An Empirical Theory Of God

Wiccan_Child said:

Your concept of spacetime differs from that of myself, and indeed of everyone else. Relativity, for instance, treats spacetime as a medium wherein matter and energy lie, and it is a separate entity unto itself.

Click to expand...

Without matter and energy GR doesn't exist. GR is a description the curvature of spacetime in the PRESENCE OF MATTER. Without matter and energy, no GR.

It can affect and be affected by mass, for instance. So I disagree with your proclamations that ""Spacetime" cannot and does not exist in the absence of matter",

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think GR describes in the absence of matter? What's generating any 'curvature' of spacetime in such a scenario?

and "[spacetime] cannot "expand" until and unless the matter that composes "spacetime" expands".

Click to expand...

What exactly are you claiming is "expanding"? Start with your near singularity thing, just prior to inflation. What is "expanding"? Do any Higgs Bosons exist yet?

Why? One particle can decay into a shower of other particles. This is a routine occurance in particle physics.

Click to expand...

Sure, when we're talking about "real" particles that show up in real experiments.

Who's to say that inflatons cannot decay into, say, ITJ photons?

Click to expand...

Who's to say God cannot decay in the same thing? I don't see the point of such arguments in terms of empirical physics.

Pointing out that electrons don't do this is irrelevant, and belies your misunderstanding of the whole thing.

Click to expand...

No, it simply demonstrates that no other known vector or scalar field in nature does that 'supernatural' thing that Guth endowed his deity with.

How about showing me that inflation can decay into *ANYTHING* in a controlled experiment. You can't simply claim that inflation decays into *MORE INFLATION* and therefore it's density remains constant while it expands exponentially. Talk about creation mythologies at their religious finest! I have to take the whole thing on 'blind faith in the supernatural creation entity'.

Please show me where the inflaton violates the laws of physics by decaying into other particles.

Click to expand...

Please show me that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination and that it actually decays into *ANYTHING*.

If I told you that electrons exist and they "annihilate" with positrons to create gamma rays, that claim is something that I might hope to physically demonstrate in a lab. Since Guthianity begins with a dead inflation entity, you're up a metaphysical creek without an empirical paddle. I can't "disprove" something that doesn't even exist, let alone demonstrate that it violates anything by decaying into anything. Your inflation religion is evidently predicated upon the need for others to "disprove' your metaphysical religion.

Does that work for me too? Does pantheism automatically get a free pass unless and until you can physically and personally disprove it?

No. Notice the qualifying word at the beginning of the first? Here it is again:

"IF Guth's original theory has been disproven and replaced by a better theory..."

Click to expand...

It was found to contain errors. His version had flaws and there are at least a half dozen "better" metaphysical brands to chose from these days, assuming that any metaphysical concept is actually "better" than another.

Indeed. Welcome to academia, baby.

Click to expand...

Er, welcome to religion baby!

Even if that were the case (notice the 'if'), so what? That fact alone doesn't disprove inflation.

Click to expand...

Notice what you're saying now. I can't "prove" that anything "supernatural" does not exist. I can't "prove' the Guth made it up in his head, although I can prove that his idea had *absolutely* no scientific precedent.

It's a scientific and physical impossibility to prove a negative. Guthanity is based upon a dead, supernatural entity that now has as many metaphysical variations on the same theme as "Christianity" (almost). It's gotten so bad you now expect me to "prove" that something that's never been seen cannot "decay" in a way that allows it to grow exponentially, yet experience little or no change in density. Even though this behavior is completely and absolutely *unlike* any other vector or scalar field in nature, you expect *ME* to disprove something that cannot possibly be 'disproven".

IMO, you sound every bit like a theist *insisting* that an atheist disprove their beliefs, rather than the theist attempting to support their own beliefs scientifically as I am trying to do in this thread. Nobody can prove a negative. It's a scientific impossibility.

But not because they've passed every test, but rather because no test has been put to them.

Click to expand...

FYI, PC theory was what renewed my interest in pantheism, so actually that isn't a true statement from my perspective. Pantheism passed a 'test' I'd never even considered before. That's what piqued my scientific curiosity.

You've never put Guthanity to any empirical tests. You have shown no empirical connections between photons and Guth's mythical entity, let alone any specific wavelength of photon and his mythical creature. You've shown nothing remotely like an empirical demonstration of concept.

Not only can I show you Birkeland's working model of a cathode sun, I can show you an empirical link between EM fields and human thought. I can show a link between intelligence and circuitry. I can show that the universe is full of circuits. I can do all these things *EMPIRICALLY*.

You can't even get inflation to release a single photon in a lab, let alone move a couple of atoms around. Man, talk about faith in something you cannot every personally hope demonstrate and that will forever remain an act of faith!

Please show where I made the claim that "Everything that hasn't been disproven, is true".

Click to expand...

Notice how you expect me to empirically support pantheism, yet you also expect me to *prove* that Guth didn't make up inflation in his head? Do you really not see *ANY* sort of double standard in what you're asking me to do in this thread? Somehow I'm supposed to prove to you that inflation cannot decay into endless more amounts of something, not that you can really even say what it is, or demonstrate any of it.

Then I repeat my question: why do you denounce inflation as being false, when you yourself admit it cannot be disproven?

Click to expand...

I routinely reject *all* supernatural concepts on the same empirical grounds. I "lack belief' in anything and everything that lacks empirical support. How can you not accept that? You rationalize a "lack of belief" in God don't you? I really don't get it.

I've gone out of my way to reject metaphysics since I became an atheist at about age 15. For a time I couldn't explain God, but I never *insisted* that God was supernatural even after embracing theism again. I fail to see why you would accept me claiming that Godflation did it, and I likewise fail to see why you would expect me to believe "Guthflation did it'. Neither statement has an empirical leg to stand on in the lab.

Why would I need to read a paper from the 1980s to learn about and evaluate a theory that has had 30 years of development? I could read it, just as I could read On the Origin of Species to get a grasp of evolution - but I don't need to. The best evidence has been found after the publication of the paper, so why on Earth would I read the original paper?

Click to expand...

You're still ignoring the fact that DNA is real and it mutates here on Earth in a lab, whereas inflation is a complete dud in the lab. 30 years after Guth invented inflation, and nobody has ever linked a photon to inflation in a lab. In fact it's impossible based on Guth's theory for that to ever happen (again). It's the ultimate act of faith on the part of the believer.

"God lights up my sky every single day and night."
What are you referring to, if not the Sun?

Click to expand...

Everything you see.

How indeed. By all appearances, that's all you are. That's all any of us is.

Click to expand...

Well, you're going to have to throw in awareness in there sooner or later. If you accept that awareness is a 'natural' physical process, then pantheism is by far the single most 'natural' and most empirical theory of the universe that could ever be written. It's based on pure empirical physics, like atoms and circuits and awareness.

"Awareness" is what allows me to 'observe" changes over time and therefore to explore the universe through "science". Without awareness, there is no 'science'.

Why is it an empirical reason? Like I said, my computer also has circuitry, but I don't see pantheists bowing before it.

Click to expand...

You missed the point! The fact that your computer works at all is testament to the fact that EU/PC versions of pantheism have tangible value. Circuit theory works. It's value is found in consumer products galore. Inflation theory doesn't 'work' at the store. The only place it even exists in in *ONE* creation mythos, and that's the only place it's of any 'value". It has no intrinsic empirical value whatsoever.

FYI, you're also comparing the 'natural' circuitry of the universe to "intelligently designed hardware" which really fails as an analogy. I really don't see how you're even helping your case in any way by such silly comparisons. Either way, if the universe is aware, or it's just "intelligently designed", atheism goes down in flames from the standpoint of physics.

lucaspa said:

Not quite what GR says. Spacetime can exist without matter/energy. Yes, part of GR describes how matter curves spacetime, but that in no way indicates the existence of spacetime is dependent on the existence of matter/energy. Without matter, spacetime simply would not be curved.

Click to expand...

Without matter and energy, what exactly does GR relate to at that point?

Who says spacetime would be curved in such a scenario? What you are saying is that the curvature depends on matter. Fine. I think we all agree that is the case. But spacetime itself is not dependent on matter/energy

Click to expand...

What is it dependent upon?

Spacetime is expanding. That's how objects can recede from us faster than light. The objects are not moving thru spacetime faster than light, but spacetime is expanding. Think of twigs in a stream.

Click to expand...

Objects in motion stay in motion. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects expand, but "space" does not expand in labs on Earth.

No one has found any Higgs bosons yet. That's different from whether they exist. Existence is not dependent on whether we have found them. After all, did atoms exist before we discovered them?

Click to expand...

The empirical difference is that we *do* expect to find them "eventually" in physical experiments, whereas inflation is nonexistent today and therefore it will forever be an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer. For good or bad, it's not any different from an ordinary religion in that respect IMO.

Christianity says God cannot decay into the same thing. What you propose would make God part of the universe, and Christianity does not allow that.

Click to expand...

What do you make of John 17?

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 that 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.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I 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.
24 Father, 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.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Click to expand...

What does Jesus mean about being one in God and God being in us in your opinion?

All "empirical" science starts with hypotheses. You start with the hypothesis, then you go looking for empirical data.

Click to expand...

The problem is that there can be no "empirical data" related to inflation here and now. That is also true of "dark energy". About the only hope of empirical redemption in terms of mainstream theory is "dark matter", and frankly that hasn't gone so well.

Search for Dark Matter Narrowed by New Data From XENON100 | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

Guth didn't have a deity. He had a theory of inflation. We have several theories in nature that produce unique results. For instance, natural selection produces design. It was once thought the only the supernatural could produce the design in plants and animals. Now we know its natural selection.

Click to expand...

But Guth's "entity" (if you don't like deity) was 'supernatural' in the sense that no other vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's about as 'supernatural' as it gets.

1. Some things cannot be replicated in a lab. For instance, the meteor that caused the KT extinction event can't be duplicated in the lab. Instead, you look for consequences of the theory today.

Click to expand...

But meteors do crash into planets and we've documented that fact. These things happen *ON EARTH*.

2. You don't have to take inflation on 'blind faith". Instead, you look at the fine map of the CMBR. Inflation left its mark there.

Click to expand...

Demonstrate it. Show me that inflation has some effect on photons.

Sure you can. Flat earth doesn't exist. And people proved it.

Click to expand...

But again, you're comparing inflation (which doesn't effect the earth today) to Earth itself! That's not a reasonable comparison.

Pantheism is a religion, not a scientific theory.

Click to expand...

No. I am a 'Christian'. That's technically my "religion". I simply see pantheism as a scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology theory. It's just a "scientific theory' IMO, nothing more.

If we look at pantheism from the pov of science, it has not been falsified. It could be true.

Click to expand...

Yes, and from the standpoint of empirical physics I believe it is more likely to be "true" than mainstream cosmology theory.

I'll work on the rest of your post a bit later today. Suffice to say, you'll have to stop thinking of pantheism as a "religion" if we are to communicate about "science", specifically in this case, empirical physics. I'm simply comparing two scientific theories at the level of empirical physics. I didn't give up my faith in Jesus when I embraced pantheism "scientifically".

lucaspa said:

There are other theories out there, such as ekpyrotic. But all of them, to my knowledge, incorporate inflation. Please name one that doesn't.

Click to expand...

Alfven's 'bang' theory didn't require inflation, just preexisting matter and antimatter. Static universe theories do not require inflation.

1. Correct in that science can't prove the supernatural does not exist.

Click to expand...

So science can never disprove Guth's claim about inflation's "supernatural" ability to retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

2. Of course Guth used imagination to formulate inflation. That happens for every scientific theory. And of course it didn't have a precedent. Both of those are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

IMO it's not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates that Guth quite literally "imagined" inflation. His brand was also falsified. What's left now is a never ending string of inflation "possibilities", none of which have the potential to show up in a lab today. How exactly in your opinion are "faith in the unseen" (faith) and science any different?

3. What is relevant is whether there are physical consequences to Guth's theory that we can measure empirically.

Click to expand...

If I make something up and called it "Godflation" or Magicflation" and assigned it the various properties of 'inflation", would that demonstrate that magic did it? How do I verify any of the ad hoc properties that Guth assigned to inflation *without* pointing at the sky?

And there are:
4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant. And inflation theory survives.

Click to expand...

Of course you can't link inflation to a the movement of a couple of atoms in a lab, you can't get it to emit any photon in a lab, and you can't empirically verify any of Guth's claims without it being a huge circular feedback loop.

14. M Joy and JE Calrstrom Probing the early universe with the SZ effect. Science 291: 1715-1717, March 2, 2001. Interaction with the CMBR with free electrons in ionized gas produce the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. Proposed in 1970, but not detected until recently. Is independent test of big bang and theories associated with it. So far, supportes big bang strongly.

Click to expand...

Yet again I have to "have faith" that inflation is in any way related to the effect you claim because if I do not accept that premise, you can't demonstrate it in a lab. EM fields do real things to real plasma in lab. I don't need inflation to explain EM oriented events in space, just "current".

14. C Seife, Galaxy mappers detect wiggly cosmic order. Science 292: 188-189, Apr 13, 2001. Mapping location of 250,000 galaxies. "Wiggles" in distribution of galaxies give distribution of baryonic and exotic matter. Is 5%, right between calculated values of 4% from theories on how matter generated and 6% from CMBR.

Click to expand...

Now I understand why you folks are so loathe to recalculate those mass percentages:


Scientists find universe is twice as bright as previously recognised - Science
Galaxies Demand A Stellar Recount
Super-Size Me: Black Hole Bigger Than Previously Thought

Even though recent findings suggest that the mainstream simply grossly underestimated the amount of "normal' matter in the universe, they won't change the figures. The moment they change them, your 'support" for inflation theory becomes a 'falsification' for inflation theory.

I'll skip the redundant references.

Not at all. That's what deductive logic (used by science) does all the time. As I noted above, "the earth is not flat" has been proved. That's proving a negative.

Click to expand...

Deduction would allow me to conclude that astronomers grossly and massively underestimated the amount of "normal" material in the universe. Deduction would allow me to conclude that *if* inflation actually "predicts" that only 4% of the universe is found in normal baryonic matter, I can finally consider inflation theory to be falsified once and for all.

lucaspa said:

Sorry, but technically that is not your religion, because Christianity does not allow pantheism. You are a pantheist who believes Jesus was God. But then, pantheism believes a tree is God, a rock is God, you are God.

Click to expand...

FYI, I'm going to split the scientific and religious arguments up here into separate posts.

Jesus did not claim that "Christianity does not allow for pantheism", that is *YOUR* claim, not his. In fact I quoted him when he said very specifically that we are one *IN* God and that God is *IN* us. That series of statements can be explained scientifically today via pantheism and quantum mechanics. I only answer to Jesus in terms of my scientific beliefs, not you.

If pantheism is only a scientific theory, then you shouldn't be trying to use scripture to demonstrate it.

Click to expand...

I was simply trying to cite the scripture that I believe *does* support the idea from the lips of Jesus himself to counter your "claim" that Christianity and pantheism are somehow incompatible. They are not incompatible IMO.

I'll discuss the scientific aspects in a separate post, but you will have to embrace the fact that I did not give up my faith in Jesus to scientifically look at pantheism. They are not incompatible IMO and they are not in any way at odds IMO.

Please do me a favor, because I don't want to scroll thru the whole thread. List for me the unique observational consequences we should see today if pantheism is true.

Click to expand...

We've been talking primarily about circuit theory and PC/EU theory, EM influences on the human psyche, and the fact that "intelligence" has also been empirically linked to circuitry, something the universe possess in great abundance. What we've learned about biology in terms of what gives rise to awareness can be directly applied to the universe itself.

That is, observations that would be there only if pantheism were true and are unexplained by any other theory. Scientific theories have these, so if you claim that pantheism is only a scientific theory, then it must have these. Thank you.

Click to expand...

FYI, I think your need for 'must have' unique differences is somewhat misguided. A lot of theories can predict similar things. The link between conscious human experiences and external EM fields is one empirical prediction of pantheism that is in fact unique to pantheism AFAIK in terms of scientific cosmology theories.

At this point I need to ask you what you think pantheism is. In the standard discussions of pantheism -- Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) --, I don't see how pantheism is going to differ from mainstream cosmology. If God and the universe are one, then pantheism would just have inflation be another part of God.

Click to expand...

Ya, it would be "Godflation" with a silly name. Then again, in terms of "science" I simply put my faith in empirical physics. It turns out that empirical physics just so happens to lead us (well me at least) toward pantheism rather than mainstream cosmology theory.

rjc34 said:

...Really? From the man who has repeatedly called mainstream cosmology and inflation theory a 'religion'.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Suffice to say, you'll have to stop thinking of pantheism as a "religion" if we are to communicate about "science", specifically in this case, empirical physics. I'm simply comparing two scientific theories at the level of empirical physics. I didn't give up my faith in Jesus when I embraced pantheism "scientifically".

Click to expand...

IMO pantheism is a form of pure empirical physics, whereas mainstream 'theory' is all about having "faith in the unseen" in the lab (aka it's a religion). The only thing I technically have "faith in" are the teachings of Christ. That makes me a "Christian" in a religious sense, but I don't personally put any "faith" in anything that is 'supernatural'.

lucaspa said:

Jesus seems to be talking about a shared community, but not pantheism. If you adhere to Adpotionist Christianity, Jesus is the adopted son of God, and the verses would be interpreted as God adopting everyone as He adopted Jesus.

If you adhere to standard Christian Trinitarianism, then Jesus is inviting people to a shared community with him and God, where God regards them the same as He regards Jesus. The wording is symbolic, not literal.

Click to expand...

You are subjectively "choosing" *not* to interpret it literally, even though from the standpoint of QM and empirical physics it makes perfect sense to interpret it literally as well as figuratively.

You can tell that by the groping nature of the verses and the similes:
"16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. (this also denies pantheism because pantheism has God and the world being the same thing; this clearly separates them)
...

Click to expand...

God's "awareness' is not "of this world", and neither was the consciousness of Christ. Physically speaking Jesus was "of this world", but in terms of his conscious connection to God, he was not of this world.

There is no "separation' between God and humans on Earth because Christ talks about sending the Holy spirit to us today.

18

Click to expand...

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (again, if God and the universe were the same thing, then God would not have to send Jesus 'into the world")

Click to expand...

Jesus came to our world. How is that creating separation between the Earth and the Universe the Earth resides in?

19

Click to expand...

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"

Now look at this:
"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

That verse denies pantheism, because you don't believe you are part of everything in the universe, do you?

Click to expand...

I believe that I am one in God as Jesus was one in God in a very "physical" way. In terms of consciousness and awareness however, that's where "separation' typically takes place. In terms of physics I don't believe we are capable of being separate from God. In terms of our actions, our selfishness, our thoughts, ect, these are what create "separation" between God and humans.

It's not true about either one. I posted references about empirical data supporting inflation.

Click to expand...

We need to have a discussion about the word "empirical". I'll save that for the science response.

lucaspa said:

How do you empirically demonstrate the presence of God within any matter/energy in the universe? How can you take God out of any matter/energy and watch it disappear? Oh, you can't. First Law of Thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Earlier in the thread I cited studies like that "God helmet' study where we might actually be able to observe EM interactions between humans and the universe itself, assuming we build the proper gear. It may be possible to watch the Holy Spirit in action.

That's not all that is necessary to be a Christian. You must also believe in Trinity. See the Nicene Creed, which defines the beliefs necessary and sufficient to be Christian.

Click to expand...

Father=Universe, Son=Christ, Holy Spirit=EM fields. How are my ideas all that radically different from yours in terms of 'religion" once we strip out the "scientific" differences?

Let's try this approach on the scientific side lucaspa:

I can demonstrate an empirical link in the lab between photons and EM fields with a standard light bulb, current and a switch. There is a demonstrated empirical link between photons and current. Please be so kind as to show me a laboratory method of demonstrating any actually empircal link between inflation and:

A) photon output
B) expansion (of space or objects)
C) homogenous layout of matter
D) anything else you claim inflation does.