An Empirical Theory Of God

sandwiches · Apr 19, 2011

Michael said:
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.

You see, but you had to resort to another non-empirical quality of the President to be able to make the comparison with the experiences theists claim they have. Now, we can all agree that the President has ears, eyes, and hands, for instance. Those are empirical attributes that not only can we agree on them, they can be verified by means other than our own senses. For instance, cameras can capture the images of ears on President Obama, as we have all humorously noticed. Also, we can weigh his hands, we can see that they have density, and other empirical properties. Now, if we go back to vague, nonempirical attributes such as "Are the President's ears big?" I'd have to say "no" only because I have really big ears myself! ;P

My point is that whether the President is a nice guy, a jerk, tall, or skinny, are all nonempirical attributes and they remain solely in the realm of one's mind. But there are claims about him we can test empirically and whether we agree with them or not, remain true. And when it comes to personal experiences, we have no way of knowing if they are what we think they are. I have seen strange shadows and even woke up once to find two alien-looking humanoids standing next to my bed. I rubbed my eyes, shook my head, and tried very hard to focus and they remained there. They were as real as my cousin Beto who was sleeping next to me. However, no one else saw or heard them. There was no evidence left that they had ever entered the house, walked around or touched anything. In other words, there was nothing that could corroborate my sighting. So, to this day, I still believe I was still dreaming for a few seconds after I woke up.

In short, I'm not denying that you may have had certain peculiar experiences but I do not believe that your interpretation of them is correct.

Michael · Apr 19, 2011

sandwiches said:
You see, but you had to resort to another non-empirical quality of the President to be able to make the comparison with the experiences theists claim they have. Now, we can all agree that the President has ears, eyes, and hands, for instance. Those are empirical attributes that not only can we agree on them, they can be verified by means other than our own senses. For instance, cameras can capture the images of ears on President Obama, as we have all humorously noticed.

Also, we can weigh his hands, we can see that they have density, and other empirical properties. Now, if we go back to vague, nonempirical attributes such as "Are the President's ears big?" I'd have to say "no" only because I have really big ears myself! ;P

IMO you're essentially complaining about a 'scaling issue', like complaining that I can't put a sun or God in a lab. I suppose you can count the stars, count the galaxies, measure the mass of the universe that we can observe, but how important is that stuff actually?

Let me ask you this, are "you" simply a collection of body parts, or are you a "non empirical quality" that is more related to the *activity* that goes inside your brain? You would still be "you" without one ear, an arm or a leg wouldn't you?

I tend to identify more with my 'awareness', my thoughts, feelings, beliefs and actions more than a specific body part. Most of the aforementioned things are essentially attributes of consciousness, not physical things per se. Certainly there is 'structure' and "circuitry' that give rise to consciousness, but it's the consciousness itself I actually identify with. Don't you think the same would be true of *any* living entity?

My point is that whether the President is a nice guy, a jerk, tall, or skinny, are all nonempirical attributes and they remain solely in the realm of one's mind. But there are claims about him we can test empirically and whether we agree with them or not, remain true.

In terms of pantheistic beliefs and PC/EU theory I'm sure there are empirical tests and measurements that we can perform on the universe. I suggested one earlier in this thread in fact.

And when it comes to personal experiences, we have no way of knowing if they are what we think they are. I have seen strange shadows and even woke up once to find two alien-looking humanoids standing next to my bed. I rubbed my eyes, shook my head, and tried very hard to focus and they remained there. They were as real as my cousin Beto who was sleeping next to me. However, no one else saw or heard them. There was no evidence left that they had ever entered the house, walked around or touched anything. In other words, there was nothing that could corroborate my sighting. So, to this day, I still believe I was still dreaming for a few seconds after I woke up.

In short, I'm not denying that you may have had certain peculiar experiences but I do not believe that your interpretation of them is correct.

Alright, I suppose that's reasonable. But then my "interpretation" is the more common interpretation, whereas your interpretation is equally subjective, just as open to scrutiny, and certainly a minority view. I'm not saying popularity is the only thing that matters but how then do we decide which "interpretation" might be correct?

sandwiches · Apr 20, 2011

Michael said:
IMO you're essentially complaining about a 'scaling issue', like complaining that I can't put a sun or God in a lab. I suppose you can count the stars, count the galaxies, measure the mass of the universe that we can observe, but how important is that stuff actually?

It has nothing to do with scale but limits of science, which deals with the empirical and intersubjective evidence.

Michael said:
Let me ask you this, are "you" simply a collection of body parts, or are you a "non empirical quality" that is more related to the *activity* that goes inside your brain? You would still be "you" without one ear, an arm or a leg wouldn't you?

I tend to identify more with my 'awareness', my thoughts, feelings, beliefs and actions more than a specific body part. Most of the aforementioned things are essentially attributes of consciousness, not physical things per se. Certainly there is 'structure' and "circuitry' that give rise to consciousness, but it's the consciousness itself I actually identify with. Don't you think the same would be true of *any* living entity?

I disagree with this. People seem to disassociate themselves from their bodies for some reason. Like I could be missing all my arms, hair, or change my appearance entirely and I'd still be "me." Would I? Is all that makes us "us" the result of the processes in our brains? Is all we are a collection of electrical signals? I don't think so. I believe our bodies are part of us.

Michael said:
In terms of pantheistic beliefs and PC/EU theory I'm sure there are empirical tests and measurements that we can perform on the universe. I suggested one earlier in this thread in fact.

We're specifically talking about the validity of personal, nonintersubjective experiences. What is one empirical way to test to see if they're more than mere thoughts, ideas, dreams, hallucinations, or just emotions?

Michael said:
Alright, I suppose that's reasonable. But then my "interpretation" is the more common interpretation, whereas your interpretation is equally subjective, just as open to scrutiny, and certainly a minority view. I'm not saying popularity is the only thing that matters but how then do we decide which "interpretation" might be correct?

As you said, interpretation is irrelevant. It used to be the most common interpretation that the sun revolved around the Earth. We don't DECIDE which interpretation is correct, we acquire evidence to DETERMINE which interpretation is correct.

razeontherock · Apr 20, 2011

Michael said:
An Empirical Theory Of God

In the end you will know that I am in you, you are in me and we are all one in God.

The entire physical universe is God. The universe is alive and aware and actively involved in creation. Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic circuits of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale. These myriad of interlaced and interwoven circuits of energy, and quantum interaction, give rise to an awareness and consciousness far greater and more powerful than the microscopic variety of awareness found on Earth. Awareness is therefore an intrinsic feature of the universe. Its presence and expression at the microscopic level of life on Earth is a direct result of the existence of awareness at the macroscopic level.

God is the sum total of everything that exists in nature and every physical thing in the universe. We live our entire physical lives inside the body of God, sustained by the body of God. The dirt we walk on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the chemicals of our body, the sunshine that sustains life on Earth, all of it belongs to and is a part of a living being that humans call God.

The Electrical Nature Of Living Organisms.

Scientific research into living organisms demonstrates that the intricate structures of the brain give rise to awareness. The electrical exchange of energy between neurons, the circuits of the brain create a kind of quantum awareness that is the sum total of the thinking processes, of an organized structure, over some period of time. The various exchanges of electromagnetic energy inside the brain provide awareness with a place to reside and function. The unique and specific arrangement of neurons, life experiences, and current flows of each individual give rise to an individual sense of awareness, a unique sense of identity.

This rise of awareness in humans has led to experiences of God and a belief in a creator in virtually every culture on Earth. Many cultures consider nature to be sacred. We must ask ourselves: Why?

The Electrical Nature Of The Universe.

Scientific research into nature and cosmology demonstrates that electromagnetic energy and current flows are not only an integral part of life on Earth, they are an integral part of the functions of the Universe. From the electrical discharges we observe in our own atmosphere, to the electrical discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere, to electrical discharges that generate solar wind, to high speed cosmic rays all the objects in space are bathed and electromagnetic energy. The EM field permeates space and time, far beyond the boundaries our solar system, it exists everywhere we look in space. We find direct evidence of magnetic fields that indicate the flow of current in cosmic scale structures large and small.

Only in past 100 years of so have we begun to understand and appreciate the electrical nature of our universe. Kristian Birkeland was one first scientist to seriously study the Northern Lights. He surmised that these events were related to electrical processes in the Earths atmosphere. To prove his theory, he hiked extensively through the northern polar region to setup stations to measure the magnetic field of the Earth during solar storms. He also created extremely sophisticated empirical experiments, with various control mechanisms to test various aspects of his theories. Over time he and his friends gathered extensive evidence of the changing magnetic field during solar storms that gave rise to aurora. In his terella experiments he demonstrated that aurora were caused by the bombardment of Earth with high speed charged particles. In his experiments, he bombarded a metallic sphere in an evacuated chamber with a cathode ray. In this manner he was able to replicate the aurora around the poles of his sphere.

Naturally his next question turned to where these high speed charged particles originated, and he then created a series of solar experiments by turning his metallic sphere into a cathode and giving it a plasma atmosphere. In these cathode sphere experiments he was able to replicate and predict many important solar system phenomenon. He was the first scientist to predict high speed solar wind. His experiments also predicted high energy coronal loop discharges, high speed polar jets and many solar features not observed until modern satellites made direct observations of the solar atmosphere beyond the atmosphere of Earth.

Irving Langmuir was one of the first scientists after Birkeland to work with plasma in controlled laboratory conditions. Langmuir was in fact responsible for giving the forth state of matter its scientific name. As a biologist, he was inclined to compare the behaviors of ionic plasma to the plasma of human blood. He saw that plasma isolated itself from charged surfaces via double layers, and he saw many similarities between the behaviors of plasma and plasma in the blood, hence the name he came up with to describe the forth state of matter.

In the 1940 and 50s, Dr. Charles Bruce documented and demonstrated a link between electric discharge theory and many observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere and in space.

Nobel Prize winning author, Dr. Hannes Alfven wrote extensively about the circuits and electromagnetic processes in solar activities and in space, culminating in a book called Cosmic Plasma that describes these processes via magneto hydrodynamic theory, or MHD theory.

All of these predictions of electrical discharges in space have been verified by modern satellite imagery.

Like our brains, the release of energy of the sun at the highest energy wavelengths is not constant, rather it is variable and prone to frequent changes over time. It exhibits 11 year cycles of energy release patterns, the next major cycle to peak in 2012-2013. Particularly during active phases the suns energy exchanges with the heliosphere become highly variable and electrically active.

As we look further out into space we find that all galaxies have strong electromagnetic fields. We find evidence of Birkeland currents in very large structures over vast distances of spacetime.

All of these pieces of empirical evidence point us toward the possibility that everything around us is a part of a living being called God.

You're at Mt Shasta - shouldn't you be skiing?

Michael · Apr 20, 2011

razeontherock said:
You're at Mt Shasta - shouldn't you be skiing?

Nah, it's raining here today.

Michael · Apr 20, 2011

sandwiches said:
It has nothing to do with scale but limits of science, which deals with the empirical and intersubjective evidence.

In this particular empirical theory of God, it's purely a matter of scaling. If we could "step outside" of our universe and look back at it, maybe we might be able to pick out clear physical features. We can only study our universe from the "inside".

I disagree with this. People seem to disassociate themselves from their bodies for some reason. Like I could be missing all my arms, hair, or change my appearance entirely and I'd still be "me." Would I? Is all that makes us "us" the result of the processes in our brains? Is all we are a collection of electrical signals? I don't think so. I believe our bodies are part of us.

They are physically attached to "us" perhaps, but some parts are more critical than others parts. In terms of a "personality" the only organ that matters is the brain.

Would you really be a "lesser man" with one ear, or if one your body parts were to be replaced?

We're specifically talking about the validity of personal, nonintersubjective experiences. What is one empirical way to test to see if they're more than mere thoughts, ideas, dreams, hallucinations, or just emotions?

Well for starters, I did propose ONE type of experiment that might demonstrate an external and internal "connection" between humans and the universe via quite ordinary EM fields. If we did find a clear EM signal flowing into specific parts of the human brain from external sources, that might provide us with some tangible evidence of empirical processes at work.

In terms of the experience itself, I still have to go back to my original suggestion. A "hallucination" isn't likely to be something that a lot of folks "experience". Something like "love" however is pretty darn universal, and probably transcends species. Is love a "hallucination" or not?

As you said, interpretation is irrelevant. It used to be the most common interpretation that the sun revolved around the Earth. We don't DECIDE which interpretation is correct, we acquire evidence to DETERMINE which interpretation is correct.

Well, seeing as how I find myself in a minority position in terms of cosmology theory, I'm included to agree with you. On the other hand, there are "human experience" (like love) that tend to be pretty universal. How do we decide if the experience of "love" is "real"?

lucaspa · Apr 21, 2011

Michael said:
In this particular empirical theory of God, it's purely a matter of scaling. If we could "step outside" of our universe and look back at it, maybe we might be able to pick out clear physical features. We can only study our universe from the "inside".

Then your theory is not empirical. You said we can't step outside of the universe to gather the data that would make the theory empirical. Therefore it's not empirical.

Well for starters, I did propose ONE type of experiment that might demonstrate an external and internal "connection" between humans and the universe via quite ordinary EM fields. If we did find a clear EM signal flowing into specific parts of the human brain from external sources, that might provide us with some tangible evidence of empirical processes at work.

Been done. The skull acts as a very efficient blocker of EM fields. When Persinga did his introduction of EM fields into the brain, he had to have electrodes directly attached to the skull. So, the experiment has been done and shows that the universe cannot connect with our brains thru EM fields. That would seem to falsify the theory.

Well, seeing as how I find myself in a minority position in terms of cosmology theory, I'm included to agree with you. On the other hand, there are "human experience" (like love) that tend to be pretty universal. How do we decide if the experience of "love" is "real"?

We don't by science. Yes, the experience is universal, but it is not intersubjective. Why? Because not everyone is in love with the same person.

"It is important to recognize that not all "facts" are susceptible to scientific investigation, simply because some observations and experiences are entirely personal. I cannot prove that someone loves his or her child. The emotions that any individual claims to have are not susceptible to scientific documentation, because they cannot be independently verified by other observers. In other words, science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment. Many human experiences and concerns are not objective, and so do not fall within the realms of science." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution, 1995, p 167.

So, while everyone claims to have that emotion called "love", we can't check each particular person's emotion.

There are limits to science. You've found one.

lucaspa · Apr 21, 2011

sandwiches said:
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

Only because faith in a religious context refers to God. However, if you use the appropriate definition of faith for the context -- "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof", then atheism is a faith.

I'll do this example again. You noted that we can't put God in a lab. Well, we can't put Him in a test tube, or keep Him out of one, either. That means we can't do a control where we know God is absent. Thus, we cannot prove that "natural" processes happen on their own. Do they require God? To be an atheist, one must have faith that "natural" processes happen on their own. There is no proof.

So, when examined closely, atheism does involve numerous statements of faith -- things an atheist firmly believes but for which there is no proof.

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.

Many theists know that many atheists try to portray atheism this way. But what you have described is agnosticism, not atheism.

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.

AH! There it is. Now, what does that "lack the alleged personal evidence" really mean? It means that atheists personal experience is of no experience of deity. You are pitting your personal experience (no experience) vs the personal experience of theists. First, yes, that is reasonable. After all, it is what we all do. Second, it is a level playing field! Thank you, Sandwiches, for pointing out that the faith of theists and the faith of atheists are based upon the same thing: personal experience.

The problem is atheists trying to pretend that atheism has a higher epistemological value than theism. But they are based upon the same thing.

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 same way you test anything to determine whether an experience is associated with something outside your mind. Love is obviously within your mind, but you (hopefully) still test it to see whether it is love instead of lust, need, loneliness, etc.

There are questions to ask: am I sick? Have I eaten any strange food lately (like those funny looking mushrooms)? Is what I am experiencing just a projection of my inner desires? Am I sleeping and in a dream state? Etc.

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.

Yes, they do. Not all of them probably experience something outside themselves. But I'll put down the description again. Note the testing involved:

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily to those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there is an astounding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion.
"The experience is usually not 'spooky'. It sometimes, though definitely not always, might be termed 'mystical'. It doesn't for the most part consist of events which by their nature overturn or challenge the laws of science. (I've heard only one first-hand account of an event which, if it really happened, would be very difficult to explain by any process presently known to science.) The experience doesn't establish a hot-line to God, by which all questions are answered, all doubts set aside, and complete understanding is reached. ... People are quick to point out that, though they think their experience really is of God, it is, even at its clearest and best, only a partial, human, inadequate view of what God really is and what God is really doing. Experiential evidence sometimes comes in a flash, but it's more often the accumulation of more subtle experiences over a period of time.
"John S. Spong .... 'I do not mean to suggest that I have arrived at some mystical plateau where my search has ended, where doubts are no more, or that I now possess some unearthly peace of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have only arrived at a point where the search has a validity because I have tasted the reality of this presence, if ever so slightly.'
"As to finding God initially, some say they came rather gradually to a realization that the God they'd learned about in books, songs, and from other people, is real. Others on the contrary battered the gates of heaven .. with very sceptical demands for answers, IF such a heaven existed. Their uncompromising intellectuality led them to try to pin God to the wall in ways that might be expected to elicit a lightning bolt rather than blessing. Their requirements for evidence and proofs were seldom met exactly as specified, but there was a moment in the process when they realized to their astonishment that they were wrestling with a real being who couldn't be contained in human descriptions or standards, not a concept or an abstraction. This God was something out of their control, something not fashioned in the image they had formed in their mind ...
"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our calling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.
"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life." "The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent." 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' "The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

lucaspa said:
Then your theory is not empirical. You said we can't step outside of the universe to gather the data that would make the theory empirical. Therefore it's not empirical.

You evidently misunderstood what I said. The fact we cannot step *outside* of our physical universe at this moment in time does not mean that the universe is anything other than "empirical" in nature. You're confusing "point of view" (inside/outside) with the term 'empirical'. "Parts" of God I can study under a microscope. "Parts" of God I can study with a telescope too. Everything I can touch and experience with my senses is "empirical" by nature.

Been done. The skull acts as a very efficient blocker of EM fields. When Persinga did his introduction of EM fields into the brain, he had to have electrodes directly attached to the skull. So, the experiment has been done and shows that the universe cannot connect with our brains thru EM fields. That would seem to falsify the theory.

Not in the least. God is everything and has access to everything, physically. He's physically and directly connected to our skulls, inside and out. He's "hard wired" and wirelessly connected (via awareness) to every atom in the universe.

We don't by science. Yes, the experience is universal, but it is not intersubjective. Why? Because not everyone is in love with the same person.

"It is important to recognize that not all "facts" are susceptible to scientific investigation, simply because some observations and experiences are entirely personal. I cannot prove that someone loves his or her child. The emotions that any individual claims to have are not susceptible to scientific documentation, because they cannot be independently verified by other observers. In other words, science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment. Many human experiences and concerns are not objective, and so do not fall within the realms of science." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution, 1995, p 167.

So, while everyone claims to have that emotion called "love", we can't check each particular person's emotion.

There are limits to science. You've found one.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that love cannot be externally observed, or at least the effects cannot be externally observed. I've seen my wife snuggling on the couch with our children. I can see the love in her eyes, and see how she caresses my daughter's face. I hear her tell my daughter that she loves her out loud, and watch her hug her over and over again. I may not have direct access to actually be able to "feel" inside of her brain, but the effect of that love is quite real, quite tangible, quite dramatic in some cases.

If I could put my wife inside some EM scanning equipment while I observed such external behaviors, I might be able to watch the various areas of the brain associated with "love" light up and change over time. I would be able to watch the tangible effect of her "feelings" in the neuron pathways of her brain. In terms of "observation", the person who wrote that articles seems a bit "unwilling" to really roll up their sleeves, get a little dirty and "turn loose the tools of science" to do a little investigating IMO.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

Cassini Probe Sees Electric Link With Saturn And One Of Its Moons | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This seems like an appropriate place to start in terms of drawing circuit diagrams between objects in space, in this case between a planet and it's moon.

Scientists previously theorized an electrical circuit should exist at Saturn. After analyzing data that Cassini collected in 2008, scientists saw a glowing patch of ultraviolet light emissions near Saturn's north pole that marked the presence of a circuit, even though the moon is 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers) away from the planet.

The important thing to know about plasmas is that they are *excellent* (nearly perfect) conductors of electrical current. They can form over *vast* distances by organizing themselves into "filaments" much like the kinds of plasma filaments you see inside of an ordinary plasma ball. They are much larger of course, but in plasma physics, everything scales very nicely.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2011

lucaspa said:
Only because faith in a religious context refers to God. However, if you use the appropriate definition of faith for the context -- "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof", then atheism is a faith.

I'll do this example again. You noted that we can't put God in a lab. Well, we can't put Him in a test tube, or keep Him out of one, either. That means we can't do a control where we know God is absent. Thus, we cannot prove that "natural" processes happen on their own. Do they require God? To be an atheist, one must have faith that "natural" processes happen on their own. There is no proof.

So, when examined closely, atheism does involve numerous statements of faith -- things an atheist firmly believes but for which there is no proof.

Well, with that definition of 'faith,' then I disagree. For instance, if you point at a burning log and tell me that little demons, outside of science's scope, keep the fire going and I can't detect them, I need no faith to tell you that I don't detect them and to explain to you that I see no reason to believe your fire-creating demons story. The proof for my statements is the mere fact that I don't detect the demons and that you're unable to provide evidence for them.

lucaspa said:
Many theists know that many atheists try to portray atheism this way. But what you have described is agnosticism, not atheism.

Well, regardless of labels, I can tell you what I believe: The God, as described in the Bible does NOT exist, however, it is possible some other god does exist. At this time, I have no reason to think one does, though.
Regarding my stance toward religion: I think it's harmful superstitious thinking where one simply gives one another a free pass to make unsubstantiated claims that can and has lead people to faulty reasoning to justify human suffering in many ways.

lucaspa said:
AH! There it is. Now, what does that "lack the alleged personal evidence" really mean? It means that atheists personal experience is of no experience of deity. You are pitting your personal experience (no experience) vs the personal experience of theists. First, yes, that is reasonable. After all, it is what we all do. Second, it is a level playing field! Thank you, Sandwiches, for pointing out that the faith of theists and the faith of atheists are based upon the same thing: personal experience.

That much is obvious. However, unlike your personal experience of a deity, my personal experience regarding the universe outside my mind can be empirically demonstrated.

lucaspa said:
The problem is atheists trying to pretend that atheism has a higher epistemological value than theism. But they are based upon the same thing.

They're both based on personal experience and that's as far as similarities go. Just like the beliefs of a psychotic man who thinks he's constantly being eaten by worms or the man who's tripping on LSD who sees his hands melting, there are better and worse ways to know and understand reality.

lucaspa said:
The same way you test anything to determine whether an experience is associated with something outside your mind. Love is obviously within your mind, but you (hopefully) still test it to see whether it is love instead of lust, need, loneliness, etc.

There are questions to ask: am I sick? Have I eaten any strange food lately (like those funny looking mushrooms)? Is what I am experiencing just a projection of my inner desires? Am I sleeping and in a dream state? Etc.

Sure, but the difference is that when I claim I'm love, I don't say that it's because of an undetectable ray from the invisible aliens in Jupiter and then when you don't believe me claim that my epistemology is as valid as yours because you have no proof that contradicts my claim. I understand that while my feelings can be affected by external sources, they are internal and that they do not necessarily reflect an accurate picture of the reality.

lucaspa said:
Yes, they do. Not all of them probably experience something outside themselves. But I'll put down the description again. Note the testing involved:

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily to those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there is an astounding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion.
"The experience is usually not 'spooky'. It sometimes, though definitely not always, might be termed 'mystical'. It doesn't for the most part consist of events which by their nature overturn or challenge the laws of science. (I've heard only one first-hand account of an event which, if it really happened, would be very difficult to explain by any process presently known to science.) The experience doesn't establish a hot-line to God, by which all questions are answered, all doubts set aside, and complete understanding is reached. ... People are quick to point out that, though they think their experience really is of God, it is, even at its clearest and best, only a partial, human, inadequate view of what God really is and what God is really doing. Experiential evidence sometimes comes in a flash, but it's more often the accumulation of more subtle experiences over a period of time.
"John S. Spong .... 'I do not mean to suggest that I have arrived at some mystical plateau where my search has ended, where doubts are no more, or that I now possess some unearthly peace of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have only arrived at a point where the search has a validity because I have tasted the reality of this presence, if ever so slightly.'
"As to finding God initially, some say they came rather gradually to a realization that the God they'd learned about in books, songs, and from other people, is real. Others on the contrary battered the gates of heaven .. with very sceptical demands for answers, IF such a heaven existed. Their uncompromising intellectuality led them to try to pin God to the wall in ways that might be expected to elicit a lightning bolt rather than blessing. Their requirements for evidence and proofs were seldom met exactly as specified, but there was a moment in the process when they realized to their astonishment that they were wrestling with a real being who couldn't be contained in human descriptions or standards, not a concept or an abstraction. This God was something out of their control, something not fashioned in the image they had formed in their mind ...
"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our calling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.
"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life." "The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent." 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' "The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251

I'm not really sure what all that was supposed to show, to be honest. So, I don't know how to respond.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

sandwiches said:
That much is obvious. However, unlike your personal experience of a deity, my personal experience regarding the universe outside my mind can be empirically demonstrated.

Mine too. The personal experience on the "inside" may not be visible on the outside but it's not unique to a single individual.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

sandwiches said:
They're both based on personal experience and that's as far as similarities go. Just like the beliefs of a psychotic man who thinks he's constantly being eaten by worms or the man who's tripping on LSD who sees his hands melting, there are better and worse ways to know and understand reality.

Note that you just compared a *common* (spiritual) experience to a drug induced high that is limited a specific individual? I fail to see the logic of such a comparison. IMO it's a bit like comparing love to a similar "trip". Not every emotion is an invalid or useless input into awareness. Quite the contrary. They often provide us with valuable *MORAL* information.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2011

Michael said:
Note that you just compared a *common* (spiritual) experience to a drug induced high that is limited a specific individual? I fail to see the logic of such a comparison. IMO it's a bit like comparing love to a similar "trip". Not every emotion is an invalid or useless input into awareness. Quite the contrary. They often provide us with valuable *MORAL* information.

And that has nothing to do with what I said. While I believe that the feelings of love are real in the same way that the visions of a man tripping on acid are real, neither necessarily reflect what is happening in reality. For instance, his hands aren't really melting and the love I imagine FROM a woman I'm infatuated with isn't there. So, again, feelings, thoughts, etc are real so long as they're being felt and thought, by their very definition. However, these thoughts or feelings do not necessarily reflect the reality outside one's mind.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2011

Michael said:
Mine too. The personal experience on the "inside" may not be visible on the outside but it's not unique to a single individual.

But it's not demonstrable. You can say you "feel," you "know," you "think" whatever you want. However, none of those BY THEMSELVES things prove that those things you feel, know, or think are correct or reflect reality.

Again, I might think that my wife is perfect in every respect and I might claim that I "know" this because of the awesome love I "feel" for her but the fact is that my feelings are not enough proof of anything but the fact that I am feeling something. For us to know if those feelings or thoughts are correct, we'd have to test them against reality.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

sandwiches said:
But it's not demonstrable.

Which part? For how long? The PC/EU theory part is certainly something I can demonstrate. The connection between EU fields and human thoughts can be empirically demonstrated too. About the only thing that is difficult to "demonstrate" is the concept that the universe is "aware", only because I can't actually "control" the whole physical universe the way I might be able to "control" a "smaller" living being in some lab somewhere.

You can say you "feel," you "know," you "think" whatever you want. However, none of those BY THEMSELVES things prove that those things you feel, know, or think are correct or reflect reality.

Sure, and if I were one of very few humans to have ever felt and experienced these things, I might worry about it. Since it's not limited to yours truly, well, it's not simply *MY* experience anymore.

Again, I might think that my wife is perfect in every respect and I might claim that I "know" this because of the awesome love I "feel" for her but the fact is that my feelings are not enough proof of anything but the fact that I am feeling something. For us to know if those feelings or thoughts are correct, we'd have to test them against reality.

I guess it all depends on what you associate that love with. Even if she turns out to not necessarily be "perfect", you can probably bet that she still physically exists.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

sandwiches said:
And that has nothing to do with what I said. While I believe that the feelings of love are real in the same way that the visions of a man tripping on acid are real, neither necessarily reflect what is happening in reality.

I really do not understand this comparison. What's the point of comparing a "typical' experience of 'love" to something like an acid trip? I really don't get it.

Due to the design of my DNA I have 'eyes' that I trust to help me provide an input into awareness that tells me something useful about the outside world around me. The same goes for my nose, my sense of touch, my sense of smell. I trust all those inputs into 'awareness" to provide me with accurate and useful information. I do the same thing with my 'feelings'. They provide useful input that helps me have "compassion" for my fellow man, and that help me to live less selfishly. Why would I distrust my feelings (like love) the way I might distrust my experience on an acid trip? Your analogy is meaningless IMO.

selfinflikted · Apr 21, 2011

Michael said:
I really do not understand this comparison. What's the point of comparing a "typical' experience of 'love" to something like an acid trip? I really don't get it.

Simply put, I think the point is: It's all in your head.

Michael · Apr 21, 2011

selfinflikted said:
Simply put, I think the point is: It's all in your head.

My experience of love for my wife, and her love for me may in fact be "all in our heads", but that has ultimately produced two wonderful kids, a mortgage, several cars, food, clothing, etc. Is that common human experience of love somehow less "real" only by virtue of the fact that the experience of love happens inside our heads?

IMO I just don't think it's particularly useful to compare an acid trip to something "typical" like love. Sure, you can screw up a brain with drugs or a bullet for that mater, but what's the point of comparing an abnormal condition to a normal one in terms of brain function?

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2011

Michael said:
Which part? For how long? The PC/EU theory part is certainly something I can demonstrate. The connection between EU fields and human thoughts can be empirically demonstrated too. About the only thing that is difficult to "demonstrate" is the concept that the universe is "aware", only because I can't actually "control" the whole physical universe the way I might be able to "control" a "smaller" living being in some lab somewhere.

Remember correlation does mean causation.
Let's assume you had shown PC/EU to be true, what you have is this:
a) Electric universe is true
b) EM fields affect the mind
c) People claim to have God experiences

Now you need to directly link the specific EM fields from the EU to people's divine experiences and then show that this EM fields are the result of a conscious entity.

Michael said:
Sure, and if I were one of very few humans to have ever felt and experienced these things, I might worry about it. Since it's not limited to yours truly, well, it's not simply *MY* experience anymore.

The amount of unproven claims doesn't make them proven, all of the sudden.

Michael said:
I guess it all depends on what you associate that love with. Even if she turns out to not necessarily be "perfect", you can probably bet that she still physically exists.

Right, but I don't believe she exists BECAUSE I love her. I know she exists because I can detect her, others can detect her, and even inanimate objects are affected by her. She demonstrably exists independent of my feelings, thoughts, or claims.

An Empirical Theory Of God

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Contributor

Under Deck

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency