than a rather complex feeding behavior. I don't think the robot is alive or aware, but I thought that a sufficiently complex robot could mimic the ameboa's behavior. I'm not really sure what to say about that anymore though.

It has occured to me though, that I would sooner say, at the moment, that a sufficiently complex robot could be considered alive in some fashion, before I would consder the Universe itself to be alive. I am, to put it mildly, extremely sceptical of the notion. The main thing that I have a problem with is that you don't have, just yet, anything close to a plausible mechanism, beyond the notion that it's somehow based on the supposed electrical nature of the Universe (which, itself, is something I'm not convinced of, at least to the point of accepting the electric universe theory).

Actually, I'm still not sure why you brought up the possibility of an aware ameboa in the first place. I still don't think that awareness in single cells points towards your God hypothesis, or to any sort of God in general. At the same time, a non-aware ameboa doesn't point towards atheism or to some other God besides yours.

Technically speaking "awareness" is a core component of "observation" and is therefore a primary foundation for 'science' as we understand it. We "observe" via our 'awareness' that others demonstrate a similar trait.

Yes, I think I agree with this.

We're back to those complex single cell "behaviors" of collecting specific combinations of foods. How many neural connections does a single celled organism have?

Uh, a single celled organsim has no neural connections. That's one reason I am sceptical of its potential awareness.

The complexity of these behaviors may suggest that 'awareness' is simply something that exists in nature, much like a photon or an EM field. It may even have it's one unique carrier particle for all I know. EM fields seem to be intimately related to the ability of awareness to manifest in the physical world and the ability of physical things to collect data in the physical world, but what is "awareness"? It's a very complex question.

Well, this is certainly getting out there, isn't it? Yes, it certainly is a complex question, which is why I said I wasn't trying to bring up any biological definition of it. I'm not sure there is such a thing! All I know about awareness is what I experience of it and what I observe in other creatures that seem to be aware. If we're going to go down the road of what awareness is we might be arguing here until we die! At this point, though, it just seems that calling a single cell aware is taking it too far. Then again, maybe it is. Since I'm not sure what it really means to be aware aside from myself, I'm hesitant to ascribe awareness to things without brains (or similar organs, to account for any extraterristrial life that I might consider aware, and possibly robots). And I'm wary of being tricked by a very complex machine and of the human tendency to anthropomorphize stuff (a tendency which I have fallen for quite hard in the past).

Agreed. That was original complaint about your 'robot'. It lacked 'life'.

Plasma has many properties associated with living things, hence the term 'plasma' as a matter of fact. It naturally forms "double layers" to create 'cellular separation' between various types of plasma.

How is this similar to living things? I don't think I understand what you're saying.

I think we MUST bring it up because it has a direct bearing on the discussion. I certainly don't "blame" you for bringing it up.

Well, maybe we must bring up the notion of what awareness is, but I don't even know if a biological standard for awareness exists. This seems to be fairly philosophical rather than scientific.

It seems like we're just getting to the heart of the conversation, but I need another cup of coffee. I'll up it up from here in a bit.

This is a great conversation by the way! Thanks.

Yeah, I also think it is an interesting conversation. Actually I'm somewhat sympathetic to both your search for a natural explaination of God as well as your particular theory, as it is similar to ideas I have had in the past, trying to come up with a plausibly scientific conception of God to use in a fictional story I'm writing. As well, I feel that if God exists in reality, that it is through empirical science that we can best come to understand him/her.

I am curious, do you think the Universe has always existed, or did it have a beginning? I don't have any particular point here, since I don't think a finite Universe is any less god-like than an infinite one.

BTW, do you have anything to say about that last paragraph you quoted in the first part of your post:

My point however is this: You said my robot isn't alive, but it is just as aware as the ameboa. If awareness indicates life, my robot is alive. Yet noone would call my robot alive. Very few would call the Universe alive either, because it shares none of the features of anything else on Earth we call living, as far as we can tell.

 

[Spacewyrm]

How exactly would we be sure if it "blocked religious" experiences even if it did "seem" to have a significant effect on something like 'meditation' for instance? I suppose you could look at the effect on the human brain, but someone who is trained to meditate might be able to internally recreate many aspects of the experience, a sense of peace for instance. I'm not sure how you'd grade the process in a "non subjective" way.

I do however see the logic of your experiment and it seems worthwhile, I'm just not sure how effective it would be, or how impartial it would be. Tracking energy flows just seems less "subjective" from my perspective.

You said that people's experience of connection with God and/or the divine was caused by electromagnetic communication with the Universe. If you think someone can generate the same experience internally, doesn't that run counter to your hypothesis. In any event, it seems that if you got enough people together, with varying levels of training in spiritual pursuits of varying kinds, and maybe even some people who don't have any particual spiritual ad some proper controls (like maybe, some people cut off from EM fields, and others not, and other stuff like that) that there should be a statisticabeliefs, hlly significant effect in the data if anybody is really communicating with God.

If you can track the communication, though, that's a good way too, I suppose. I just have doubts about our ability to read the mind of God in such a manner.

Well, I think most folks would assume that particular path is found through mediation and prayer. That is what it took to convince me personally by the way. Unfortunately it's not something I can hand you in a bottle.

Unfortunately, until you can hand it to me in a bottle, I don't want to drink it. I know how easy the human mind can fool itself. I would have a hard time believing that any sort of spiritual experience that I had was genuine. Then again, I suppose that if I were able to have some sort of completely lucid conversation with God, as plainly as I'm typing with you, through prayer and meditation, where I was able to ask him questions and recieve answers that were both verifiably true and things I would have no way of knowing myself, then I might consider such an experience to have been more than a weird psychological effect.

As it relates to the robot thing I'd rather not get too hung up on the concept other than to say that unless the robot is physically "alive", how do we know if what it does is "aware", or simply "programmed" in an intelligently designed way? At some point don't we have to ask ourselves, if our need to come up with an "intelligent design" to get it to simulate all these behaviors is evidence of an intelligent universe?

Even if the cell is "alive", how do we know if what it does is "aware", or simply "programmed" by the chemical makeup of its internal machinery (whether intelligently designed or crafted by billions of years of evolution).

What does it mean for something to be physically "alive"?

But, what matter is it that the robot is designed? The analogy can't really be taken as far as suggesting that a cell need be designed as well.

Well, to explain what humans have been reporting throughout history, a "distant being" would still need some way to interact within this universe. I'd still be inclined to look at the EM field in that case anyway. It seems to me all you're doing is creating a "distance" problem, along with an "interface" problem that is simply unnecessarily complicated. I don't see how it "just as easily" fits the bill. You might be able to cobble something together, but I doubt it would be "easier".

No. There are other ways of explaining what humans have been reporting throughout history regarding God. Who says these experiences must be genuine encounters with the divine? Even if God exists, it could be that people are only feeling the illusion of communicating with him. And I'm not sure how you would define distance here anyway. Since we have no way of understanding, at this point, what this extra-Universal God would be like we can't say there's any problem with his interacting with this Universe. Maybe it's a computer simulation he's running, and all he's got to do is open up the communication dialog in order to send us messages. Until you actually do the experiments and collect the data, your God is just as plausible as another. So, demonstrating that God is necessary for life to exist is not the same as demonstrating that it's likely to be your electric universe God.

Birkeland's work is your best bet IMO. It's free for one thing, and it's also highly empirical by design. IMO he was the quintessential scientist. He physically replicated and "predicted things" (real empirical prediction by the way) with his experiments that we now see in modern satellite images. He did all this 100 years ago, before we even had a working model of the atom and almost no understanding of the meaning of Maxwell's equations.

OK. When I have more time, I may look into it. Science is quite interesting stuff, especially physics/cosmology/astronomy (and biology and geology and... ). And even if I have my doubts about the truth of plasma cosmology (based on it's lack of acceptance in mainstream cosmology) I still think it sounds interesting (though, mainly because I find the history of scientific thought to be about as interesting as the science itself).

The problem with Lambda-CMD theory is that we could simply rename the supernatural verbiage and call it 'Godflation', "God energy' and "God matter" and the theory would be empirically indistinguishable from a 'religion'. It would be equally dependent on "supernatural" entities. Adding an awareness to the big bang process is trivially simple to justify compared to physically justifying any of the three metaphysical bad boys of Lambda-CMD theory IMO.

I remain unconvinced. Can you explain in more detail why you think inflation is empirically indistinguishable from a religion? Can you explain in more detail why you think dark matter/dark energy/&c. are "supernatural"? Preferably this explaination would include an examination of all the evidence and observations that lambda-CDM supporters claim are explained by lambda-CDM and why they aren't explained by it, and even better, how does plasma cosmology explain the observations better. But, this probably isn't the thread for that argument. Ther is another thread going on right now in the "Creation & Evolution" subforum called "Plasma Cosmology vs. "Big Bang" Cosmology" that you might be interested in.

I'll try to focus on this theory, but there are aspects of this theory that directly related to cosmology and it's certainly a "big picture" sort of theory. It's only natural that we will have to compare it to contemporary theory and it will have to be justified just like contemporary theory is justified.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Technically I didn't invent that concept.

Of course not. Pantheism is a very old concept. But, you are the one making the argument here that the Universe is God. I used to be somewhat partial to pantheism, in the sense that I figured that if any conception of a singular, all-powerful God was correct that pantheism seemed to be the most likely case. However, now I am not so sure.

I have been thinking about God though, and I came to a conclusion that I'm not sure what "god" means, nor am I sure how I could judge whether any sort of being is, in fact, a god. A living Universe sounds like a candidate, but what does calling this entity God signify? Should I worship it? Should I revere and/or respect it? Is it good or evil or both? Is it omnipotent/omniscient (it's necessarily omnipresent)? Are these valid requirements for what God should be in the first place? It is certainly not what most would consider to be God. I think that Lord Emsworth has a valid point here, when he points out that what you are calling God is not what most people have been calling God throughout history, to the point that we have to ask how does an aware Universe meet the requirements to be God?

Electrical activity in spacetime and variable magnetic fields are defining characteristics of this particular theory.

But... that's not what I asked. This goes to your mechanism of how the Universe is aware. I was asking not about the specifics of your theory, but rather about how well your theory matches with the concept of God, in the abstract. What makes such a being God?

Honestly I would say that it remains to be seen. At it's most fundamental level it does in fact meet these requirements both inside our solar system and outside of it as well. Whether or not it's enough to show it's "electrically active" is another story. The universe is electrically active to be sure, but is that enough?

No, it is not enough. In any event, I was posing a more philosophical question there anyway. At this point, though, I think it still remains to be seen whether the Universe does indeed meet those particular requirements.

Not necessarily. Why did Jesus say that in the end we would know that we were all one *IN* God? He also stated that the kingdom of heaven is found within and taught that no intercession between God and man is necessary. He said that a kingdom divided would not stand, and we should love even our enemies. All of these teachings are fundamentally in agreement with this theory. I believe I can make a very good case theologically speaking that this theory is completely congruent with Christianity. It seems to apply quite well to the Hindu concept of "Brahman" as well. I've not studied Islam enough to say for sure but Islam claims to honor Jesus as a great prophet. I can make a pretty good case that this theory is applicable strictly with Jesus' teachings so I think it probably applies there as well.

It's certainly 'different' than what I believed as a child, but my understanding of the universe has changed a great deal since that time and modern satellite images have taught us a lot in the last few decades.

Perhaps your hypothesis is congruent with Christianity. But you must admit that it runs counter to pretty much all mainstream Christian theology (and I think most Christians would probably find any sort of pantheism to be unacceptable). Also, I haven't studied Hinduism very much, but I have read a little bit about it, and I really don't think that the concept of Brahman can really be made to fit very well with your ideas. In any event, I think most theists would balk at calling your aware Universe "God". Personally, I still am not sure what "God" means, so...

 

[Michael]

The emphasized phrase implies that we have observed macroscopic biological processes, which gives us a frame of reference. What macroscopic biological processes is this consistent with?

Irving Langmuir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irving Langmuir was the one to coin the term 'plasma' to describe the forth state of matter. He selected that term because he believed that it had many behaviors that were similar to blood plasma which he had studied chemically.

Plasma tends to create "cellular structures", and insulates various cells via 'double layers'. It transports energy from one location to another. It has many of the same "properties" found in the blood of living organisms. The vast majority of matter in space is found in the 'plasma' state, most of it being concentrated either in the "flying electrons and flying electric ions" that Birkeland described, and in suns.

 

[Michael]

Ah, well, I'm not sure if my robot is technically alive, either! And I don't blame you if you don't understand my argument, I'm not sure I do either.

Well, I may have wandered a bit with the robot, but it's difficult to keep track of my arguments when a conversation is as drawn out as this.

This line really made me smile. I'm enjoying this conversation immensely so feel free to think out loud anytime you want.

I'm sure there's a really good way to use your analogy in my favor, and do so without responding to your whole post line by line. Let me read through both of your responses fully, think about your key points for a moment, and see if I can save us both some time here and focus on core issues. Now I definitely need another cup of coffee.

 

[Michael]

I am, to put it mildly, extremely sceptical of the notion. The main thing that I have a problem with is that you don't have, just yet, anything close to a plausible mechanism, beyond the notion that it's somehow based on the supposed electrical nature of the Universe (which, itself, is something I'm not convinced of, at least to the point of accepting the electric universe theory).

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "plausible mechanism". The EM field is certainly a "plausible mechanism" to manipulate energy at the macroscopic level (it scales quite nicely) and to interact directly upon the human thought processes. The human thought processes are themselves electromagnetic in nature are they not? Any being that could manipulate the EM field at the macroscopic level would be able to directly "tap into" the "awareness" and thought processes of any living organism. What exactly do you mean by "plausible mechanism"? Could you elaborate a bit on that point?

Actually, I'm still not sure why you brought up the possibility of an aware ameboa in the first place. I still don't think that awareness in single cells points towards your God hypothesis, or to any sort of God in general. At the same time, a non-aware ameboa doesn't point towards atheism or to some other God besides yours.

First off, IMO it would be silly of me to attempt to "own God". I might have some "personal opinions" about the Universe, but I don't own the Universe. IMO a "living universe" type theory is "best" taught from a Universalist standpoint for obvious physical reasons that are the natural outcome of this theory. *If* this theory were to be "verified" to a great extent (say like GR is verified today), it would then "favor" theism over atheism, but philosophically speaking I agree, it would not necessarily favor any particular religion over another. It would however tend to favor "peaceful" and "unifying" theologies over separation oriented theologies.

I think I'll just create separate posts for your other key points.

 

[Michael]

I have to agree with Lord Emsworth here. You've used the words 'empirical,' 'theory,

It occurred to me today that it might be fruitful for you and I to have a conversation about what kind of "scientific theory" should be "taught in the classroom" and what the ground rules should be.

I will fully respect your right to your own beliefs outside of the classroom, and I fully respect your right to be an "atheist". Likewise I would expect you to allow me to teach my children whatever I like outside the classroom, and I would ask you to respect my right to label myself a "theist".

Shouldn't the basic "starting point' of what we teach our children in the classroom have something to do with "empirical physics", as in things that physically "show up" in the classroom laboratory setting? Should our theories be limited to only things that show up in the lab? If not, what exceptions shall we make, and why?

 

[Michael]

You said that people's experience of connection with God and/or the divine was caused by electromagnetic communication with the Universe.

Yes. The theory would "predict" that the primary means of cause/effect relationships between God/man would be fundamentally EM and GR influences. In other words EU theory is a combination of MHD theory and GR theory in terms of the 'empirical physics' that can be applied to space. The EM field is known to be 39 OOM more powerful than 'gravity' which is why your typical refrigerator magnet can pick up a paperclip and overcome the entire gravitational effects of the Earth.

If you think someone can generate the same experience internally, doesn't that run counter to your hypothesis.

No, not at all. Meditation has taught me to 'quiet my thoughts' and to thereby find a place of 'peace' within myself. From that place of serenity and peace, God is sometimes able to "communicate" with me in my experience. It's not an "all the time" thing however, and the "experiences" can vary. Sometimes I'm "distracted" by my own thoughts of the day. Sometimes I can stay pretty still inside. These things have a direct impact on my overall experience. I might be able to "find peace" within myself without God necessarily "communicating with me". It may however be possible to replicate all the same "peaceful feelings", "good vibes"?, and "unconditional love", even without an external influence.

In any event, it seems that if you got enough people together, with varying levels of training in spiritual pursuits of varying kinds, and maybe even some people who don't have any particual spiritual ad some proper controls (like maybe, some people cut off from EM fields, and others not, and other stuff like that) that there should be a statisticabeliefs, hlly significant effect in the data if anybody is really communicating with God.

But if all we ever use are "highly trained theists", all we end up with a skewed set of data that could easily be influenced by many factors that have nothing to do with our experiment. I want some atheist to participate too, and I want to see all the energy flows into and out of each individual while they "meditate".

If you can track the communication, though, that's a good way too, I suppose. I just have doubts about our ability to read the mind of God in such a manner.

Keep in mind that we don't necessarily have to "read minds" to isolate signs of intelligent energy transfers between objects in space. There may be ways to isolate "thinking processes" in a more general sense from living organisms here on Earth. If we could isolate such "thinking processes" in various species on Earth and show how they all demonstrate a similar "pattern" of some kind, we could then go looking for that same pattern in the higher energy processes of the sun and objects in space. We may not have to "read minds' to mechanically verify a "thought processes" a the macroscopic or microscopic level for that matter.

Unfortunately, until you can hand it to me in a bottle, I don't want to drink it. I know how easy the human mind can fool itself.

That's why I want to see those "energy transfers' between human and environment during mediation. It seems less likely to be "subjective" in the final analysis.

I would have a hard time believing that any sort of spiritual experience that I had was genuine.

That's an interesting way to phrase it, although I know exactly what you mean. I too had a hard time "accepting" some of my early meditation experiences as "genuine". It was the repetition that convinced me by the way.

Then again, I suppose that if I were able to have some sort of completely lucid conversation with God, as plainly as I'm typing with you, through prayer and meditation, where I was able to ask him questions and recieve answers that were both verifiably true and things I would have no way of knowing myself, then I might consider such an experience to have been more than a weird psychological effect.

Maybe it's an age thing but that's happened to me so many times now that I've lost count (or simply forgotten ) how many times that has happened to me in my lifetime. After awhile you come to accept it as a "part of life".

 

[Michael]

Perhaps your hypothesis is congruent with Christianity. But you must admit that it runs counter to pretty much all mainstream Christian theology (and I think most Christians would probably find any sort of pantheism to be unacceptable).

Well, I would argue that it is absolutely congruent with the teachings of Jesus.

John 17
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.


What does Jesus mean by all this? What does he mean when he says he will "send a "comforter" to guide them after he leaves in terms of empirical physics?

Also, I haven't studied Hinduism very much, but I have read a little bit about it, and I really don't think that the concept of Brahman can really be made to fit very well with your ideas.

Well, I'm not so sure. Brahman is considered to be the sum total of all things. That would certainly include the entire physical universe.

In any event, I think most theists would balk at calling your aware Universe "God".

That may be so, but as far as I can tell, the only "skeptics" of this theory so far seem to be "atheists" and "non Christians".

 

[Doveaman]

So, is the Earth a living entity?

I don’t know about it being an “entity”, but what I do know is that just as hair does not grow on a dead scalp, so do trees not grow on a dead planet. And just as eyeballs are not dead even though they do not grow hair, so are planets not dead even though they may not grow trees.

Each living part of the living body has its own function in the living body, and each living part of the living body makes up the living body as a whole.

The earth is a living part of the living body and the universe is that living body.

 

[Gracchus]

Science shows us the whole universe is one dynamic process, which we, for linguistic convenience artificially divide into parts. In fact, the parts are not separate, but all dynamic indivisible processes of the unified whole, a single resonant structure.

The universe is conscious because I am conscious. Everything else may be a delusion but "Cogito ergo sum."

A rock may not be conscious but that does not mean the universe isn't conscious any more than my hair than my hair not being conscious, means that I am not conscious. My big toe may not be capable of solving mathematical problems but I am.

Even Richard Dawkins can find nothing worse to say about pantheists than that they are "sexed up atheists". And panentheists believe that there is more to reality (God) than just this universe. It is the theist who has to cut God to fit the dimensions of his own mind and so ends up bowing and scraping and making offerings to his own dark ignorance.

 

[Michael]

Even Richard Dawkins can find nothing worse to say about pantheists than that they are "sexed up atheists".

I guess the flip side of that statement in terms of the worst that can be said of atheism is that they are "sexually repressed pantheists."

 

[Michael]

Massive stars’ magnetically controlled diets

It seems as though the electromagnetic field plays a critical role in stellar formation, even with more massive stars where it was thought to play a less significant part in the process.

 

[Spacewyrm]

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "plausible mechanism". The EM field is certainly a "plausible mechanism" to manipulate energy at the macroscopic level (it scales quite nicely) and to interact directly upon the human thought processes. The human thought processes are themselves electromagnetic in nature are they not? Any being that could manipulate the EM field at the macroscopic level would be able to directly "tap into" the "awareness" and thought processes of any living organism. What exactly do you mean by "plausible mechanism"? Could you elaborate a bit on that point?

Yeah, I probably should elaborate. I was rather tired when I wrote those two posts, so I was being a little hasty. What I mean is that, so far you haven't got any real explaination as to how these EM fields and such give rise to intelligence. We can see how the neurons in the brain interact with eachother and with other nerves in the body which interact with our sensory organs, etc. and we can see how the circuitry of a robot works and interacts with the motorized parts and sensory input devices, and we can see how the chemistry in a cell works and interacts with various receptors and whatnot and the environment. But, as of right now you can't really say the same for your electric flows and such in the Universe and how these should work in granting the Universe awareness. If you are correct, you or someone else, may one day figure it out. All I am saying, is that, at this point, since you have no real scientific data to show, I am being sceptical. I might be less sceptical if you either had some sort of experiment linking electromagnetic fields with spiritual experiences, or if you could come up with some more detail about how you think these electromagnetic effects give rise to awareness in the Universe.

Actually, one major problem with the idea of electromagnetic effects forming a thinking being that can interact with humans, is scale. It seems to me that if the entire Universe is a conscious being and if electromagnetism is the means by which the Universe thinks, then the Universe must think rather slowly, since as far as I know, electromagnetic effects are limited by the speed of light. I believe you already addressed this complaint earlier in the thread, but I wasn't too impressed with your answer.

First off, IMO it would be silly of me to attempt to "own God". I might have some "personal opinions" about the Universe, but I don't own the Universe. IMO a "living universe" type theory is "best" taught from a Universalist standpoint for obvious physical reasons that are the natural outcome of this theory. *If* this theory were to be "verified" to a great extent (say like GR is verified today), it would then "favor" theism over atheism, but philosophically speaking I agree, it would not necessarily favor any particular religion over another. It would however tend to favor "peaceful" and "unifying" theologies over separation oriented theologies.

You misunderstand me. I only meant "your God" as shorthand for the electric Universe pantheism hypothesis to which have referred to in this thread. I didn't mean to speak about your religion or the Christian God vs. the God(s) of some other religion.

One question: Why would it favor "peaceful" and "unifying" theologies over separation oriented theologies? Your hypothesis doesn't really touch on the specifics of any theology, except where theology makes claims about how God works or what God is made of.

But if all we ever use are "highly trained theists", all we end up with a skewed set of data that could easily be influenced by many factors that have nothing to do with our experiment. I want some atheist to participate too, and I want to see all the energy flows into and out of each individual while they "meditate".

I never said we should only use "highly trained theists". But, perhaps I wasn't clear because I was advocating basically the same thing you said here. I would expect to throw in some atheists, both hard-core sceptics as well as those who still believe in spirits or similar things (aliens? thetans?).

Keep in mind that we don't necessarily have to "read minds" to isolate signs of intelligent energy transfers between objects in space. There may be ways to isolate "thinking processes" in a more general sense from living organisms here on Earth. If we could isolate such "thinking processes" in various species on Earth and show how they all demonstrate a similar "pattern" of some kind, we could then go looking for that same pattern in the higher energy processes of the sun and objects in space. We may not have to "read minds' to mechanically verify a "thought processes" a the macroscopic or microscopic level for that matter.

Fair enough. Though, I doubt even if your theory were correct that we'd see the same patterns in the Universe that we see in living organisms. For one thing, living organsisms think with brains. The Universe does not have a brain, nor is it a brain. And, I doubt we'd ever be able to agree on what a "thinking process" should look like except in something we both agree thinks (like a brain) or in the case that there is some act or behavior that is verifyably caused by the "thinking process" in question. In that case, it still seems like you would have to decipher some of these electromagnetic signals to some extent. Just showing that they cause spiritual experience is not, in and of itself, enough, because it could still be the case that electromagnetic fields cause people to believe that they are communicating with God, when, in fact, it is just an illusion.

Maybe it's an age thing but that's happened to me so many times now that I've lost count (or simply forgotten ) how many times that has happened to me in my lifetime. After awhile you come to accept it as a "part of life".

I am happy for you that you do have some sense of the divine in your life, though I hope you don't think ill of me for doubting the cause of your experiences as actually being God. I wish I felt something like that back when I was a Christian (I might still be one today). I doubt that it is any sort of age thing, though, since I think that atheism and theism both cut across most of the age range.

Well, I would argue that it is absolutely congruent with the teachings of Jesus.

[snip Bible quote]

What does Jesus mean by all this? What does he mean when he says he will "send a "comforter" to guide them after he leaves in terms of empirical physics?

Honestly, I can't really tell what Jesus is talking about there. Though I guess I do see some lines that you could use to support reconciling your particular hypothesis with Christianity. I wasn't saying your idea was incompatible with Christianity, I just meant that it runs counter to traditional theology in most of Christian history. And my larger point was that most people throughout history (Christian or not) would think your idea of a naturalistic explaination of God as describing something that is not God (and, if I recall correctly, I believe that that was basically also what Lord Emsworth was saying).

Because I am not sure what it means for something to be "God", I am still unsure whether I would call the entity your hypotheisis proposes by that title. (Incidentally, that's also part of the reason why I chose "deist" for my CF faith icon; there are probably some conceptions of God that I would consider as valid or close to it even though I am an atheist regarding every particular God I've ever heard of).

Well, I'm not so sure. Brahman is considered to be the sum total of all things. That would certainly include the entire physical universe.

Well, perhaps. I don't really know enough about Hindu theology to continue down this road.

That may be so, but as far as I can tell, the only "skeptics" of this theory so far seem to be "atheists" and "non Christians".

Note that I said "theists" and not "Christians". And what about Bushido216? He's a Christian and he was arguing against your idea earlier in the thread. I seem to recall Cabal (also a Christian) posting earlier as well, and I don't recall him agreeing with your hypothesis either. The only Christian who seems to have shown any sort of agreement with you in this thread is Doveaman. Though, I think everyone else in the thread aside from you and those mentioned previoiusly is either atheist or agnostic (someone please correct me if I've left someone out!).

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I probably should elaborate. I was rather tired when I wrote those two posts, so I was being a little hasty. What I mean is that, so far you haven't got any real explaination as to how these EM fields and such give rise to intelligence. We can see how the neurons in the brain interact with eachother and with other nerves in the body which interact with our sensory organs, etc. and we can see how the circuitry of a robot works and interacts with the motorized parts and sensory input devices, and we can see how the chemistry in a cell works and interacts with various receptors and whatnot and the environment. But, as of right now you can't really say the same for your electric flows and such in the Universe and how these should work in granting the Universe awareness.

Well, keep in mind that only since the launch of Hubble have we really had much of a clue about the makeup of the universe. It will be awhile before our technologies allow us to fully comprehend the universe. Even standard theory has only identified roughly 4% of the physical universe. The rest is "dark" to mainstream theory.

We will however learn more about the universe in the next 100 years than we have learned in the past 10,000 years. Give it some time.

What we (in the EU community) have learned in the last 100 years or so is that the EM field plays a much greater role in events in space than we used to believe. We find that Birkeland's "predictions" have now borne empirical fruit in the observations of high speed solar wind, electrical coronal loop activity, auroral activities, etc. Even still the mainstream astronomy community finds many of these events (like solar wind) "mysterious' because they were not taught to even think in terms of an 'electric universe' in school.

We already observe massive transfers of energy between the sun and the Earth, between the sun and the heliosphere, and between other objects in space. We find ample examples of "Birkeland currents" traversing massive expanses of spacetime. All of these transfers of energy are consistent with a "sophisticated circuitry" that we would expect to find in any and all living things.

We know a "little" about the chemistry of space, but very little frankly because we've only identified 4% of the physical universe. The rest is "dark" to our understanding. What we do observe shows that the materials that are necessary for life on Earth have existed for at least 10 billion years and that observation is at the limit of our technology.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17525

If you are correct, you or someone else, may one day figure it out. All I am saying, is that, at this point, since you have no real scientific data to show, I am being sceptical.

But when you say I have "no real scientific data to show", I wince. That's not correct from my perspective. I have plenty of data that is consistent with an electric (if not intelligent) universe theory. The "intelligence" part may have to wait for further technologies to be developed, but the electrical aspects of this theory can be demonstrated here and now with current technologies.

I might be less sceptical if you either had some sort of experiment linking electromagnetic fields with spiritual experiences,

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

Actually, back on page two, I did provide this link, but perhaps that was before you got involved in the conversation.

or if you could come up with some more detail about how you think these electromagnetic effects give rise to awareness in the Universe.

I think they give rise to awareness just like they give rise to awareness in our own "physical forms". It is the transfer of energy between object in space that gives rise to a macroscopic awareness, not to mention a myriad of microscopic versions.

Actually, one major problem with the idea of electromagnetic effects forming a thinking being that can interact with humans, is scale. It seems to me that if the entire Universe is a conscious being and if electromagnetism is the means by which the Universe thinks, then the Universe must think rather slowly, since as far as I know, electromagnetic effects are limited by the speed of light. I believe you already addressed this complaint earlier in the thread, but I wasn't too impressed with your answer.

Well, yes and no. Even in contemporary theory, the universe is thought to expand "faster than light'. While the physical "inputs and outputs" to awareness may be limited to light speed, what is the physical limit of 'awareness'? For all I know it has it's own carrier particle that has no speed limits as we percieve them. The only thing that might be "limited to light speed' would be the physical inputs from this physical domain, and the physical outputs to control/manipulate this physical domain. The rest is purely speculative and relates to the nature of awareness itself.

You misunderstand me. I only meant "your God" as shorthand for the electric Universe pantheism hypothesis to which have referred to in this thread. I didn't mean to speak about your religion or the Christian God vs. the God(s) of some other religion.

IMO "non believers" tend to use a "divide and conquer" strategy as it relates to "God". They like to create "gods" of out 'religions'. That's just silly IMO. That's like claiming there must be multiple Presidents of the US because no two individuals completely agree on the character and nature of the current or past Presidents.

We're all "monotheists", meaning we all believe there is but one "God" and many "religions". You might refer to my unique beliefs as a 'religion' but not a unique "God" per se.

One question: Why would it favor "peaceful" and "unifying" theologies over separation oriented theologies? Your hypothesis doesn't really touch on the specifics of any theology, except where theology makes claims about how God works or what God is made of.

It suggests we're all living inside a living God. The "awareness" that exists inside you, also exists inside me. While we are "unique physical manifestations' of awareness, we are all part of one living being.

I never said we should only use "highly trained theists". But, perhaps I wasn't clear because I was advocating basically the same thing you said here. I would expect to throw in some atheists, both hard-core sceptics as well as those who still believe in spirits or similar things (aliens? thetans?).

The whole point IMO would be to remove as much of the subjectivity as humanly possible. A greater spectrum of internal beliefs would give us a chance to see how that might effect any external flows of energy.

Fair enough. Though, I doubt even if your theory were correct that we'd see the same patterns in the Universe that we see in living organisms. For one thing, living organsisms think with brains. The Universe does not have a brain, nor is it a brain.

Why do you assume that? It doesn't have a single neuron, but many of them. It doesn't have a single "circuit", but many of them.

And, I doubt we'd ever be able to agree on what a "thinking process" should look like except in something we both agree thinks (like a brain) or in the case that there is some act or behavior that is verifyably caused by the "thinking process" in question.

I hear you in that it's not necessarily an easy process, but if we can and do identify EM energy emissions patterns from living organisms that are universal to all living organisms, I'm quite confident we'll find those same patterns in our local sun, and in our universe as a whole.

In that case, it still seems like you would have to decipher some of these electromagnetic signals to some extent. Just showing that they cause spiritual experience is not, in and of itself, enough, because it could still be the case that electromagnetic fields cause people to believe that they are communicating with God, when, in fact, it is just an illusion.

Or then again, if the external EM field is real, and the EM influence is real, and the universe is aware, then the experience itself can also be 'real".

I am happy for you that you do have some sense of the divine in your life, though I hope you don't think ill of me for doubting the cause of your experiences as actually being God. I wish I felt something like that back when I was a Christian (I might still be one today). I doubt that it is any sort of age thing, though, since I think that atheism and theism both cut across most of the age range.

Well, I had experiences as a child (say 13) that were very 'real' but they weren't enough to keep me from reevaluating all of the religious teachings I was handed as a child and ultimately rejecting them all, including my belief in God. It took many years for me to get that religious chip off my shoulder and to even recognize that from the perspective of "science", I simply didn't know if God existed or did not. It was however a my own 'experiences" in life (during mediation as an atheist actually) that changed my views again. My atheistic viewpoints at that time could not account for my own experiences, let alone the experiences of anyone else. I don't think that anything other than a "personal experience" would have been enough to change my opinions on this topic at that time.

Honestly, I can't really tell what Jesus is talking about there. Though I guess I do see some lines that you could use to support reconciling your particular hypothesis with Christianity. I wasn't saying your idea was incompatible with Christianity, I just meant that it runs counter to traditional theology in most of Christian history.

Like I said, I'm not sure it so much runs counter to Christain theology, as it runs 'counter to what we've been taught' at the level of science. IMO what 'science" has "taught" us about the universe has been more of a hindrance than a help IMO.

And my larger point was that most people throughout history (Christian or not) would think your idea of a naturalistic explaination of God as describing something that is not God (and, if I recall correctly, I believe that that was basically also what Lord Emsworth was saying).

I don't think it's reasonable to assume any of us really 'know' what God is. I'm simply offering *one* empirical definition of God. Some might not view God exactly the same way, but most don't really have a physical definition of God in the first place. IMO science has been the limiting factor, not 'religion'. Jesus was 'WAY' ahead of everyone at both the scientific and spiritual understanding of the Universe.

Because I am not sure what it means for something to be "God", I am still unsure whether I would call the entity your hypotheisis proposes by that title. (Incidentally, that's also part of the reason why I chose "deist" for my CF faith icon; there are probably some conceptions of God that I would consider as valid or close to it even though I am an atheist regarding every particular God I've ever heard of).

Well, IMO this particular theory is one you could and probably should at least 'try" to sink your teeth into. You could "assume" that God in no way interferes with humans if you like.

Well, perhaps. I don't really know enough about Hindu theology to continue down this road.

Their notion of "Brahman" is the closest basic concept. From there all other "deities" are "manifestations of" that one "monotheistic' definition of "Brahman.".

Note that I said "theists" and not "Christians". And what about Bushido216? He's a Christian and he was arguing against your idea earlier in the thread.

Well, he seemed more like a rational "skeptic" with basic questions, not necessarily as someone who outright rejects the possibility. I could be mistaken of course. Even still I doubt he'd complain about this theory being taught in the classroom as a "possible" way to empirically explain "God". Again, I could be mistaken.

What about me? What about Doveaman? Do we count as "Christians"?

I seem to recall Cabal (also a Christian) posting earlier as well, and I don't recall him agreeing with your hypothesis either.

Keep in mind that "agreement" and "rejection" are two different things. Again, I can't tell which of these might be true from a few message exchanges in cyberspace. I'm pretty sure we could sit down with a couple of beers and resolve our differences.

The only Christian who seems to have shown any sort of agreement with you in this thread is Doveaman.

Well, he seems to be not only in "agreement" with the idea, but seems to actively support the concept. If this theory was so foreign to "Christians" why does he also embrace the idea?

 

[Spacewyrm]

All right, I'm going to have to split this one, 'cause it's over the character limit.

But when you say I have "no real scientific data to show", I wince. That's not correct from my perspective. I have plenty of data that is consistent with an electric (if not intelligent) universe theory. The "intelligence" part may have to wait for further technologies to be developed, but the electrical aspects of this theory can be demonstrated here and now with current technologies.

I was, of course, referring to the intelligence part of your hypothesis, rather than to the electric part. I am aware that there is scientific data used to support electric universe theory. But the idea you have been promoting in this thread is a specific conception of the Universe as being intelligent and in fact, being God. That is what is unique about your proposal. An intelligent Universe does not necessarily follow from an electric Universe, but is something that must be demonstrated independently.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

Actually, back on page two, I did provide this link, but perhaps that was before you got involved in the conversation.

Actually, I feel kinda dumb, because I asked for an "experiment linking electromagnetic fields with spiritual experiences". That was sloppy of me, but what I meant was an experiment that either showed some signs of intelligence in these electromagnetic interactions, or that showed that naturally occuring electromagnetic fields are strongly linked to most or many spiritual encounters. I'm sorry for typing something so misleading.

I agree that there seems to be some good evidence linking electromagnetism to spirituality (at least, that's what this article seems to indicate). Because of that I am less sceptical of your idea than I would otherwise be. This is a good start though, to showing that your hypothesis has some merit. I don't feel that this is particularly strong evidence for your claims in particular, but it shows that there may be some value in continuing to look at how the brain interacts with electromagnetic waves, to see if there is any stronger evidence supporting your theory or contradicting it. Though, if your thoery relies on electric universe cosmology, it seems as though there is already quite a bit of evidence contradicting it.

By the way, I did see that link earlier (I never post in a thread I haven't read all the way through), but I didn't read it at the time. I just did. It was interesting.

I think they give rise to awareness just like they give rise to awareness in our own "physical forms". It is the transfer of energy between object in space that gives rise to a macroscopic awareness, not to mention a myriad of microscopic versions.

But, electromagnetic effects aren't exactly what gives rise to awareness in our own "physical forms". That's due to the interactions of neurons in our brain. Sure, neural communication has an electric component, but it is also driven by chemicals (neurotransmitters). And we understand how these mechanisms work quite well, for the most part. I understand that you believe that energy transfers between objects is the mechanism for the awareness of the Universe, but you are still sparse the details of what's going on there.

That's not to say the idea has no merit. People who are interested in exploring this idea can work out theories and perform experiments and such to try to figure out what, if anything, is going on. In the mean time, I will remain sceptical. It's not a fault in your hypothesis, just that at the current time, you have no conclusive evidence in your favor. It's an interesting possibility to think about though, and its generated an interesting discussion. I really didn't expect you to produce convincing evidence for your hypothesis here, unless you'd already done the research, since that sort of thing is a rather costly undertaking that would require a lot of work. It seems a bit beyond the scope of any discussion on an internet forum.

I didn't really get into this discussion with the intent of arguing against your hypothesis, though that is where the discussion has drifted. I was just troubled by your use of the ameboa as an example of awareness in the Universe and by your use of organic chemicals in space in support of a living Universe. As for your hypothesis itself, until more research is done I guess I don't have much to say about it directly, except to ponder some of the philisophical dilimas that come up, such as what it means for something to be alive, or what it means for something to be God or even what it means for something to be intelligent or aware.

I'm not sure whether your conception of the Universe is alive in the technical sense, any more than I'm sure whether my robot is alive. The possibility of artificial intelligence makes determining what is alive or not rather troublesome, and I don't think that there is some extra-material essence of life that distinguishes biological organisms from the rest of the matter in the Universe. That is, the matter that comprises us is non-living even if the arangement of matter that is us is alive. I suppose the same could be said of the Universe or perhaps a robot, but then I wonder how one ought to define "life". Currently, I think just saying that living things = biological organism is a decent definition. Perhaps it is too simplistic to try to categorize things into only living and non-living categories anyway.

Well, yes and no. Even in contemporary theory, the universe is thought to expand "faster than light'. While the physical "inputs and outputs" to awareness may be limited to light speed, what is the physical limit of 'awareness'? For all I know it has it's own carrier particle that has no speed limits as we percieve them. The only thing that might be "limited to light speed' would be the physical inputs from this physical domain, and the physical outputs to control/manipulate this physical domain. The rest is purely speculative and relates to the nature of awareness itself.\

That is a possibility, but that's just speculation. You'll need to show that there is intelligence and/or awareness in the Universe as a whole first. Then you can work out whether their is any new physics needed to explain how that intelligence/awareness functions. No matter how you slice it though, it seems as though the speed of light is a problem for your hypothesis, even if it is one that you can successfully overcome.

IMO "non believers" tend to use a "divide and conquer" strategy as it relates to "God". They like to create "gods" of out 'religions'. That's just silly IMO. That's like claiming there must be multiple Presidents of the US because no two individuals completely agree on the character and nature of the current or past Presidents.

"Non believers" use a "divide and conquer" strategy!? They must be helped along nicely by all the dividing that the "believers" end doing amongst themselves! I don't think your analogy holds though. True, it is absurd to say that there are two Presidents of the United States at once. Nobody believes this either. But, it's not just that theists disagree about the nature of God. I may not like Barack Obama but I know that he exists. If I were a Zoroastrian, though, I might say that Ahura-Mazda is God and that the Yahweh/Jehovah of the Jews and Christians is not real.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? You might think so. Many Christians and Muslims may think so. But I know that many Christians do not think so. For them Allah is not God, not even an imperfect understanding of the true God, but in fact, is non-existant at best and a demon at worst. Do Christians and Jews worship the same God? Perhaps. Most Christians would say yes. I'm not really sure what Jews would have to say on the matter, but I suspect that they would be quick to point out that their God isn't three persons in one, and that he didn't come to Earth as a human to die for our sins.

These sorts of disagreements between religions are real and most theists would say that while their God is the true God, that other brands of theist do indeed worship other gods (which either don't exist or are not really God). It's just a matter of fact that different religions have different gods. Maybe these gods are all based on one real God. Maybe there are plenty of religions that can agree on some basics. But you can't just sweep aside centuries of religious differences like that. How real these distinctions are is beside the point because "believers" are, by and large, the ones who make these distinctions. I'm not the one to say that every monotheist worships the same God, because I don't have any beliefs about God that would let me make any such conclusion. I will only say that the God that any theist worships is as distict as she believes it to be, because that belief is all that I know of her God.

We're all "monotheists", meaning we all believe there is but one "God" and many "religions". You might refer to my unique beliefs as a 'religion' but not a unique "God" per se.

Who exactly are this "we" you are talking about here? Plenty of monotheists will say that their one God does exist and that your one God does not.

But, you're still reading too much into what I said. I'm not calling your beliefs a 'religion', except in-so-far as they are (you are a Christian, are you not? Theism is a part of Christian doctrine). I wouldn't call the hypothesis in this thread a religion, in and of itself. It appears to be an attempt to explain an aspect of religion scientifically. When I said "your God" I was speaking of your conception of how God works and nothing more. It is your idea, is it not? Your idea about the physical make-up of God? How "your God" relates to other people's Gods is a matter of opinion. You say that yours is not a unique God. Some monotheists might agree with you. Other monotheists might disagree with you. Everyone is right, depending on what they mean when they speak of God. I will admit that it was perhaps poor word usage, but really, I didn't mean anything by it.

 

[Spacewyrm]

Here's the rest of it.

It suggests we're all living inside a living God. The "awareness" that exists inside you, also exists inside me. While we are "unique physical manifestations' of awareness, we are all part of one living being.

That sounds reasonable, I suppose.

The whole point IMO would be to remove as much of the subjectivity as humanly possible. A greater spectrum of internal beliefs would give us a chance to see how that might effect any external flows of energy.

That's precisely what I was getting at.

Why do you assume that? It doesn't have a single neuron, but many of them. It doesn't have a single "circuit", but many of them.

No assumption. The Universe is not a brain. The Universe does not have a brain, aside from the brains in the creatures that inhabit it. And the Universe does not have any neurons except in the nervious systems of the creatures inhabiting it. Even if the Universe had intelligence and awareness, and circuitry that causes such, the Universe still isn't and doesn't have a brain.

I hear you in that it's not necessarily an easy process, but if we can and do identify EM energy emissions patterns from living organisms that are universal to all living organisms, I'm quite confident we'll find those same patterns in our local sun, and in our universe as a whole.

I do not share your confidence. It would be a pretty interesting discovery though. I would like it if your hypothesis was accurate. At the very least it would be exciting. Perhaps one day these patterns will be found.

Or then again, if the external EM field is real, and the EM influence is real, and the universe is aware, then the experience itself can also be 'real".

Well, yes. If the Universe is aware, then the experience itself can be 'real'. Even if the Universe isn't aware, God might still exist and use electromagnetism to communicate with us. My point was that unless you can actually show that there is intelligence behind the effects, you can't say one way or the other whether you've actually got evidence for God or evidence that electromagetic waves trick us into thinking that there's God. Occam's razor suggests the latter explaination.

Like I said, I'm not sure it so much runs counter to Christain theology, as it runs 'counter to what we've been taught' at the level of science. IMO what 'science" has "taught" us about the universe has been more of a hindrance than a help IMO.

Well, it certainly runs counter to mainstream scientific understanding. That is true. I suppose whether it runs counter to Christian theology depends on what sort of Christian theology you subsribe to. I still doubt that many Christian denominations would be too accepting of pantheism, even if many idividual Christians may be.

Well, IMO this particular theory is one you could and probably should at least 'try" to sink your teeth into. You could "assume" that God in no way interferes with humans if you like.

Whether or not God interferes with humans is rather irrelevant in my opinion. If God exists he can do whatever he wants (maybe even literally). I might consider calling such an entity as this aware Universe you posit "God". It is certainly a contender, assuming that the Universe really is like you say it is.

Well, he seemed more like a rational "skeptic" with basic questions, not necessarily as someone who outright rejects the possibility. I could be mistaken of course. Even still I doubt he'd complain about this theory being taught in the classroom as a "possible" way to empirically explain "God". Again, I could be mistaken.

He seemed like a "rational 'skeptic'"? What do I seem like? You said the only skeptics of your idea were atheists and non-Christians. My recollection of the thread is different. Now you characterize Bushido216 as being a "rational skeptic" who didn't outright reject the possibility of your theory. But, my recollection is that he was fairly critical of this idea.

What about me? What about Doveaman? Do we count as "Christians"?

What? You both claim to be Christians so I'm not going to argue. Where did you get the idea that I thought you two aren't Christians? I was just responding to what seemed to me a mischaracterization of the thread. You said that every "skeptic" of your claims in this thread was either an atheist or a "non Christian". I didn't claim that every Christian disagreed with you or that your beliefs disqualify you as being Christian.

Keep in mind that "agreement" and "rejection" are two different things. Again, I can't tell which of these might be true from a few message exchanges in cyberspace. I'm pretty sure we could sit down with a couple of beers and resolve our differences.

Well, reviewing the thread, I see that Cabal only posted a couple times and he seems to have been addressing Doveaman's wierd notions about what constitutes empirical evidence. So perhaps I shouldn't have used him as a counter-example. Even without considering Cabal, there is one Christian other than you in this thread who accepts your hypothesis (Doveaman) and one who seemed pretty critical of it (Bushido216). But, maybe you're using the word "skeptic" different from the way I'm using it?

Well, he seems to be not only in "agreement" with the idea, but seems to actively support the concept. If this theory was so foreign to "Christians" why does he also embrace the idea?

Two Christians on an internet forum both accept a particular scientific explaination for God. Are you and Doveaman now the primary representatives of Christians theology? Not really. Look, as I said, I don't think your idea is really at odds with Christianity. I think that there are probably plenty of Christian schools of thought that can accomidate some sort of pantheism. Do you really think, however, that your idea would be accepted by most traditional Christian theologians? I still doubt it.

Once again though, I must point out that the only reason I pointed out the religious makeup in this thread was because you said "as far as I can tell, the only 'skeptics' of this theory so far seem to be 'atheists' and 'non Christians'" in response to me saying "In any event, I think most theists would balk at calling your aware Universe 'God'". I was just pointing out what I believe to be a factual error. I don't think any of this has anything to do with how most theists (or even many theists) would view your conception of God.

 

[Michael]

All right, I'm going to have to split this one, 'cause it's over the character limit.

We can both be mighty long winded evidently.

I was, of course, referring to the intelligence part of your hypothesis, rather than to the electric part. I am aware that there is scientific data used to support electric universe theory. But the idea you have been promoting in this thread is a specific conception of the Universe as being intelligent and in fact, being God. That is what is unique about your proposal. An intelligent Universe does not necessarily follow from an electric Universe, but is something that must be demonstrated independently.

Virtually all "big picture" cosmology theories are generally graded by how well they "predict" various features of the universe. This theory not only "predicts" an electric universe, it 'requires' one. This issue in fact becomes a point of empirical falsification for this theory. In other words, most cosmology theories neither predict, nor require the presence of electrical activity between objects in space. Mainstream theory currently makes no mention of the "current flows" between the photosphere and heliosphere. They euphemistically refer to the process as 'solar wind' and ignore the fact it requires "current flow" to sustain that process. Current cosmology theory therefore does not rise or fall on the electrical activity of the universe. It neither predicts the condition, nor does it recognize it for the most part. Only now are some elements of solar activity being grudgingly attributed to "electrical discharges", and even that is 'controversial' as far as the mainstream is concerned.

An electric universe is in fact a "successful prediction' of this theory, and a necessary element in fact. IMO you're negating the implication of a true empirical 'prediction' of this theory.

Likewise it "predicts" a mechanical/physical connection between human spiritual experiences and external EM fields. Indeed I've been able to find information to demonstrate just such a "connection" at the level of physics in controlled conditions. That's two 'successful predictions' of this theory so far, and we've just 'scratched the surface'.

I agree that there seems to be some good evidence linking electromagnetism to spirituality (at least, that's what this article seems to indicate). Because of that I am less sceptical of your idea than I would otherwise be. This is a good start though, to showing that your hypothesis has some merit. I don't feel that this is particularly strong evidence for your claims in particular, but it shows that there may be some value in continuing to look at how the brain interacts with electromagnetic waves, to see if there is any stronger evidence supporting your theory or contradicting it.

Define "strong". It seems pretty "intriguing" from my perspective that an external EM field produces everything from "out of body" experiences to 'spiritual experiences' in the human consciousness. These experiences are extremely similar to the kinds of things that are typically associated with "experiences of God" as most folks report them. We now have an empirical 'mechanism' to influence human consciousness externally. We observe that when this EM field is applied, the process is typically associated with what the observer associates with "spirituality' in many cases. Surely that can't be a pure "coincidence" can it?

Keep in mind that this theory "predicts" that the EM field is the primary method of communication and the primary method of physical manifestation of God in this physical universe. That observation of the effect of an external EM field on the human brain is in fact 100% congruent with this theory. If the EM field had no influence that would in fact tend to "falsify' this theory or at the very least "fail to support it", whereas a direct effect of an EM field on human consciousness would in fact be a "validation' of this theory. IMO it's a pretty "strong" piece of evidence, but this notion of strong or weak evidence is going to be subjective sooner or later.

Though, if your thoery relies on electric universe cosmology, it seems as though there is already quite a bit of evidence contradicting it.

There's no evidence that contradicts it actually. What evidence do you believe contradicts EU theory in your opinion?

But, electromagnetic effects aren't exactly what gives rise to awareness in our own "physical forms". That's due to the interactions of neurons in our brain. Sure, neural communication has an electric component, but it is also driven by chemicals (neurotransmitters).

Well, keep in mind that "cosmic rays" are ultimately "chemical transmissions", as are many flows of different elements into and out of the solar system. We're just now gaining some understanding of the flow of particles into and out of the solar system, and ultimately these 'flows" of various elements become chemical transmissions.

IBEX: Interstellar Boundary Explorer

And we understand how these mechanisms work quite well, for the most part. I understand that you believe that energy transfers between objects is the mechanism for the awareness of the Universe, but you are still sparse the details of what's going on there.

Well, if I'm a wee "sparse on details" (which I admit that I am) it's only because science is pretty sparse on details when it comes to explaining something like "awareness" in a single celled organism. If we can't explain awareness at the most basic level, then how is that my personal fault?

That's not to say the idea has no merit. People who are interested in exploring this idea can work out theories and perform experiments and such to try to figure out what, if anything, is going on. In the mean time, I will remain sceptical. It's not a fault in your hypothesis, just that at the current time, you have no conclusive evidence in your favor.

Ya, but already you and I see things "subjectively" and see things differently. I do see "some" evidence in my favor, and therefore it's worth exploring IMO. It doesn't have to be overwhelmingly conclusive evidence, (although that EM influence on brain activity seems "conclusive" to me personally) to be worth exploring, and worth entertaining scientifically speaking.

It's an interesting possibility to think about though, and its generated an interesting discussion.

I think that's been in large part due to your input (and others), not mine. You've (all) asked great questions.

I really didn't expect you to produce convincing evidence for your hypothesis here, unless you'd already done the research, since that sort of thing is a rather costly undertaking that would require a lot of work. It seems a bit beyond the scope of any discussion on an internet forum.

Well, I'm a programmer by trade, and I don't get paid to sit around looking for intelligent output in solar activity, although I do enjoy studying solar activity.

I'll stop here for now and pick up the rest later on.

 

[Michael]

Two Christians on an internet forum both accept a particular scientific explaination for God. Are you and Doveaman now the primary representatives of Christians theology? Not really. Look, as I said, I don't think your idea is really at odds with Christianity. I think that there are probably plenty of Christian schools of thought that can accomidate some sort of pantheism. Do you really think, however, that your idea would be accepted by most traditional Christian theologians? I still doubt it.

Well, it is in fact 100% compatible with the teachings of Jesus. I can't speak for all "Christians" of course, but before you write off the idea, consider the following:

Christians have long desired to be able to talk about "God" in scientific manner in a classroom setting. This is a purely 'empirical' theory about the Universe that relies upon nothing that cannot "eventually" be verified (or falsified) via standard empirical physics. That possibility of falsification might 'scare off' a few folks whose "faith" is a bit weak, but that "verification" possibility will certainly excite some folks too.

If it's "ok" to teach "dark energy" and "inflation" in the classroom, then it is certainly perfectly acceptable to teach this "empirical" theory of God right along side those "dark energy" lectures. There are "empirical benefits" to this theory at a political level that make this theory highly attractive in terms what can and cannot be taught in a classroom setting. That could change the way a lot of "Christians' view this idea, particularly if it holds up to any sort of public scrutiny.

Once again though, I must point out that the only reason I pointed out the religious makeup in this thread was because you said "as far as I can tell, the only 'skeptics' of this theory so far seem to be 'atheists' and 'non Christians'" in response to me saying "In any event, I think most theists would balk at calling your aware Universe 'God'".

Well, like I said, I don't think that many Christians or many other theists of any faith spend a lot of time thinking about the physics of God. Given some time however, I think this theory could 'catch on' in just about any religion, not only Christianity.

I was just pointing out what I believe to be a factual error. I don't think any of this has anything to do with how most theists (or even many theists) would view your conception of God.

Let me point out here that this is a "scientific" theory that has nothing to do with "popular opinion". Like any empirical theory, it's validity does not rise on fall on popular support, but rather it rises and falls based upon empirical facts. It would not be prudent IMO for you to discard any scientific theory simply based on "popular opinion". That's considered a fallacy in debate (appeal to popularity) and it's generally a bad barometer of 'truthiness".

To demonstrate what I mean from your perspective (bad example from mine actually), if we just based our sense of "truth" on what is the most "popular", then "Christianity" wins hands down, closely followed by Islam, and all forms of Deism and atheism bite the dust.

 

[Michael]

No assumption. The Universe is not a brain. The Universe does not have a brain, aside from the brains in the creatures that inhabit it.

You're simply "assuming" that to be true. You can't "know" that empirically. The universe is filled with exotic objects, from millisecond pulsars to Quasars to "black holes", to you name it. How could you possibly know if the universe has a brain based on what we've learned about it with our limited technologies?

It seems to me that your position here is as much of an "act of faith" as mine.

I do not share your confidence. It would be a pretty interesting discovery though. I would like it if your hypothesis was accurate. At the very least it would be exciting. Perhaps one day these patterns will be found.

Well, time will tell.

Well, yes. If the Universe is aware, then the experience itself can be 'real'. Even if the Universe isn't aware, God might still exist and use electromagnetism to communicate with us. My point was that unless you can actually show that there is intelligence behind the effects, you can't say one way or the other whether you've actually got evidence for God or evidence that electromagetic waves trick us into thinking that there's God. Occam's razor suggests the latter explaination.

You cannot use Occam's razor so recklessly. The "association" being made is being made by the observer/individual in the experiment. The feeling/experience "is like" what they typically (and already) associate with 'spirituality'. This means that the EM influence is "similar to" something they already associate with God, or their religious experiences, usually during prayer or meditation. The "easiest" way to explain all this is to accept that God exists and had a direct influence on us via EM fields. Your explanation isn't necessarily compatible with *ANY* of their "prior" experiences that they associate with "God" or "spirituality". There no "trick" going on in meditation, nor any reason to believe that random EM fields would have any tangible effect on humans. Even in the experiments, the fields were not "random".

Well, it certainly runs counter to mainstream scientific understanding. That is true. I suppose whether it runs counter to Christian theology depends on what sort of Christian theology you subsribe to. I still doubt that many Christian denominations would be too accepting of pantheism, even if many idividual Christians may be.

Well, like said earlier, time will tell. IMO the limiting factor has been technology and science, not "religion" per se. We simply know very little about the universe we live in.

I'm sorry to be so "pick and choose" about what I'm responding to today. I'm doing these posts between tech calls at work and I'm trying to break them down into logical and manageable chunks.