An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Easily. Remember, E = mc^2. There is so much E in the universe after the Big Bang that particles are continually being "created" from energy. It's only after the universe expands and cools that the energy density drops enough for that to stop.

This also happens later when other particles begin to appear out of the quark soup. Particle -antiparticle pairs appear and the universe is so dense that they immediately find each other and annihilate one another, releasing energy again.

From what I have seen in my internet search, the Higgs field is no longer thought to be the scalar field that caused inflation. So your arguments are out of date in addition to being invalid.

Let me see if I can properly 'translate' your statement and properly restate my question since you missed it the first time (probably my fault).

I'll "assume" by 'energy', you mean an 'inflation field' of some sort. My question about the Higgs is related to mass and when you believe that mass first formed.

How about filling in some 'details' related to *your specific* beliefs about "the beginning"?

How 'big' (volume wise) was the universe prior to inflation? What was the density of inflation at that moment. Did the universe have "mass" prior to inflation? When did the first particles of mass appear and how "big" was the universe at that instant?

 

[Michael]

That history is so bogus I can't imagine how you got it. Everyone knows the story. Big Bang can be credited to Edwin Hubble in 1929. In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" —what was later called the Big Bang (by Fred Hoyle in an attempt to ridicule it).

The opposing theory -- Steady State -- never predicted a constant background radiation that was the same from all parts of the sky.

BBC News - Planck telescope reveals ancient cosmic light

While I'm rounding up my other links, perhaps we should start by setting the record straight about the 'radiation' in question. You are utterly ignoring the actual raw images when you say that it is 'the same from all parts of the sky". That is patently false. The first light images from Planck show a *VERY CLEAR PATTERN* of these same photons coming from stars and things in our very own galaxy. In fact the Milky Way is the "brightest' thing in the image *BY FAR*. To suggest it's a "nice majestic' smooth thing belies the real complexity of what we actually observe. What you mean is *when you subtract out all the photons from our own galaxy and other local galaxies, *then* (and only then) do you get anything even remotely 'smooth' in terms of photon output.

Notice the other 'galaxies' that are circled in the image. They show up *clearly* in the image, along with their "shape'. That is because the stars in every single galaxy emit these very same photons you claim come from some "surface of last scattering". When we look at the image however, there is really no justification for that claim because it is very clear that the light is clustered in and around the galaxies. Physics is definitely going to dictate that "scattering happens", so the ISM and IGM will "scatter' that light everywhere and "smooth it out' over time and distance.

 

[lucaspa]

Can you show me in Einstein's writings where he referred to "spacetime" in the absence of matter and energy?

Yes. In his 1905 paper on GR. Many times he refers to spacetime without including matter/energy. I gave you a site to read up a bit on spacetime. Did you? Spacetime, Warped Branes, and Hidden Dimensions

To believe in inflation one first has to "have faith" Guth didn't just "make it all up". One must "have faith" that inflation does the things he claimed AS AN ACT OF PURE FAITH.

This is where you don't understand how science works. In a very real sense, all scientific theories are "made up". This is what we do: make up theories and then go test them. Einstein made up spacetime. Boyle made up atoms. The "made up" things are then said to do other things. Spacetime warps in the presence of matter, so one of the things it will do is bend light rays. Atoms were little tiny elastic balls that would bounce around so one of the things that they would do is double the pressure of a gas if you halved the volume: because twice as many of these balls would be hitting the same area in the same unit of time.

So, in the case of inflation there are several things that inflation will do: smooth out any initial inhomogeneities in the very early universe, eliminate magnetic monopoles, and provide inhomogeneity on small scale so that galaxies can exist. The observations support that inflation happened because 1) there are no monopoles, 2) on the large scale the distribution of matter in the universe is homogenous, and 3) quantum variations during inflation provide small areas of inhomogeneity of matter to produce galaxies.

So start by explaining what Jesus meant by the kingdom of heaven is within us?

You are going to have to provide that verse, because I don't see it. I do see many, many verses where people will "enter" the Kingdom of God (or Heaven), which can only happen if it is outside of us.

What you are doing is cherry-picking a few verses that you think backs your position and ignoring all verses that contradict it. The approach my denomination uses requires that we look at all the Bible and then use experience, tradition, and reason to interpret.

Lots of ground to cover, including a theist defending atheism. Sounds like fun.

I am not defending the validity of atheism. I'm looking at a very narrow claim that a certain condition will show atheism to be wrong. Will that particular condition sink atheism? No. Again, read carefully and understand what the person is really saying, not leaping to your own personal interpretation.

 

[Michael]

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

Here was that link to the history of the CMBR *BEFORE* Guth, including several calculations based on scattering effects that were actually *extremely close* to the observed numbers.

 

[Michael]

There are several scalar fields that behave this way, so there is no need to specify which one.

I beg to differ. You can't just handwave in stuff on a whim. There has to be 'evidence' of your claims from start to finish just like any other scientific theory. Which scalar field? How did you decide on that one?

The location is the early universe 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds or so after the Big Bang. The volume is the volume of the universe at that time -- which is smaller than an atom. If you read what the article stated, the plateau corresponds to potential energy.

It represents the potential energy of *what* (physically)? So what's the density of inflation in this "smaller than an atom" thingy? When it grows to 100 times it's size by volume, what is the density of inflation then, and why isn't it 100 times less dense at that point?

The article never mentions EM fields. What it said was: "The leading example is a hypothesized relative of the magnetic field known as a scalar field, "

You have to learn to read more carefully so you can avoid these strawmen. It's not the EM field itself, but a relative of the magnetic field. But this relative has different properties.

Fine, we'll just skip the irrelevant stuff.

"The inflationary energy must be hugely dense, and its density must remain nearly constant during the inflationary epoch. Its most unusual property of all is that its gravity must repel rather than attract. The repulsion is what causes space to swell so rapidly.What gave Guth’s idea its appeal was that theorists had already identified many possible sources of such energy."

Do you see that? "many possible sources"

But you didn't specific a single one! Which possible sources? You evidently just created a whole new magical brand of gravity that "repels", curves away rather than curves inward. I don't suppose you can empirically evidence to demonstrate that this claim wasn't a figment of Guth's wild imagination?

You have a scalar field that is like the curve of a ball rolling along a plateau and into a valley.

You don't have a "valley" or a "hill" or a "ball" inside your 'smaller than an atom' thingy.

The x-axis is strength of the field, the y-axis is density of the field. At the start of inflation the universe was 1/quadrillionth the volume of an atom and at the end the universe had the size of a dime. That's in the article.



So far we haven't gotten to those details. We've been talking in generalities because neither of us is a physicist, so we have been using lay descriptions of inflation. You are mistakenly thinking that if I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, then the numbers are not known. You should be able to see the fallacy in that. If you want those specific details, we can both do some research to find them. We may end up having to go back to the original articles in the physics journals. Now, you imply that you have read Guth's original paper, so why don't you tell us the details? Why are you holding out?

I'm "holding out" because I happen to know where a few of Guth's skeletons are located including that "repulsive gravity/negative pressure vacuum" trick that defies the law of physics. I've also read and been handed so many *DIFFERENT* variations on the same theme over the years, it's not funny. I can't even be sure which one of the supposed "official" explanations is really even 'official' anymore since every single individual seems to start from a different point, size, etc.

I'll stop here while I read through your links:

 

[lucaspa]

I'll "assume" by 'energy', you mean an 'inflation field' of some sort. My question about the Higgs is related to mass and when you believe that mass first formed.

Bad assumption. I am referring to energy in the general sense, including heat.

You see, the problem about "first formed" is different from the problem of "first being permanent". There were several minutes when particles and antiparticles were "being formed", but they weren't permanent.

How about filling in some 'details' related to *your specific* beliefs about "the beginning"?

LOL! I'm stating what is the currently accepted theory. So this isn't "beliefs", but what I accept based upon the data.

How 'big' (volume wise) was the universe prior to inflation? What was the density of inflation at that moment. Did the universe have "mass" prior to inflation? When did the first particles of mass appear and how "big" was the universe at that instant?

You can find all these in physics articles describing the Big Bang and early development of the universe. As I stated, what I have seen says that the universe was 1/quadrillionth the size of an atom when inflation started. "The volume of space [FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular]we observe today was a quadrillionth the size of an atom when inflation began. During inflation it grew to the size of a dime. " (article by Steinhardt in April 2011 Scientific American)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular]Since what we see today is only part of the universe, the entire universe may have been 1 m in diameter.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]　
Since E=mc^2, the answer is "yes" because energy and mass are 2 forms of the same thing. This is why so much of the missing "mass" of the universe is in dark energy. Because E=mc^2, what is energy is also mass.

For an indication of what happened when:
Unification

The first "particles" appear after inflation and it looks like the universe is about 1 meter in diameter. See pages following the link above.

 

[Michael]

Here is a SciAm paper by Guth and Steinhardt in 1984 describing inflation to the lay public as it was then:
The Inflationary Universe

Ok, let's pick Guth's claims apart, one by one, and let's take a good hard look at how he attempts to justify his own claims.

In addition most of the new theories of elementary particles imply that the standard model would lead to a tremendous overproduction of the exotic particles called magnetic monopoles (each of which corresponds to an isolated north or south magnetic pole).

The inflationary universe [theory] was invented to overcome these problems. The equations that describe the period of inflation have a very attractive feature: from almost any initial conditions the universe evolves to precisely the state that had to be assumed as the initial one in the standard model. Moreover, the predicted density of magnetic monopoles becomes small enough to be consistent with observations.

His claim to have solved a 'monopole problem' is utterly bogus. There are simply no monopoles found in nature as far as we know. I don't have to 'explain' why something that does not exist does not exist. It simply does not exist. Guth's very first claim is like claiming that his theory 'solves' a "missing unicorn" problem and therefore it deserves some kind of scientific consideration for that wonderful feat of "predictive power". What kind of ridiculous argument is that anyway? So what if they don't exist? I don't need a "reason" to explain why unicorns and leprechauns and invisible pink bunnies do not exist, they simply do not exist. Likewise I don't need to understand why monopoles not exist (AFAIK), they simply do not exist! Guth's claim of "credibility" by 'solving' a monopole problem is utterly absurd. What kind of argument is that?

 

[Michael]

Guth (same article): In the course of this stupendous growth spurt all the matter and energy in the universe could have been created from virtually nothing.

Huh? All matter and energy was 'created' from "virtually nothing"? He's virtually violating the laws of physics with such a claim since energy cannot be "created" or destroyed, it can only change "forms". Care to explain what heck Guth means by this statement?

 

[Michael]

You have a strawman of "homogenous". It is not equal matter in every cubic centimeter. It is overall matter. The "hole" is less than 4% of the diameter of the universe. What you would need would be a gap of, say, 20% of the volume of the universe.

In other words, "gumby theory" can "cover" just about any scenario, up to and including an a 20 percent deviation from "homogenous" distribution of matter? Talk about ad hoc gap fillers. Evidently inflation can *DO* just about anything then! There's no way to falsify something like that!

The flow is happening after the initial distribution from inflation. So it has nothing to do with the results of inflation, but something that is skewing matter after inflation had finished.

So essentially anything and everything that really isn't "homogenous' is conveniently swept under the carpet so nothing can actually be used to 'falsify' anything.

The variotions in the CMBR are on the order of 1 part per 1,000 or less.

Only when you *subtract out* the local cluster of galaxies you mean? Sure, why wouldn't they be? They have all the time and distance in the world to "scatter" from distant galaxies, so of course it looks "homogeneous" to some extent. Now it seems it really makes no difference if it's homogenous or not since it can contain giant holes galore and nothing can actually falsify it.

Have you?

Yep.

If so, then it was a bit dishonest to demand the volumes and densities, wasn't it? Papers don't contain all the predictions of a theory.

How and why is it dishonest of me to ask you direct questions about *YOUR* beliefs? FYI, not every astronomer I've met believes in inflation theory. I don't profess to read people's minds so I have to ask actual questions.

Oh my goodness. Talk about borrowing from creationist fallacies! An extinction level meteor impact has never happened in human history, either, but do you doubt that one happened at the KT boundary?

Actually the Shoemaker-Levy event happened in my lifetime. I've seen such meteor strikes on at least one planet in the solar system in my lifetime.

Nor has a plasma circuit ever happened in human history.

Huh? I strongly suggest you pick up an inexpensive plasma ball the next time you're in Walmart. You'll see plasma circuits in action when you plug it in and flip the switch.

Yet you say that is "empirical". A bit hypocritical, aren't you?

Not at all. In fact I think you just reinforced my point in a big way. You just pointed out two things that *DO* show up in our solar system, neither of which compare well to inflation, since inflation is dead and impotent in this solar system.

No, the criteria that something must have happened within human history or it is a "statement of faith" is simply a nonsensical criteria.

What you're essentially telling me is that Guth's inflation thingy happened just *ONE TIME*, not just in 'human' history, but in the whole HISTORY of our physical universe. That isn't just 'faith' in something you are "unlikely" to see in your lifetime, that's faith in something "guaranteed" to never be seen again by any human, ever.

Dude, the universe is below the critical density. The universe is already below the energy density in which this could happen. So of course it hasn't happened since.

Dude, I have no evidence it's ever had a larger energy density that it does now. That's your theory, not mine. What you're doing from my perspective is making up excuses as to why the inflation entity can never happen, when you just got through claiming there were MANY ways to create it. Suddenly it's gone from a 'given' to 'it can never happen again'. This is indeed a pure act of faith on your part.

Are you getting that desperate that you have to resort to this nonsense? Or didn't you read about inflation to understand what it is? Or don't you care about honesty and will use any argument, no matter how dishonest, to support PC?

I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the theory as our conversation progresses.

I never claimed it "decayed into" anything.

Well, WC used the term and I seem to recall you claiming that inflation "died off' some how..... What happened to it?

When the observational consequences of a theory are present, then we evaluate the theory as correct. What's more, inflation is in the past, just like the KT meteor impact is in the past. What we have are the consequences of inflation that exist to the present time.

But your own analogy just shot your argument in the foot since I *HAVE* seen a large meteor strike on a planet in this solar system in my lifetime. It's therefore no great 'leap of faith' to believe they occasionally hit the Earth as well. On the other hand, inflation hasn't done a darn thing to anything in this solar system in the WHOLE OF HUMAN HISTORY, nor will it ever do so. Your whole argument just blew up in your face IMO.

And just how are we supposed to create a new universe? C'mon, Michael, you are embarrassing yourself. Inflation happened when the universe was a quadrillionth the size of an atom, with all the matter/energy in the universe within that volume. Just how do you think you can "create" that in the lab?

I think that it's pretty amusing that you're claiming that the *ENTIRE* physical universe fit into something the size of an atom, and you're worried about *ME* embarrassing myself. That's actually very funny.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm always amused when an atheist lectures me about whether or not I am a "Christian" or what it means to be a "Christian". One can in fact be a "Christian", profess Christ as their lord and savior, and still embrace God as the universe. You'll have to just trust me on this.

I don't have to trust anything.

I can't lecture you about what it means to be an "atheist", nor can you lecture me about what it means to be a "Christian" and whether that fits or does not fit with pantheism.

Doesn't stop you, that's for sure.

Yes, as is pantheism by definition.

Well, I've seen what you're talking about, but I embraced PC theory WILLINGLY and only after I did that could I see any value in pantheism in terms of "science" or physics. It was only then that I willingly embraced pantheism. In no way does it conflict with "Christianity" to my knowledge. Jesus was the one who said we should look within to find the kingdom of heaven, not me.

Well, "Christians" do not all think alike. There are probably more "sects" of "Christians" than there are variations of inflation theory. In other words there are a whole lot of them. The only one we will all have to answer to AFAIK is Jesus of Nazareth. The rest is pretty much "debated dogma" even among various sects of Christianity. For instance Catholics embrace evolutionary theory. Baptists not so much. The only person we all agree we will answer to is Christ.

OK.

 

[Michael]

Bad assumption. I am referring to energy in the general sense, including heat.

Heat? You mean like photons? Where did the "heat" come from? What "holds" that heat?

You see, the problem about "first formed" is different from the problem of "first being permanent". There were several minutes when particles and antiparticles were "being formed", but they weren't permanent.

In terms of Guth's density claims, it really makes no difference. In terms of gravity, maybe so, but only if you're claiming that Higgs particles are being created and destroyed. Are you? If so, I really do want to know why this 'heat" thing didn't dissipate rather instantly and fly away with the first few photons. Where did the heat come from again? Where is that heat being 'stored'/created?

LOL! I'm stating what is the currently accepted theory. So this isn't "beliefs", but what I accept based upon the data.

Well, I've learned that astronomers tend to be 'individuals'. While some are into inflation, others don't seem to be fond of the idea. Some are into inflation, but not so much "dark energy". It really depends on the individual. In your case it's helpful to know you're just sticking to the basic party line.

You can find all these in physics articles describing the Big Bang and early development of the universe. As I stated, what I have seen says that the universe was 1/quadrillionth the size of an atom when inflation started.

So by the time time it became the size of an atom, the inflation field should have been a quadrillion times less dense. Even if you packed your hill, your valley, your ball and the whole inflation family into your puny package, it's 'power" would be infinitesimal by the time it was the size of an atom. Instead, you now expect me to believe it's going to continue to grow to say the size of a whole "meter' before being weakened beyond belief? How? Why?

"The volume of space [FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular]we observe today was a quadrillionth the size of an atom when inflation began. During inflation it grew to the size of a dime. " (article by Steinhardt in April 2011 Scientific American)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Um, the universe is larger than a dime. Care to explain?

[FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular]Since what we see today is only part of the universe, the entire universe may have been 1 m in diameter.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular][FONT=ApresCondensed Regular,ApresCondensed Regular]

If all the mass and energy of the universe were packed into a single meter, the gravitational force alone would crush it like a bug. It wouldn't even be outside of event horizon the formed around it.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]　

Since E=mc^2, the answer is "yes" because energy and mass are 2 forms of the same thing. This is why so much of the missing "mass" of the universe is in dark energy. Because E=mc^2, what is energy is also mass.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't really fly because even if DE was some remnant of the BB itself, it's effect should also DECREASE over time as it too becomes "less dense". Instead the universe seem to be "accelerating over time".

For an indication of what happened when:
Unification

The first "particles" appear after inflation and it looks like the universe is about 1 meter in diameter. See pages following the link above.

How did any of them get outside of the event horizon? In fact, how did any photons get beyond the event horizon?

 

[sandwiches]

Well, keep in mind that some people understand atheism to be something else than what we have in mind. For instance, lucaspa thinks that atheism is a faith and a belief. In a way, he is correct. After all, we have faith that our ideas or beliefs regarding the claims of theists are correct. HOWEVER, I believe this dilutes many words in the process of coming to this definition of the word "atheist." For instance, it uses the word "faith" differently than one normally does in a religious context and

I think the reason that many theists use this definition is because they believe that some or most atheists think they're taking a neutral stance or no stance at all in the question of the existence of a god. So, this is their way for them to try to put us on a level playing field, in their eyes and while I do agree that atheism requires a belief that your knowledge is more accurate than the accounts of theists, atheism remains the most reasonable stance to take when you lack the alleged personal evidence and experience that theists say they posses.

Having said that, even with a personal experience, I'd have to wonder how I'd be able to tell whether my experience is associated to something outside my mind. The usual response is something like "How can you tell that your feeling of love is real?" Well, a feeling is just that, a feeling. If I feel it, it's real. A thought is just that. However, theists claim that their personal experience is more than just a feeling, that it's the result of some kind of interaction between them and an external conscious entity.

 

[Michael]

I don't have to trust anything.

Ok.... If you want to talk "scripture" and talk about what Jesus taught us, that's fine by me too. What do you suppose this statement is supposed to mean?

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

(Luke 17:20-21 KJV)

Doesn't stop you, that's for sure.

I guess not. Point noted. I'll be happy to debate the teachings of Jesus with you if you like.

 

[Upisoft]

Heat? You mean like photons?

Oh, dear. Someone desperately needs education.

 

[Michael]

Well, keep in mind that some people understand atheism to be something else than what we have in mind. For instance, lucaspa thinks that atheism is a faith and a belief. In a way, he is correct. After all, we have faith that our ideas or beliefs regarding the claims of theists are correct. HOWEVER, I believe this dilutes many words in the process of coming to this definition of the word "atheist." For instance, it uses the word "faith" differently than one normally does in a religious context and

I think the reason that many theists use this definition is because they believe that some or most atheists think they're taking a neutral stance or no stance at all in the question of the existence of a god. So, this is their way for them to try to put us on a level playing field, in their eyes and while I do agree that atheism requires a belief that your knowledge is more accurate than the accounts of theists, atheism remains the most reasonable stance to take when you lack the alleged personal evidence and experience that theists say they posses.

Having said that, even with a personal experience, I'd have to wonder how I'd be able to tell whether my experience is associated to something outside my mind. The usual response is something like "How can you tell that your feeling of love is real?" Well, a feeling is just that, a feeling. If I feel it, it's real. A thought is just that. However, theists claim that their personal experience is more than just a feeling, that it's the result of some kind of interaction between them and an external conscious entity.

Ya know....

The whole point of me bringing that "God helmet" information into this discussion was directly related to your point. I was attempting to demonstrate that even an individual's very thoughts and feelings can be the result of an interaction between an *EXTERNAL* influence, and the quantum processes of one's mind, meaning one's very thoughts and feelings can be influenced by 'naturally existing' fields of energy that already exist in this universe. If feelings of love themselves can be considered 'real', then any 'feelings of love from God' that one might experience can also be just as real at the level of empirical physics. Feelings represent an electromagnetic input into awareness, a "sixth sense' if you will. They can be internally *and* externally manipulated with a simple (but highly intelligently designed) external EM field.

 

[Michael]

Oh, dear. Someone desperately needs education.

I don't suppose you have an answer?

 

[sandwiches]

Ya know....

The whole point of me bringing that "God helmet" information into this discussion was directly related to your point. I was attempting to demonstrate that even an individual's very thoughts and feelings can be the result of an interaction between an *EXTERNAL* influence, and the quantum processes of one's mind, meaning one's very thoughts and feelings can be influenced by 'naturally existing' fields of energy that already exist in this universe. If feelings of love themselves can be considered 'real', then any 'feelings of love from God' that one might experience can also be just as real at the level of empirical physics. Feelings represent an electromagnetic input into awareness, a "sixth sense' if you will. They can be internally *and* externally manipulated with a simple (but highly intelligently designed) external EM field.

You misunderstood what I meant. I know that thoughts, feelings, etc can be affected by external influences and I don't even need the "god helmet" to know this. What I am saying is that without verification, there is no reason to believe that my vision of a dead person was that of an actual ghost walking around my house versus just a hallucination or some glitch in my brain.

 

[Michael]

You misunderstood what I meant. I know that thoughts, feelings, etc can be affected by external influences and I don't even need the "god helmet" to know this. What I am saying is that without verification, there is no reason to believe that my vision of a dead person was that of an actual ghost walking around my house versus just a hallucination or some glitch in my brain.

A glitch in one's brain isn't likely to be shared by many other individuals, whereas a "natural process" is likely to be more universal in scope. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[sandwiches]

A glitch in one's brain isn't likely to be shared by many other individuals, whereas a "natural process" is likely to be more universal in scope. Would you agree or disagree?

I agree that the exact same glitch isn't likely to be shared by millions of individuals and that's exactly why you see that these experiences that people attribute to god differ so much and even similar experiences are sometimes attributed to other things like spirits, ghosts, UFOs, etc.

What we see in the real world is people who have wildly different experiences, feelings, etc and the vats majority of them attributing them to the belief system they were brought up to believe. Nothing surprising about this. Now, if we saw millions of people with vastly different backgrounds all coming to the same conclusion due to their experiences, then I'd admit that there's something to this belief. The only cases we see where people of different creeds, religions, backgrounds, ethics, cultures, etc agreeing on the same thing is when it comes to empirical knowledge and experience.

 

[Michael]

I agree that the exact same glitch isn't likely to be shared by millions of individuals and that's exactly why you see that these experiences that people attribute to god differ so much and even similar experiences are sometimes attributed to other things like spirits, ghosts, UFOs, etc.

What we see in the real world is people who have wildly different experiences, feelings, etc and the vats majority of them attributing them to the belief system they were brought up to believe. Nothing surprising about this. Now, if we saw millions of people with vastly different backgrounds all coming to the same conclusion due to their experiences, then I'd admit that there's something to this belief. The only cases we see where people of different creeds, religions, backgrounds, ethics, cultures, etc agreeing on the same thing is when it comes to empirical knowledge and experience.

IMO your analogy actually fails even at the empirical knowledge level. We all see the same President on the same TV screens. It's the same guy, but ask a Republican about his "character", his motives and his "wisdom" and I suspect you'll get a vastly different answers than ones you might get from a Democrat. Ask a thousand individuals the same questions and I suspect you get nearly a 1000 unique answers too.

I don't see much evidence that humans agree on ANYTHING, let alone that they agree on something as esoteric and complicated as another 'living being". IMO you're expecting FAR too much in terms of "universal experiences" of God (or anything for that matter) considering the fact that we all very unique individuals.

I can understand the logic of arguing the concept that we should all experience something basic like "gravity" in pretty much the same way, but "living beings'? I've never seen any evidence to suggest that humans always agree about the character of other humans with any real consistency.