An Empirical Theory Of God

[sandwiches]

Why? Why would an EM field induce something that multiple people associate with "spirituality" in some way? I mean why wouldn't it induce anger or sexual fantasies, or something more "mundane"? What's the link to spirituality all about?

Actually, there are studies that suggest a link between solar flares and differing moods in people, geomagnetic storms and suicide rates, etc. So, just like EM radiation seems to effect feelings of spirituality in people, it also seems to cause other moods including suicidal thoughts, anger, laziness, etc. In other words, spirituality is not unique in this.

 

[Michael]

If stars act as neurons as you seem to be claiming, I'm looking for signals that are carried across different stars as neurons do with electrical signals using action potential. Spikes in radiation by themselves are not it.

Well, keep in mind that photons are just *ONE* type of signal and process worth considering. During CME events, current flows blow off the sun in the form of plasma and often interact with the Earth's magnetosphere. I've personally seen the Aurora from Mt. Shasta on one occasion, and it's pretty far south for auroral activity. We see large and small changes in the overall EM field of the sun, the magnetic polar alignment of the sun, etc. The sun emits various elements, and more heavy elements during the active phases of the sun. There are high energy "cosmic rays" blowing through our solar system all day long. Lots of things might carry information, and in fact the carrier particle of awareness may not even be directly related to the EM field. It may simply be able to manipulate and control it.

Since we really haven't identified any clear EM patterns in all aware things, it's hard to point at any one possible method of passing information to claim "aha, there's the proof I'm looking for." That could and might change if we could identify clear patterns of awareness in the EM fields of multiple species of aware creatures. At that point the Aha part might be possible. Right now, it's sort of like looking for needle in a haystack IMO.

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, keep in mind that photons are just *ONE* type of signal and process worth considering. During CME events, current flows blow off the sun in the form of plasma and often interact with the Earth's magnetosphere. I've personally seen the Aurora from Mt. Shasta on one occasion, and it's pretty far south for auroral activity. We see large and small changes in the overall EM field of the sun, the magnetic polar alignment of the sun, etc. The sun emits various elements, and more heavy elements during the active phases of the sun. There are high energy "cosmic rays" blowing through our solar system all day long. Lots of things might carry information, and in fact the carrier particle of awareness may not even be directly related to the EM field. It may simply be able to manipulate and control it.

Since we really haven't identified any clear EM patterns in all aware things, it's hard to point at any one possible method of passing information to claim "aha, there's the proof I'm looking for." That could and might change if we could identify clear patterns of awareness in the EM fields of multiple species of aware creatures. At that point the Aha part might be possible. Right now, it's sort of like looking for needle in a haystack IMO.

Its an elegent little theory you have here, and I'm sorry I'm late to the thread and may be repeating questions, but is it based on anything other than supposition? Yes, I acknowledge the natural phenomena we're discussing, but do you have any empirical evidence suggesting that said phenomena is part of the mechanical makeup of an inteligence?

 

[Spacewyrm]

You've never seen a sun before?

Seriously?

Again, I believe that you're simply engaging in "wishful thinking" in the opposite direction as I am. With a universe this vast and complex, how can you be so sure of that? What exactly would a neuron in space look like in your opinion?

I'm not using analogys or metaphors. I'm talking about neurons and brains. Neurons are a type of animal cell. Brains are gray squishy things made mostly of neurons. There is no room for argument here. Even if the Universe thinks, it's not a brain.

Sandwiches said it perfectly:

Stars are not neurons. Your answer really is a non sequitur. It's as though if I claimed "The universe is a giant cake." You say "I've never seen any frosting on the universe." I then respond "Have you never seen asteroids?"

Just as asteroids aren't frosting, stars aren't neurons. Stars are stars. If your claim is that stars act or behave like neurons, among many other things, you'll have to show the evidence of stars transporting signals as neurons do.

It seems to me that would would need to isolate some "universal patterns" that are present in all living things. At that point it would make sense to look for similar patterns in space. Until we can isolate "signs of awareness" in EM fields in living organisms, how would we even know what to look for in space?

Yes, how would we know what to look for in space? You don't know. I don't know. Even if the Universe can think, it might be impossible to find such "universal patterns". Maybe there are no such patterns, because all things that think think using different physical mechanisms. A human being might work very differently than the thinking Universe, no?

So what? Hmm. That bordered on "flippantly evasive". You have to admit is seems kinda odd that a direct EM stimulus applied to key areas of the brain produce effects that many humans all relate back to "God" even through various cultural filters. You don't find that even slightly interesting? How do you explain it?

I don't find that even slightly interesting? Really!? I find it quite fascinating. How do I explain it? I've already told you what I think the most likely explaination is. And yeah, so what? So what does this do to prove your point? That's no evasion; it's as genuine question.

For instance, you say that these EM field stimulus "produce effects that many humans all relate back to 'God' even through various cultural filters". Does this reflect how they self-report such incidences, or is this you who is equating their experiences with relating back to God? What is it in these experiences that suggests God rather than a product of common anatomy?

Well, if they can be "activated by EM fields", then we have a physical mechanism to explain how and why humans experience "God". That seems to be more than a simple coincidence to me.

I don't think it's a coincidence either. I just don't think it's God. You have a possible mechanism for God's communications. Now you just need to detect God communicating in a scientific manner.

That's not really much of an "explanation" is it?

It's not? Well, I'm no neurologist. Neither am I well versed in the evolution of the human brain. So I can do little better than this.

Not really. These people obviously had experiences that were important to them, and by externally triggering key points in the brain, we can produce similar results.

It seems to me that our ability to produce these results by triggering key points in the brain is evidence that our brain contains "circuitry" (so to speak) that is geared to produce such experiences. It does not suggest an external source. Not by itself. We can cause all sorts of feelings and sensations by stimulating various parts of the brain. That doesn't mean that all our experiences are caused by external signals, does it?

This is an experimental "discovery" that warrants careful consideration IMO.

Of course.

A "glitch" doesn't really explain the original experiences that each individual attributed to spirituality in the first place, and it "glitch" wasn't technically responsible for the experimental results.

A "glitch"? Who said anything about "glitches"? I'm talking brain anatomy here. And how do you know that a "glitch" (as you put it) doesn't really explain the orignal experiences? And how do you know that this "glitch" wasn't technically responsible for the experimental results?

They were in fact "induced" by careful manipulate of EM fields. If that can be done in a lab, it could also be the exact same "cause" of other people's spiritual experiences. There's a direct cause/effect link to be studied here.

Could be, sure. I've already told you that I would be in favor of research looking into this possibility.

How so? Is everyone that meditates simply 'glitching' the same way over and over and over again?

Well, aside from my dislike of the term "glitch", why not? The way you describe it makes it sound like the brain malfunctioning. But, if the anatomy of the brain is inherently predisposed to generate such experiences, then one would expect that lots of people would be able to do things like meditate or pray or take drugs or whatever and be able to generate such experiences.

What's the connection between an EM field and a "glitch" exactly?

What's a glitch? Really, don't ask me what the connection is. Those guys doing these experiments with EM fields on brains could probably tell you, though. However, while EM fields can stimulate these areas of the brain, you can't say with reasonable certainty that EM fields are the only way that these areas of the brain are ever stimulated.

But it *could mean* that they are right. How can you be sure one way or the other?

I can't be sure about whether they are right. My default assumption is that God does not exist. And further more, my default assumption is that your God hypothesis is incorrect. You are the one making the extraordinary claim here; the burden of proof is on you and so far your evidence is unconvincing.

Why would that EM manipulation cause multiple individuals to all have experiences they associate with spirituality?

Because they all have similar brains.

But that same "similar anatomy" may not be "accidental" to begin with, and the EM tinkering could easily be the physical mechanism of communication between "God" and man.

Of course that similar anatomy is not accidental. All humans share a common ancestry, from which we inherit our similar anatomy which has been shaped by a few billion years of mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, &c.

Yes, that EM tinkering could easily be the physical mechanism of communication between God and man. Right now, however, I have no reason to believe that to be so.

You can't simply rule that possibility out on a whim.

Oh. So I've ruled it out. On a whim, no less. You have actually been reading my posts, haven't you? I've told you that I find your ideas of God unlikely. That's not the same as ruling them out. I've also said that these EM effects on the brain are worth investigating, to look for this communication you believe exists. That's definately not the same as ruling them out. And, a "whim"? Seriously? I think I've explained myself well enough that my position can be called more than a whim, thank you very much!

I hear you. I rarely run into someone with my typing stamina. You're a worthy adversary, and I can fully appreciate how you feel.

Oh, I've got plenty of typing stamina, that's for sure. I may be busy, but I'm not through with this conversation just yet.

Ya, but opinions about the current and former Presidents varies from individual to individual to doesn't it?

Yeah, but like I said, that difference of opinion never involves doubting either of thier existences or making them out to be the same person (even if, IMHO, they are very much the same in substance (but that's a thread for another forum )). The standing differences of opinion about God do often amount to people making distinctions between "my God" and "your God". So, your analogy is flawed.

I once read some comments on a blog where one Christian commenter was adamant that he worshipped a different God than Muslims. And he had a very compelling argument. Many of the other commenters were trying to point out that Christians and Muslims basically worship the same God. And they also had a very compelling argument. Depending on how you look at things, either one of their positions could be called correct, in my opinion.

Well, there is where you and I do seem to differ a great deal. I find the question to be *THE* most important question there is. The answer seems fundamentally important and fundamentally important to 'science' as well.

I guess I just figure that God being real or imaginary doesn't really effect me one way or the other. My life is still my life. The world still goes on as it has. If we could prove God exists that would be pretty cool. If we could conclusively disproove that God exists, that would also be pretty cool (and, arguably this has been done for quite a few specific God ideas, such as the YEC God who created the Universe ~6,000 years ago). If God does exist, I feel that science might one day find out. If God doesn't exist, however, it would probably be impossible to demonstrate this, especially since there would be no way to tell whether we were missing God because she is not real or because she is simply not letting us detect her. That is the trouble with omnipotent beings.



Edited to add: Just saw your second post responding to me. I'll reply to it tomorrow. Now I'm going to bed.

 

[Nostromo]

Heck, if stars were neurons, given the distances involved it would probably take the universe millions of years to come up with a response to this post.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I tend to agree with all of that.

Again, I tend to agree. The key point here is that there is a clear way to falsify this theory. While you're correct that an EU verification (not a given at this moment in time) is not necessarily direct proof that the universe is aware, a negative result (no electromagnetic fields in space) would be a valid falsification of this empirical theory of God, though not necessarily every possible theory about God. It does however act as a valid "prediction" and a valid falsification mechanism.

Yes, I suppose it does act as a valid falsification mechanism. That's a good sign for your hypothesis.

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "zero" per se, but I'm pleased you believe it warrants further investigation. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Well, that is about as far as I think I can be convinced to go along with your idea, just from a discussion on this forum. For me, the data is not yet satisfactory to draw the sorts of conclusions you have come to. I am always open to the idea of scientifically investigating things most people would consider to be paranormal or supernatural. It's just such a shame that these investigations usually (always?) don't show them to really exist. (In High School I used to be into all sorts of weird stuff like UFOlogy & cryptozoology; I was so disappointed when I realized that the Loch Ness monster was fake! I still hold some irrational hope that Bigfoot may proove to be real, though. That would be totally awesome!)

But, I do stand by my statement of zero "objective evidence of an actual intelligence directing people's non-artificially-induced spiritual experiences". That's not to say that you have zero evidence at all; it's just that as of yet your evidence only shows that there are some interesting brain phenomena going on. The data does not, at this current time, point towards an external source for these experiences. At least, there is nothing scientific or objective. If I understand you correctly, you think that the commonality of such experiences is good evidence. I say it is weak evidence, though, rather than strong evidence, because the only way you can get to God right now is through a subjective judgement. You believe that God exists, and I don't. You believe that you have had contact with God through meditation, correct? In that case, I can understand how it seems like God is the most likely answer. I might feel the same if I had ever had similar experiences in my life. From my point of view, though, it seems that God is, so far, unneccessary to explain what's going on; applying Occam's razor suggests that in the abscence of further evidence, I shouldn't be adding extra entities such as God to my understanding.

Why? Why would an EM field induce something that multiple people associate with "spirituality" in some way? I mean why wouldn't it induce anger or sexual fantasies, or something more "mundane"? What's the link to spirituality all about?

What is the link to spirituality all about? It's about the part of the brain that was stimulated. I'd bet that they could induce other perceptions and emotions by stimulating other parts of the brain. Also, did you pay close attention to that Wired article you linked to? The guy writing it said that while he was being affected by the EM fields he started thinking about old girlfriends.

Well, I more or less agree, but that was the whole point of tracking all the energy in the room from my perspective. I'm not saying your way wouldn't work, but it was "too subjective" to be useful IMO. I'm more interested in something we might actually measure directly during various scenarios.

I don't see what's all that subjective about my experiment. I still think that if there is any truth to your hypothesis that there should be a statistically significant difference between the group in electromagnetic isolation and the other group. Now, it may be that people meditating or praying or whatever can cause these same experiences internally. Then, at best the test is inconclusive and your proposed test would probably be the next best bet. In my opinion though, unless the people meditating can tell that there is something missing in their EM-blocked experience, it would be highly suggestive that this is all just brain chemistry at work with no outside connection happening. I just think my experiment would be easier to set up, and if it were to show evidence for you hypothesis, it would be more readily recognizable.

I do think that your experient is also a good idea. And if my experiment were to show evidence for your hypothesis, then some kind of attempt to measure the electromagnetic interactions between the human brain and the surrounding environment would still be called for. I still think my way would be easier to carry out. But I suppose it's always good to have multiple ways to test a theory, is it not?

It sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on the overall redshift expansion debate and the basics behind big bang theory.

Well, that's comforting. As I said, cosmology is something I'm quite interested in, but I'm just an interested ameteur. I plan on one day studying the physics involved at greater detail, but I'm kinda lazy so I haven't really gotten around to it yet. Is there really a "redshift expansion debate" though? I thought that redshift = expansion was settled many years ago.

That turns out to be based on some very questionable assumptions, starting with the concept that iron and nickel with stay "mixed" with light elements like hydrogen and helium over extend periods of time. If you take away that concept, the whole notion of elemental abundances comes into serious question. That turns out to be not so strong evidence actually.

Well, like I said, I'm no physicist. I can't really judge who's correct myself. So right now, I'm gonna stick with concensus cosmology. For instance, I really don't what the relevence of iron and nickel staying or not staying "mixed" with light elements is to this line of evidence, and I'm not sure how much of an assumption it is anyway, because I really don't know much about the physics involved.

The problem however is that nobody ever demonstrated a "cause/effect" relationship between things like "inflation' or "dark energy" and that background signature. It's all "postdicted" to fit and there are some serious questions about the methods used in the WMAP program.

[1001.4643] Inconsistency between WMAP data and released map

There could be some "curve fitting" going on there.

Inflation and dark energy? What exactly does dark energy have to do with the cosmic microwave background? I was under the impression that dark energy was simply a hypothetical cause of what appears to be an accelleration in the expansion of the Universe. Also, according to Wikipedia, inflation was first proposed in 1980. The cosmic microwave background was discovered in the 1960's, so I'm not sure the relevence of inflation here either. It seems to me that the big bang is still a solid theory even if inflation and dark energy prove to be mistakes.

Also, I'm not sure that that link says anything as bad as you seem to be implying. Can you demonstrate that anything has been postdicted? And what's wrong with curve fitting?

Actually, that's not technically correct. Alfven is considered the father of MHD theory and was the first to apply that theory to space. He proposed a "bang" theory of his own that doesn't require a singularity and also "explains" homogeneous layouts of matter.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

I'm going to stop here for now and get some more coffee.

I'm going read this link a little bit later. But, it seems to me that when you say he had a "bang theory" that had no singularity that you are talking about something entirely different than the "big bang" theory that I was referring to. Also, what does MHD stand for?

I just checked out the front page of the site hosting that document, though, and gave it a cursory examination. Do you think that the Sun has a solid iron surface or that the Sun's photosphere is made of neon? Those seem to be very very very wrong claims. We know from spectral absorbtion lines that the Sun is made of mostly hydrogen and helium, and it is quite established in modern science that the source of the Sun's energy is nuclear fusion at its core. If these happen to be claims central to the EU theory then I'm going to at least tenatively consider EU theory to be effectively falsified.

 

[Spacewyrm]

What if we are the "thinking circuits"? What if we are God's brain* and God is trying to understand what it is? It would explain the existence of scientific endeavour for its own sake.

(*I know its wrong but I sort of believe this. I feel dirty for believing it)

That's a beautiful notion. I don't know why you should feel dirty about it. It's one of the more plausible God concepts I've ever heard anyway. It's ironic that it comes from an atheist.

 

[Michael]

Seriously?

I'm not using analogys or metaphors. I'm talking about neurons and brains. Neurons are a type of animal cell. Brains are gray squishy things made mostly of neurons. There is no room for argument here. Even if the Universe thinks, it's not a brain.

Sandwiches said it perfectly:

FYI, sorry for my recent absence. I've been busy moving our business offices.

The notion of "squishy things made mostly of neurons" would apply to the macroscopic level too, especially since plasma isn't particularly rigid. Suns simply replace the term "neuron".

As you and Sandwiches point out, there is still work to be done. It won't actually be enough to demonstrate a consistent energy transfer process between objects in space (this can already be done in a rudimentary way), one will need to demonstrate that these patterns of energy transfer indicate "awareness" as well. That last part is the one that will take the most time, and require the most effort IMO.

I'll try to put together some links that demonstrate a consistent pattern of energy transfer between objects in space. IMO that part can already be done to some degree, whereas demonstrating a pattern of energy flow that indicates "awareness" is quite another issue. That part will take consistent effort over time to develop, just as is required in any and all scientific theories.

I'll try to nibble at your posts today as I get time.

 

[Michael]

That's a beautiful notion. I don't know why you should feel dirty about it. It's one of the more plausible God concepts I've ever heard anyway. It's ironic that it comes from an atheist.

Hmm, well some of the Vedic literature would tend to allude to something similar. That literature predates us all by thousands of years.

 

[Michael]

Actually, there are studies that suggest a link between solar flares and differing moods in people, geomagnetic storms and suicide rates, etc. So, just like EM radiation seems to effect feelings of spirituality in people, it also seems to cause other moods including suicidal thoughts, anger, laziness, etc. In other words, spirituality is not unique in this.

The EM field would ultimately be involved in all human feelings, in all human thoughts and all our experiences as well. It's simply "par for the course" so to speak due to the nature of the design itself. Assuming that the universe is aware and is a feeling being, it would not be at all unusual for humans to "feel" what the universe feels at times, particularly if EM fields are common to both types of awareness (macroscopic and microscopic). That would in fact tend to be 'normal'.

 

[Michael]

Yes, I suppose it does act as a valid falsification mechanism. That's a good sign for your hypothesis.

Well, that is about as far as I think I can be convinced to go along with your idea, just from a discussion on this forum. For me, the data is not yet satisfactory to draw the sorts of conclusions you have come to.

Magnet placed near brain can disrupt person's moral compass: scientists

Not that this is necessarily going to change your mind, but there is additional physical evidence that EM fields can and do have a direct influence on human thought and a human's sense of morality. The "mechanism" of human brainwave interaction via EM fields is evidently pretty straight forward and has already been demonstrated to directly effect the human psyche.

 

[sandwiches]

The EM field would ultimately be involved in all human feelings, in all human thoughts and all our experiences as well. It's simply "par for the course" so to speak due to the nature of the design itself. Assuming that the universe is aware and is a feeling being, it would not be at all unusual for humans to "feel" what the universe feels at times, particularly if EM fields are common to both types of awareness (macroscopic and microscopic). That would in fact tend to be 'normal'.

Of course, a more sensible explanation would be that the EM fields alter our thoughts and feelings because they are stored in electrochemical form which are indeed affected by EM fields. ANY EM field. And while the sun may cause us to have different feelings and thoughts, so can other sources of EM radiation. So, why would we assume that the EM radiation from stars differs or is more special or unique than that of any other source? In other words, why would we take the jump from EM radiation affecting our brains to seeing this as evidence of a greater universal intellect?

 

[Gracchus]

Of course, a more sensible explanation would be that the EM fields alter our thoughts and feelings because they are stored in electrochemical form which are indeed affected by EM fields. ANY EM field. And while the sun may cause us to have different feelings and thoughts, so can other sources of EM radiation. So, why would we assume that the EM radiation from stars differs or is more special or unique than that of any other source? In other words, why would we take the jump from EM radiation affecting our brains to seeing this as evidence of a greater universal intellect?

Indeed, and it seems likely that the emf of the earth itself would have more effect on the currents in my brain than the emf of the sun. For that matter the changing emf of the fan running behind me and the fans in my computer would, being so much closer, render the emf of the sun imperceptible.
Moreover the fact that it takes 4.2 and a half years for any change in the emf of Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to have any influence on our sun, and that the galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter, would seem to indicate that if the galaxy is thinking it must be thinking very very slowly indeed from our perspective.

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away so any teleconferencing is going to take up a great part of your schedule for next Tuesday.

 

[Michael]

Of course, a more sensible explanation would be that the EM fields alter our thoughts and feelings because they are stored in electrochemical form which are indeed affected by EM fields. ANY EM field. And while the sun may cause us to have different feelings and thoughts, so can other sources of EM radiation. So, why would we assume that the EM radiation from stars differs or is more special or unique than that of any other source?

I would not personally assume anything of the sort. The sun is however the most electrically active body in the solar system.

In other words, why would we take the jump from EM radiation affecting our brains to seeing this as evidence of a greater universal intellect?

You seem to be reading more into the article than I did. I simply note that there is a known physical mechanism whereby an external EM input can have a direct physical effect on the human consciousness. Whether or not the universe is "aware" remains to be seen, but the influence of an external EM field can and does have a direct effect on the human psyche.

 

[Michael]

Indeed, and it seems likely that the emf of the earth itself would have more effect on the currents in my brain than the emf of the sun. For that matter the changing emf of the fan running behind me and the fans in my computer would, being so much closer, render the emf of the sun imperceptible.
Moreover the fact that it takes 4.2 and a half years for any change in the emf of Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to have any influence on our sun, and that the galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter, would seem to indicate that if the galaxy is thinking it must be thinking very very slowly indeed from our perspective.

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away so any teleconferencing is going to take up a great part of your schedule for next Tuesday.

You seem to "assume" that "awareness" is limited by the speed of light whereas I do not know that with any certainty. In either case, the primary EM transmitter in this solar system is only 8 minutes away at worst case.

 

[Gracchus]

"em·pir·i·cal (

m-pîr

-k

l) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em·pir

i·cal·ly adv."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Michael: Where are the observations or experiments that support your "theory"? What experiments would verify the "theory". If you have no experiments or observations that support your "theory" and cannot suggest any, then the "theory" is not empirical, it is merely unsupported speculation.
Special relativity has lots of supporting evidence, but you say I "assume" it. And yet you call your "theory" empirical?

 

[Michael]

"em·pir·i·cal (

m-pîr

-k

l) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em·pir

i·cal·ly adv."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Michael: Where are the observations or experiments that support your "theory"? What experiments would verify the "theory".

Originally I cited this article that demonstrates a connection between EM fields and what human beings tend to equate with 'spirituality' of some sort.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

There is also ample scientific evidence to suggest that the physical universe itself is an electromagnetic environment, complete with many electric "circuits".

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits

If you have no experiments or observations that support your "theory" and cannot suggest any, then the "theory" is not empirical, it is merely unsupported speculation.

Special relativity has lots of supporting evidence, but you say I "assume" it. And yet you call your "theory" empirical?

The B) definition you listed best fits this scenario IMO. While one can demonstrate various aspects of some theories, in many instances there is no clear way to physically "test" a theory in the standard empirical manner. Mainstream theory for instance doesn't just rely upon special or general relativity, but instead requires "dark matter" and "dark energy" that defy empirical support in a lab and cannot ever hope to be tested in lab in the case of inflation. The term "empirical" in this case means that this theory *CAN* be put to a scientific test in a standard manner. I'm not sure we have the technology yet to do that properly, but there's nothing about this theory that requires "faith" in anything that cannot be tested in a lab.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Once again we have found a proof that god exists...

...so long as we are willing to define "god" broadly and vaguely enough.

 

[Michael]

Once again we have found a proof that god exists...

...so long as we are willing to define "god" broadly and vaguely enough.

Compared to the supposed "proof" offered to support "dark energy" or "inflation" from standard cosmology theory, it seems to me that you have absolutely nothing to complain about.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Compared to the supposed "proof" offered to support "dark energy" or "inflation" from standard cosmology theory, it seems to me that you have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Well "dark energy" is nothing more than a place-holder for "we've observed some weird behavior in the motion of objects that violates our theory of gravity, and we don't really know what is going on".

"Inflationary cosmology" is just a place-holder for "we've observed that the universe is really really huge, but strangely enough everywhere we look everything is roughly the same looking (on average), and we have no idea how this could have happened".

You just have to translate from science-speak to layperson-speak.