Heh, yet another 2-parter...
We can both be mighty long winded evidently.
Yeah. I'm usually pretty bad at being concise when I'm actually trying to make a point. Usually the only time I can make a non-long-winded post is when I'm making some (probably not-so-)witty one-liner or a really bad pun. In fact, I excel in really terrible puns, but I try not to actually post them (people within earshot of me are not so lucky
).
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.
I am not negating any implications. You've got things rather backwards. The truth of electric Universe cosmology does not imply the truth of your God hypothesis. That theory says nothing about whether the Universe is intelligent/aware. Some actual signs of intelligence must be found and then scientifically verified. If you are correct about God being the Universe, this may imply that plasma cosmology is correct (or that some kind of hybrid between current cosmology and plasma cosmology is correct), but it really does not work the other way around, at least not until you can take the electric Universe theory and show from that that the Universe should be aware (and then, of course, you'll have to show that the electric Universe theory is correct...).
By strong evidence, I mean some actual objective evidence of an actual intelligence directing people's non-artificially-induced spiritual experiences. You've got zero, at present. But what you do have is enough to warrant further investigation.
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.
Oh, yes, this is indeed quite intriguing.
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?
Yes, it can be pure conincidence, if by "pure coincidence" you mean that it happens even though there is no God or gods or anything like that. The human brain is very complicated and doing things to it can cause very strange experiences or behaviors. Stimulating a part of the brain and causing spiritual experiences seems perfectly reasonable even if there is no God.
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.
Once you can actually show that there is, indeed, communication going on, then you will have strong evidence. Right now you have no evidence to distinguish between your hypothesis and the idea that these experiences are all just quirks of the mind caused by some brain circuitry that is common to most people (perhaps all people?). I find the latter more likely.
There's no evidence that contradicts it actually. What evidence do you believe contradicts EU theory in your opinion?
Eh, I'm not really sure. All I know is that most cosmologists don't agree with it. I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, though I am very interested in astronomy and cosmology. In truth, I hadn't even heard of EU theory until a few months ago when it suddenly became the hot topic on the science forum here (mainly because Doveaman turns every thread into a debate of electric Universe vs. big bang Universe). I do know however that there is very good evidence that Universe is expanding (redshift of galaxies and such). This gives rise to the big bang theory. If I recall correctly, the big bang made at least two important predictions which verified it (and probably made more, but I don't remember anything else). One, the early conditions of the Universe proposed by the big bang theory along with the effects of fusion in stars would theoretically give rise to the proportion of elements that we see see in the Universe today. Another prediction was that we would find the cosmic microwave background radiation. (Of course, as I said, I'm no physicist, so if any of the physicists here see some horrible mistake in there, please correct me!)
Now, from what I've been reading from EU proponents here, it seems that EU theory and big bang theory can't really get along together. As far as I know, nothing has yet been found to falsify big bang theory, so this seems to be evidence against EU theory. But, I think until I learns more I'm just going to admit that mainly I'm basing my opinion on the overall opinion of cosmologists, who seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of big bang and overwhelmingly against EU. I suspect that if current cosmology is overturned it will not likely be in favor of EU theory but rather in favor of something completely new.
BTW, would you think it's fair to say that you are trying to replace the current cosmology with "current cosmology"?
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.
What "awareness" in a single celled organism?
If we can't explain awareness at the most basic level, then how is that my personal fault?
Oh, no, it's no personal fault on your part. I'm just trying to explain why I don't accept your hypothesis right now, that's all. There is insufficient evidence to convince me. And I will agree that awareness is a rather strange thing. It is actually rather difficult, in my opinion, to think clearly about its nature.
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.
Yes. I agree that this hypothesis is worth exploring. That's what I was saying in that part of my post that you quoted right before this part of your reply. I might not be convinced that you are right, but I'm not going to say that you couldn't possibly be right. Even if you're wrong, it's still worth exploring how EM fields effect the brain.
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.
Well, like I said, conclusive evidence of God isn't something I'd seriously expect to encounter for the first time on an internet forum. Maybe someday someone will find the evidence for your hypothesis though, you never know. The fact that some people are studying the effect of EM fields on the human brain should provide you with some hope in that regard. In fact, I seem to recall from that article you linked that the researcher there was considering the effects of natural EM fields on human behavior. He may not have drawn the same conclusions as you, but if your idea has any merrit, then someone pursuing this line of research may eventually discover something that validates your hypothesis.
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:
Wait... what idea am I writing off again?
That your hypothesis is 100% compatible with the teachings of Jesus? I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about that. I was really only commenting on what you might call "standard" Christian theology (if such a thing really exists), which is quite a bit more than what Jesus said. There's a long history of Church doctrines and schisms and the writings of various influential theologians, &c. But, I'm not really even interested much in debating that point anymore.
Christians have long desired to be able to talk about "God" in scientific manner in a classroom setting.
Have they?
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.
I don't see how falsification might scare off anyone, weak faith or no. It's not like falsifying your particular idea of God falsifies the existence of God entirely. God may exist in some other form. Ultimately there will always be some conception of God that can be accepted on faith.
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.
It's "ok" to teach dark energy and inflation in the classroom because that's where the scientific evidence leads. As far as I know, there is physical evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. What causes it? Nobody knows. So, for now, it's some unknown energy. "Dark energy". Your "empirical theory" of God is at this point just speculation.
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.
Why bring politics into this? Establish your theory first, then worry about what they teach in science class. If God can be shown to exist scientifically, then I guess it's his existence isn't really a religious idea anymore, is it? But you haven't gotten that far yet.
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.
Well, I think most theists, Christian or otherwise, are physical/spiritual dualists who believe that God is separate from the material Universe somehow (a supernatual being). So of course, they wouldn't really be thinking about the physics of God. On the other hand, I'm not so sure why we shouldn't be able to explore the supernatural (assuming that there is such a thing) with science, if we ever had any evidence of the supernatural affecting the natural. Of course, I'm not sure calling something supernatural really means anything at all. I tend to think of myself as a materialist, but then again, I'm not sure that that really means much of anything either.
I do think you are right about the possibility of this notion of God catching on in plenty of religions, if it turns out to be correct. It might also give rise to a lot of non-religious theists, assuming that many people accept that the conscious Universe is something appropriately called 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.
I believe, though, that that line of the argument began when I asked why I should call your conscious Universe "God". That's really more of a philisophical question, but one that arises when you make the claim that the Universe is, in fact, God. So, I wasn't saying that your hypothesis should be discarded because most theists would not like it. I was just getting at the fact that I'm not sure how to define God properly and that I don't know how your conscious Universe properly meets the definition of God (which as I said, I don't know). But most theists seem to believe in something which does not really resemble your conception of God, which might not mean anything important since most thiests also disagree with eachother on the particulars. I mean, even if you're right, I don't think I would start worshipping the Universe or anything like that. I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't become religious in any real sense either.
