An Empirical Theory Of God

[Non sequitur]

I'm not sure what an organic "macromodule" might look like. Do you?

My bad. I meant macromolecules.

It's not actually a question of "need", but rather is a simple scientific question with a simple scientific answer. It's not a question of whether it NEEDS anything but whether it DOES hold awareness or not. If it's not alive (as a whole) it's probably not aware either.

I agree that if it's not alive, it's probably not aware either.

One thing I've learned in debates is that there are a million and one ways to interpret any set of data. How do you know if it does or does not intent to sustain life?

If by intent you mean, "an effect", then yes.

If we go outside of simply cause-and-effect, then I believe we are adding more than is necessary.

(This is getting ridiculously esoteric...)

Or a few atheists are just creating a "no god" belief while living inside of a living organism.

A "god" is not required to live in a living organism.

It's a default. There is no need to "create" a belief for a negative.

Aren't you just doing the same thing but "assuming" there isn't a purpose?

The default is a negative. I don't have to "assume myself into a negative".

Otherwise, I would be assuming "rocks can get tired" and the "prettiest color is 3".

Your brain does that too doesn't it?

It sure does.

Sometimes it takes some work to make sure that I keep it in check and the conclusions it draws don't simply appeal to that "need to know".

Gotta make sure that the habitual "need to understand and make sense of it all" doesn't overpower the significance of reason and rationality.

That desire to understand "cause/effect" relationships is an integral part of science. The universe does have an empirical "cause" of some sort, doesn't it?

It appears to be rather circular.

But the "cause" you speak of has an appealing and emotional connotation, when used in this way.

I think "Is the universe aware" is a meaningful question with a simple yes or no answer. Either answer is meaningful.

Most probably.

Evidently I pulled an Archie Bunker on that one. I meant to use the word "conception". I fixed it, but evidently not until after you had begun to respond. My bad.

Becoming pregnant?

Like, when a zygote forms?

Well, the "oddities" all seem to fixate on something they call "God". Why?

Our constant need to explain the unknown, which has been labeled as "God".

Call it what you will, many people hundreds and thousands of years ago have called it different things.

"God" is, and has become, the mental interpretation and manifestation of that unknown.

I just find it rather silly to give an unknown thing knowable characteristics, that are not testable.

That only appeals to the mind and "heart", not any reality.

Only to you due to your own subjective interpretation. Many atheists that have such experience take them quite seriously. What makes you so sure there isn't something to it?

Mostly, it's never been scientifically proven?

If all that was desired from the process is a confirmation of beliefs and religious beliefs in particular, why don't the experiences match up with the users preconceived religious beliefs? Why do they typically "change" in terms of behaviors and beliefs as a result of the experience?

Because they believed it?

I would think the change would be more expected, than not expected.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't feel like reading all the posts I've missed since I've checked this thread but is it safe for me to assume that the same "arguments" from analogy and equivocation are still being used by Michael?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't feel like reading all the posts I've missed since I've checked this thread but is it safe for me to assume that the same "arguments" from analogy and equivocation are still being used by Michael?

You would assume correctly After his last barrage of posts, I realised I was just going round in circles. I don't usually abandon threads, but this was one doozy of a train-wreck.

 

[Michael]

My bad. I meant macromolecules.

I'm still not sure what that might look like on a macroscopic scale. Galaxy clusters perhaps?

I agree that if it's not alive, it's probably not aware either.

So really, the only question is whether or not it's alive. It's a pretty safe bet that if it's alive it's also 'aware'. What we call "life" and "awareness" seem to go hand in hand. All DNA adaptations either serve awareness/life, or not. Those DNA modification that do provide critical improvements to awareness tend increase survival rates and are therefore passed on to future generations.

If by intent you mean, "an effect", then yes.

I'm essentially talking about more than just an "effect", I'm talking conscious intent.

If we go outside of simply cause-and-effect, then I believe we are adding more than is necessary.

(This is getting ridiculously esoteric...)

It's not really about adding 'more than is necessary', it's a simple question about the very nature of the universe we life in. Is it 'alive'? It's not really an esoteric question, it's more along the lines of an empirical question with an empirical answer. It's certainly more empirical than say "dark energy" or "inflation" faeries that have died and gone to inflation heaven, never to be measured by humans in the lab.

A "god" is not required to live in a living organism.

But it certainly could be a living organism.

It's a default. There is no need to "create" a belief for a negative.

There is no 'default' position. There is the "right" answer and the wrong one. Is there a "default" related to "inflation" that Guth made up in his head, and killed off in his head too? Is there a "default" for the 'cause' of "acceleration"? Is no dark energy the "default" position as to the "cause" of acceleration? How willing are you to apply this logic to other "scientific theories" about the universe?

The default is a negative. I don't have to "assume myself into a negative".

No. The "default" is "ignorance", and only ignorance. I don't "lack belief in the sun" as a "default". I may be ignorant of a sun by default, but there is no conscious choice involved in my "lack of knowledge", it's just pure ignorance on a stick.

Otherwise, I would be assuming "rocks can get tired" and the "prettiest color is 3".

That's a little how I feel about inflation, dark energy and the ever famous "dark matter". They have no empirical or material effect on anything in the lab, but everyone ASSUMES they exist. What then is a valid "hypothesis" and what is not? If we can't ever hope to "measure" the effect of the sky entity suggested (awareness or inflation), is it even a valid "scientific" hypothesis? When was the last time humans claimed to have a personal relationship with "inflation"? 'Dark energy'?

It sure does.

Sometimes it takes some work to make sure that I keep it in check and the conclusions it draws don't simply appeal to that "need to know".

Gotta make sure that the habitual "need to understand and make sense of it all" doesn't overpower the significance of reason and rationality.

And yet "curiosity" is part of the design of our DNA. We are a curious species. We like to "know" why things happened, how things happened, etc. It's simply a part of the scientific curiosity that has helped us create cars, computers, cell phones, etc. There's nothing wrong with rational thought and rational questions.

It appears to be rather circular.

But the "cause" you speak of has an appealing and emotional connotation, when used in this way.

Actually, from the standpoint of pure physics, there are 'cause/effect' relationships at work in all interactions involving energy and matter. It's a simple deduction based on what we already understand about matter and energy.

Becoming pregnant?

Like, when a zygote forms?

Yep. As long as it has all the DNA it will ever need to grow into a fully functional human, it's "alive" IMO. It may not be able to dance and sing yet, but given some time.....

Our constant need to explain the unknown, which has been labeled as "God".

At the level of physics, one could say the same thing about "the universe". We labelled it, and now we seek to "understand" it. We need to "explain" those redshifted photons. We need to "explain" it all, even if that means we dream up a few impotent sky entities that will NEVER show up in an empirical experiment on Earth, and CANNOT show up in an experiment on Earth.

At least my theory has the ability to be confirmed in a standard empirical manner, maybe even right here on Earth in a lab in the experiments I outlined earlier in this thread.

Call it what you will, many people hundreds and thousands of years ago have called it different things.

"God" is, and has become, the mental interpretation and manifestation of that unknown.

I just find it rather silly to give an unknown thing knowable characteristics, that are not testable.

That only appeals to the mind and "heart", not any reality.

From the standpoint of pure science and physics, let's replace "God" in that argument above with "The Universe". What's the difference then between my theory and standard theory? How do we "test" the idea that "dark energy" actually causes anything to "accelerate" and it's not just a figment of human imagination, in some desperate attempt to "provide answers" that humans simply do not yet posses?

How is ANY scientific theory about "The Universe" not going to be plagued by these same problems that you point out?

Mostly, it's never been scientifically proven?

Define "scientifically proven" for me. How did that guy know about the location of his teeth in the report that was published in the Lancet? Do you have a published paper that found any other empirical explanation for these experiences?

Because they believed it?

I would think the change would be more expected, than not expected.

I think you missed my point. Assuming that the process was driven by an emotional need for confirmation of ones beliefs, whatever they "believed" going into the experience should have "been confirmed" through the experience, right? That didn't happen. The opposite tends to happen. Atheists become theists. Theists change their "religion". They change their 'behaviors', not just their "beliefs". The process doesn't necessarily jive with their preconceived ideas, in fact it rarely seems to work that way. Why?

 

[Michael]

You would assume correctly After his last barrage of posts, I realised I was just going round in circles. I don't usually abandon threads, but this was one doozy of a train-wreck.

It's only a "doozy of a train-wreck' because standard cosmology theory is physically and intellectually impossible to defend. Compared to any empirical theory of the universe (and this one qualifies), Lambda-religion is dead in the water. The whole mainstream Lambda concept is propped up with no less than three impotent (on Earth) sky gods.

The "train-wreck" happens to Lambda-religion when we get to the level of actual empirical physics.

A living electric universe has the ability to "expand" or "contract" at will. It has the ability to "act", to influence events here on Earth. It can interact with humans through wireless interaction of EM fields. All the "cause/effect" relationships have already been confirmed in the lab and EM fields have been show to influence matter and human thought in a standard empirical manner.

A dead inflation sky entity can NEVER be "measured' in the lab. It can never be "confirmed" in an empirical manner in terms of being some kind of "cause" of expansion because it ceased to exist in Guths head the same night he dreamed it up to do his bidding. The "dark energy" god cannot and will not every have any influence on Earth because evidently it's shy around matter and material objects. It's forever going to be an impotent (on Earth) sky god, devoid of even the ability to show up in a lab.

The "train-wreck" you're experiencing is the train-wreck of standard cosmology theory. It's composed of 96% impotent sky god, and only 4 percent actual physics. That's one hell of a empirical train-wreck alright.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's only a "doozy of a train-wreck' because standard cosmology theory is physically and intellectually impossible to defend. Compared to any empirical theory of the universe (and this one qualifies), Lambda-religion is dead in the water. The whole mainstream Lambda concept is propped up with no less than three impotent (on Earth) sky gods.

The "train-wreck" happens to Lambda-religion when we get to the level of actual empirical physics.

A living electric universe has the ability to "expand" or "contract" at will. It has the ability to "act", to influence events here on Earth. It can interact with humans through wireless interaction of EM fields. All the "cause/effect" relationships have already been confirmed in the lab and EM fields have been show to influence matter and human thought in a standard empirical manner.

A dead inflation sky entity can NEVER be "measured' in the lab. It can never be "confirmed" in an empirical manner in terms of being some kind of "cause" of expansion because it ceased to exist in Guths head the same night he dreamed it up to do his bidding. The "dark energy" god cannot and will not every have any influence on Earth because evidently it's shy around matter and material objects. It's forever going to be an impotent (on Earth) sky god, devoid of even the ability to show up in a lab.

The "train-wreck" you're experiencing is the train-wreck of standard cosmology theory. It's composed of 96% impotent sky god, and only 4 percent actual physics. That's one hell of a empirical train-wreck alright.

Blah blah blah trite rant on sky gods blah blah blah emotionally charged terms belying prejudice blah blah blah poor wee persecuted theist blah blah blah sing us a new one Michael, eh?

 

[Michael]

Blah blah blah trite rant on sky gods blah blah blah emotionally charged terms belying prejudice blah blah blah poor wee persecuted theist blah blah blah sing us a new one Michael, eh?

Cry me a river.

The problem is that there isn't a "better" or more defensible empirical theory of the universe than the one I have outlined. Maybe a "non aware" electric universe theory is "as" defensible as this one, but mainstream theory is simply pathetic at competing at the level of pure empirical physics. You're just mad because your sky entities of choice are more impotent on Earth in the lab than your average religious icon.

Jesus at least walked the Earth and influenced human beings. At least an electric universe *CAN* interact with human right here on Earth, right now. What's inflation ever done on Earth? When was the last time 'dark energy' showed up in a lab? What/where does it even come from?

It's not my personal fault that your lambda sky entities are a bunch of empirical wussies in the lab.

 

[sandwiches]

You would assume correctly After his last barrage of posts, I realised I was just going round in circles. I don't usually abandon threads, but this was one doozy of a train-wreck.

After reading the last few posts, it seems I was correct. More of the same "This theory fits better with what I wish things to be, so it must be correct."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Cry me a river.

The problem is that there isn't a "better" or more defensible empirical theory of the universe than the one I have outlined. Maybe a "non aware" electric universe theory is "as" defensible as this one,

Congratulations on undermining the very point of this thread.

but mainstream theory is simply pathetic at competing at the level of pure empirical physics. You're just mad because your sky entities of choice are more impotent on Earth in the lab than your average religious icon.

Jesus at least walked the Earth and influenced human beings. At least an electric universe *CAN* interact with human right here on Earth, right now. What's inflation ever done on Earth? When was the last time 'dark energy' showed up in a lab? What/where does it even come from?

It's not my personal fault that your lambda sky entities are a bunch of empirical wussies in the lab.

Blah blah missing the point blah blah off-topic rant blah blah argumentum ad ignorantiam blah blah false dichotomy blah blah blah.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

After reading the last few posts, it seems I was correct. More of the same "This theory fits better with what I wish things to be, so it must be correct."

Exactly. The contrived ways he tried to justify it (complex circuits = intelligence, but only if it's in the brain or the universe; any other circuital system magically doesn't count!) and the fervour with which he tried to turn it into a debate about mainstream cosmology ("oh em gee your dead sky gods are soooo unprovable!" - the irony of these statements was stunning) just blew me over.

 

[Michael]

Congratulations on undermining the very point of this thread.

I don't think that being honest about various competing and non competitive options undermines anything. EU theories will always be empirically viable theories, whereas 'inflation/dark" sky entities will always be a "religion" that requires "faith in the unseen" in the lab, forever and ever.

Blah blah missing the point blah blah off-topic rant blah blah argumentum ad ignorantiam blah blah false dichotomy blah blah blah.

Like I said earlier, you're just upset because standard theory is metaphysical kludge that is closer to a "sky religion" than it's related to empirical physics. It's actually only 4% actual physics, and 96 percent pure "impotent sky entity".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think that being honest about various competing and non competitive options undermines anything. EU theories will always be empirically viable theories, whereas 'inflation/dark" sky entities will always be a "religion" that requires "faith in the unseen" in the lab, forever and ever.

You claimed that this-and-that proves there's an intelligent deity. Now you're saying this-and-that is equally explainable without said deity ("Maybe a "non aware" electric universe theory is "as" defensible as this one"). Congratulations on undermining your whole point.

Like I said earlier, you're just upset because standard theory is metaphysical kludge that is closer to a "sky religion" than it's related to empirical physics. It's actually only 4% actual physics, and 96 percent pure "impotent sky entity".

Blah blah still doesn't get it blah blah emotionally charged blah blah nothing new blah blah blah.

 

[Michael]

Exactly. The contrived ways he tried to justify it (complex circuits = intelligence, but only if it's in the brain or the universe; any other circuital system magically doesn't count!)

I didn't say it didn't count, I said they are examples of 'intelligent design', and both options falsify atheism.

and the fervour with which he tried to turn it into a debate about mainstream cosmology ("oh em gee your dead sky gods are soooo unprovable!"

What's the competing option? That is in fact the primary difference between your beliefs and mine. Your sky entities are impotent on Earth, whereas mine is not. EM fields influence matter in real empirical experiments.

- the irony of these statements was stunning) just blew me over.

I find it exceedingly ironic that you can show no empirical cause/effect relationships between your sky entities and the various "properties" that you assigned to them in a purely ad hoc manner. On the other hand I can show empirical cause/effect links between EM fields, the movement of plasma and human thoughts in the lab in a standard empirical manner. The irony of atheists clinging to impotent sky gods as an "explanation" of our universe is the irony that always blows me away.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't say it didn't count, I said they are examples of 'intelligent design', and both options falsify atheism.

Except, y'know, they don't. Congratulations on still not getting the point.

I find it exceedingly ironic that you can show no empirical cause/effect relationships between your sky entities and the various "properties" that you assigned to them in a purely ad hoc manner.

Not the point of the thread. Not once did I engage you in a discussion on mainstream cosmology, despite the numerous attempts you made to goad me into one. This thread was to discuss the veracity of your 'empirical theory of god', not mainstream cosmological ideas. If you think the veracity of your 'theory' hinges of the success or failure of mainstream cosmology, then you have bigger problems than your usual berth of non sequiturs and argumenta ad ignorantiam.

On the other hand I can show empirical cause/effect links between EM fields, the movement of plasma and human thoughts in the lab in a standard empirical manner. The irony of atheists clinging to impotent sky gods as an "explanation" of our universe is the irony that always blows me away.

Blah blah still doesn't get it blah blah the emotional charge is practically scintilating (get it?) blah blah maybe next time blah blah blah.

 

[Non sequitur]

So really, the only question is whether or not it's alive. It's a pretty safe bet that if it's alive it's also 'aware'. What we call "life" and "awareness" seem to go hand in hand. All DNA adaptations either serve awareness/life, or not. Those DNA modification that do provide critical improvements to awareness tend increase survival rates and are therefore passed on to future generations.

No DNA = No alive?

I'm essentially talking about more than just an "effect", I'm talking conscious intent.

It's not really about adding 'more than is necessary', it's a simple question about the very nature of the universe we life in. Is it 'alive'? It's not really an esoteric question, it's more along the lines of an empirical question with an empirical answer. It's certainly more empirical than say "dark energy" or "inflation" faeries that have died and gone to inflation heaven, never to be measured by humans in the lab.

Well, what shows you "conscious intent"?

But it certainly could be a living organism.

Any number of intangible things could be living organisms. Kinda hard to know (test for) them.

There is no 'default' position. There is the "right" answer and the wrong one. Is there a "default" related to "inflation" that Guth made up in his head, and killed off in his head too? Is there a "default" for the 'cause' of "acceleration"? Is no dark energy the "default" position as to the "cause" of acceleration? How willing are you to apply this logic to other "scientific theories" about the universe?

Of course there is.

You were born an atheist and had to interpret whatever information you had to become a non-atheist (believer) in it.

There may be default "truths", but you have to start at a default of no position, before you can arrive at any yes position.

No. The "default" is "ignorance", and only ignorance. I don't "lack belief in the sun" as a "default". I may be ignorant of a sun by default, but there is no conscious choice involved in my "lack of knowledge", it's just pure ignorance on a stick.

Well, now we changed from default position to default "truth/reality".

Your default is a negative about everything, until it changes.

Whether it's silly or not to say, technically, before you could see and/or comprehend the sun, you "lacked a belief in the sun", because you were not aware of it.

That's a little how I feel about inflation, dark energy and the ever famous "dark matter". They have no empirical or material effect on anything in the lab, but everyone ASSUMES they exist. What then is a valid "hypothesis" and what is not? If we can't ever hope to "measure" the effect of the sky entity suggested (awareness or inflation), is it even a valid "scientific" hypothesis? When was the last time humans claimed to have a personal relationship with "inflation"? 'Dark energy'?

Dark matter doesn't answer prayers and help people though hard times.

If it was perceived that it could, people might very well.

And yet "curiosity" is part of the design of our DNA. We are a curious species. We like to "know" why things happened, how things happened, etc. It's simply a part of the scientific curiosity that has helped us create cars, computers, cell phones, etc. There's nothing wrong with rational thought and rational questions.

None at all.

I just don't ever arrive at an something that could be any number of things and un-testable as a specific solution.

Yep. As long as it has all the DNA it will ever need to grow into a fully functional human, it's "alive" IMO. It may not be able to dance and sing yet, but given some time.....

Is a grass seed alive?

At the level of physics, one could say the same thing about "the universe". We labelled it, and now we seek to "understand" it. We need to "explain" those redshifted photons. We need to "explain" it all, even if that means we dream up a few impotent sky entities that will NEVER show up in an empirical experiment on Earth, and CANNOT show up in an experiment on Earth.

At least my theory has the ability to be confirmed in a standard empirical manner, maybe even right here on Earth in a lab in the experiments I outlined earlier in this thread.

I honestly have not seen your theory, so I can't speak about it.

From the standpoint of pure science and physics, let's replace "God" in that argument above with "The Universe". What's the difference then between my theory and standard theory? How do we "test" the idea that "dark energy" actually causes anything to "accelerate" and it's not just a figment of human imagination, in some desperate attempt to "provide answers" that humans simply do not yet posses?

How is ANY scientific theory about "The Universe" not going to be plagued by these same problems that you point out?

Again, I haven't seen your theory.

People have their work cut out for them when they go from "unknown" to a specific god.


Best case scenario:

"god" = acceptable
"my specific god" = irrational and unknowable

Define "scientifically proven" for me. How did that guy know about the location of his teeth in the report that was published in the Lancet? Do you have a published paper that found any other empirical explanation for these experiences?

Never saw the report. Don't know anything about it.

I think you missed my point. Assuming that the process was driven by an emotional need for confirmation of ones beliefs, whatever they "believed" going into the experience should have "been confirmed" through the experience, right? That didn't happen. The opposite tends to happen. Atheists become theists. Theists change their "religion". They change their 'behaviors', not just their "beliefs". The process doesn't necessarily jive with their preconceived ideas, in fact it rarely seems to work that way. Why?

And theists become atheists, etc.

Can you give a specific example of this? Even hypothetical.

I'm trying to get a specific example, so I know exactly what you are talking about.

 

[Michael]

Except, y'know, they don't. Congratulations on still not getting the point.

So under which condition (alive/intelligent design) is atheism justified and how? If the universe is created intelligently, do we not have an "intelligent creator"?

Not the point of the thread. Not once did I engage you in a discussion on mainstream cosmology, despite the numerous attempts you made to goad me into one.

Well, at some point there are "issues/problems" when attempting *ANY* cosmology theory in terms of empirical support. You've been acting like any sort of empirical "issue" you might cite automatically disqualifies this theory from scientific consideration, yet you ignore the fact that *EVERY* cosmology theory suffers from such "issues".

Sorry, but we're going to have to establish some sort of "comparison standard' sooner or later, and where better to start than "mainstream' cosmology theory?

This thread was to discuss the veracity of your 'empirical theory of god', not mainstream cosmological ideas.

Sooner or later we MUST compare it's "flaws" to the "flaws" we find in *ANY* cosmology theory.

If you think the veracity of your 'theory' hinges of the success or failure of mainstream cosmology, then you have bigger problems than your usual berth of non sequiturs and argumenta ad ignorantiam.

IMO you're missing the point. A single perceived "flaw" (in your subjective opinion) in terms of firmly demonstrating cause/effect relationships, in no way undermines the veracity of this scientific theory. Every theory of the cosmos attempts to explain an area of spacetime that humans can never reach, never physically touch, never physically get to. There will always be "issues" and "weaknesses" in any cosmology theory.

One "weakness" this theory will never suffer from is demonstrating empirical cause/effect relationships. It's core tenets based on things that have already been shown to WORK IN THE LAB. EM fields accelerate plasma in a lab. They cause plasma to heat up to millions of degrees and emit gamma and x-rays galore. They cause human thoughts to be altered. EM fields are involved in cell specialization in DNA. There's nothing left to be 'demonstrated' in terms of the pure empirical cause/effect relationships that might apply to this theory, save one. The only thing left to be demonstrated "empirically" is that he universe itself is in fact "aware". It certainly "could be" aware. It has all the earmarks in terms of "sophisticated circuitry". It has a large, powerful influence of human beings, both physically, and potentially even mentally.

What's the "reasonable" alternative to the theory I have outlined? Mainstream theory? Bah! It's 96 percent impotent sky entity, and only 4% actual physics. There "may" be "better" theories that come along, but any empirical theory related to pantheism, or panetheism for that matter is going to blow standard theory away in terms of "empirical support".

The irony overload part comes in when you start quibbling over some "issues" in this theory and ignore the giant gaping empirical holes in current "scientific" theories. No theory can be "written off" as casually as you are doing.

Blah blah still doesn't get it blah blah the emotional charge is practically scintilating (get it?) blah blah maybe next time blah blah blah.

Fact is not "blah blah blah". Factually speaking every empirical connection has been demonstrated between acceleration of plasma and EM fields. Every empirical connection has been made between EM fields and human thought. Every empirical connect has been made between circuit theory and events in space.

No other cosmology theory on planet Earth comes anywhere close to having established physical, empirical cause/effect relationships between their 'force of choice' and any of the claims they make about them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So under which condition (alive/intelligent design) is atheism justified and how? If the universe is created intelligently, do we not have an "intelligent creator"?

Indeed. And if we don't, then it's not. Atheist is maintained by simply pointing out that it's perfectly possible, and enormously probable, that the universe isn't a concious entity.

Well, at some point there are "issues/problems" when attempting *ANY* cosmology theory in terms of empirical support. You've been acting like any sort of empirical "issue" you might cite automatically disqualifies this theory from scientific consideration, yet you ignore the fact that *EVERY* cosmology theory suffers from such "issues".

Sorry, but we're going to have to establish some sort of "comparison standard' sooner or later, and where better to start than "mainstream' cosmology theory?

Sooner or later we MUST compare it's "flaws" to the "flaws" we find in *ANY* cosmology theory.

IMO you're missing the point. A single perceived "flaw" (in your subjective opinion) in terms of firmly demonstrating cause/effect relationships, in no way undermines the veracity of this scientific theory. Every theory of the cosmos attempts to explain an area of spacetime that humans can never reach, never physically touch, never physically get to. There will always be "issues" and "weaknesses" in any cosmology theory.

One "weakness" this theory will never suffer from is demonstrating empirical cause/effect relationships. It's core tenets based on things that have already been shown to WORK IN THE LAB. EM fields accelerate plasma in a lab. They cause plasma to heat up to millions of degrees and emit gamma and x-rays galore. They cause human thoughts to be altered. EM fields are involved in cell specialization in DNA. There's nothing left to be 'demonstrated' in terms of the pure empirical cause/effect relationships that might apply to this theory, save one. The only thing left to be demonstrated "empirically" is that he universe itself is in fact "aware". It certainly "could be" aware. It has all the earmarks in terms of "sophisticated circuitry". It has a large, powerful influence of human beings, both physically, and potentially even mentally.

What's the "reasonable" alternative to the theory I have outlined? Mainstream theory? Bah! It's 96 percent impotent sky entity, and only 4% actual physics. There "may" be "better" theories that come along, but any empirical theory related to pantheism, or panetheism for that matter is going to blow standard theory away in terms of "empirical support".

The irony overload part comes in when you start quibbling over some "issues" in this theory and ignore the giant gaping empirical holes in current "scientific" theories. No theory can be "written off" as casually as you are doing.

Regardless, the veracity of your idea does not depend on the veracity of mainstream cosmology, no matter how much you might want it to. Your idea either stands on its own merits, or it doesn't.

Fact is not "blah blah blah". Factually speaking every empirical connection has been demonstrated between acceleration of plasma and EM fields. Every empirical connection has been made between EM fields and human thought. Every empirical connect has been made between circuit theory and events in space.

No other cosmology theory on planet Earth comes anywhere close to having established physical, empirical cause/effect relationships between their 'force of choice' and any of the claims they make about them.

Allegedly. I've talked to you long enough to know what your objections to mainstream cosmology are, so I won't bother asking for a repeat. Besides, I wouldn't want to derail your thread by introducing a completely different topic.

 

[sandwiches]

I didn't say it didn't count, I said they are examples of 'intelligent design', and both options falsify atheism.

So, the universe is an example of intelligent design? I thought it was God itself. So, God was intelligently designed??

What's the competing option? That is in fact the primary difference between your beliefs and mine. Your sky entities are impotent on Earth, whereas mine is not. EM fields influence matter in real empirical experiments.

I'm not really sure what you're smoking here but I have no clue what sky entities you're referring to... And so, what if your ad hoc idea can explain what you already accept as true (i.e. Jesus)? How does that prove anything? Show evidence that Jesus existed, then show evidence that Jesus couldn't have existed unless the universe is sentient, show evidence that the universe is in fact sentient. A lot of steps you're jumping there, big boy.

I find it exceedingly ironic that you can show no empirical cause/effect relationships between your sky entities and the various "properties" that you assigned to them in a purely ad hoc manner. On the other hand I can show empirical cause/effect links between EM fields, the movement of plasma and human thoughts in the lab in a standard empirical manner. The irony of atheists clinging to impotent sky gods as an "explanation" of our universe is the irony that always blows me away.

This is just inane blather.

 

[Michael]

No DNA = No alive?

At even the microscopic level, I'm not certain. Do you have an example of a living thing that contains no DNA? I would assume even a macroscopic form of life requires some type of relatively "fixed structure" in order to function.

Well, what shows you "conscious intent"?

My personal experiences of God during prayer and meditation have personally shown me 'conscious intent'. Those personal experiences probably mean nothing to anyone not walking in my shoes at the time however. Do you mean at a large macroscopic sort of level?

Any number of intangible things could be living organisms. Kinda hard to know (test for) them.

Not necessarily. There do seem to be "electrical' and even structural similarities that we can study and catalog. If many such similarities can be established, will that satisfy you, or do you need an "active" stimulus from the universe in some way before you will believe it's "alive"?

Of course there is.

You were born an atheist and had to interpret whatever information you had to become a non-atheist (believer) in it.

No. I was simply born completely ignorant of all topics and I had to *DECIDE* to believe or lack belief in any specific topic once I had "gained information" on that topic.

There may be default "truths", but you have to start at a default of no position, before you can arrive at any yes position.

You don't have to 'start' with anything as a "default" other than pure ignorance. You're intentionally attempting to blur the distinction between pure ignorance of concept and conscious choice about a concept. Why? Why wouldn't the "default" simply be "ignorance"?

Whether it's silly or not to say, technically, before you could see and/or comprehend the sun, you "lacked a belief in the sun", because you were not aware of it.

Actually it's technically only true that I was ignorant of the concept until I experienced it myself. I neither lacked belief, nor held belief in the concept until I had DATA to work with.

Dark matter doesn't answer prayers and help people though hard times.

It helps astronomers through otherwise 'hard times'. The wouldn't be able write about much without their trilogy of invisible/dead friends. They make money writing about their sky entities. It's not really all that different on some levels. It's more like a "deistic" religion.

I just don't ever arrive at an something that could be any number of things and un-testable as a specific solution.

Well, there are only two reasons that circuitry of that level of sophistication occur, only one of them is "natural" (life) and the other is not, it's an example of "intelligent design". Is there another option that has an example you can cite here on Earth?

Is a grass seed alive?

Yes. I planted a bunch of them in the dirt in my front yard and now I have a living lawn.

I honestly have not seen your theory, so I can't speak about it.

You might read through the first 4 or 5 pages sometime.

People have their work cut out for them when they go from "unknown" to a specific god.

Not really, at least not in this particular theory. It's not a 'specific' religion in any way, it's more along the lines of a pure scientific possibility/theory. I'm not trying to demonstrate any specific qualities of the universe other than "awareness". Concepts like "good", "evil", sin, etc are irrelevant in terms of the scientific question as to whether or not the universe is aware.

Best case scenario:

"god" = acceptable
"my specific god" = irrational and unknowable

I'm not sure its even rational to think in terms of ownership of God. I don't profess to own the universe.

Never saw the report. Don't know anything about it.

They studied the phenomenon 'long term' over many years and tracked not only the details of the initial experiences, but the effects it had on individuals over time. You might read through it some time. It's interesting IMO.

And theists become atheists, etc.

Can you give a specific example of this? Even hypothetical.

Janet - near-death experience from surgery

Sure. Got a published account of a theist that reports an NDE and becomes an atheist afterwards? I can't ever recall even reading about such a thing. Perhaps it happens, but then 'why'? What exactly was their 'experience'?

I'm trying to get a specific example, so I know exactly what you are talking about.

I suspect that if you do a search for near "death experiences atheist" you can probably find many such accounts.

 

[Non sequitur]

My personal experiences of God during prayer and meditation have personally shown me 'conscious intent'. Those personal experiences probably mean nothing to anyone not walking in my shoes at the time however. Do you mean at a large macroscopic sort of level?

Not an experience or "awareness", but an actual definition.

Not necessarily. There do seem to be "electrical' and even structural similarities that we can study and catalog. If many such similarities can be established, will that satisfy you, or do you need an "active" stimulus from the universe in some way before you will believe it's "alive"?

Non-active stimulus is still "electrical", so yes.

No. I was simply born completely ignorant of all topics and I had to *DECIDE* to believe or lack belief in any specific topic once I had "gained information" on that topic.

So, right after the very second you came out of your mother's womb, did you believe or not believe in a god?

You don't have to 'start' with anything as a "default" other than pure ignorance. You're intentionally attempting to blur the distinction between pure ignorance of concept and conscious choice about a concept. Why? Why wouldn't the "default" simply be "ignorance"?

Actually it's technically only true that I was ignorant of the concept until I experienced it myself. I neither lacked belief, nor held belief in the concept until I had DATA to work with.

Ignorance is a negative and the default.


You either believe I am drinking tea right now, or don't.

If you believe I am, that is a positive belief.
If you do not believe I am, that is a negative belief.
If you are unsure, then you still do not hold positively belief about it, so it is a negative belief.

It helps astronomers through otherwise 'hard times'. The wouldn't be able write about much without their trilogy of invisible/dead friends. They make money writing about their sky entities. It's not really all that different on some levels. It's more like a "deistic" religion.

Maybe a "deistic religion", in the loosest since, but not an answering-prayer or suspending-the-laws-of-the-universe religion.

It now, really, is not a even a religion.

Well, there are only two reasons that circuitry of that level of sophistication occur, only one of them is "natural" (life) and the other is not, it's an example of "intelligent design". Is there another option that has an example you can cite here on Earth?

None that I am aware of.

Yes. I planted a bunch of them in the dirt in my front yard and now I have a living lawn.

So, is it the "soul" that makes it alive, or what it becomes?

You might read through the first 4 or 5 pages sometime.

Feel free to paraphrase it

Not really, at least not in this particular theory. It's not a 'specific' religion in any way, it's more along the lines of a pure scientific possibility/theory. I'm not trying to demonstrate any specific qualities of the universe other than "awareness". Concepts like "good", "evil", sin, etc are irrelevant in terms of the scientific question as to whether or not the universe is aware.

Sounds interesting.

I'm not sure its even rational to think in terms of ownership of God. I don't profess to own the universe.

I wasn't aware I made any reference to ownership.

They studied the phenomenon 'long term' over many years and tracked not only the details of the initial experiences, but the effects it had on individuals over time. You might read through it some time. It's interesting IMO.

Paraphrase?

Janet - near-death experience from surgery

Sure. Got a published account of a theist that reports an NDE and becomes an atheist afterwards? I can't ever recall even reading about such a thing. Perhaps it happens, but then 'why'? What exactly was their 'experience'?

Being an atheist takes away the whole "unexplained to supernatural" necessity, so I wouldn't expect a theist to do so.

I suspect that if you do a search for near "death experiences atheist" you can probably find many such accounts.

That would require way too much time.