An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

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.

One small problem. You failed to demonstrate a natural (or even unnatural) collection of interlaced circuitry that wasn't alive or intelligently designed. I've provided you with two *EXISTING EXAMPLES* of where such circuits do suggest/imply/prove intelligent design or life itself.

You're just sort of handwaving away, claiming that there "might be" some other way that such sophisticated circuitry occurs other than in living or intelligently designed things, but you've yet to provide a naturally occurring example of such a thing occurring on Earth. What third option? Show me an example.

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.

Sure, but like all theories, including mainstream theory, one perceived flaw on your part doesn't condemn the whole theory to the trash bin.

There isn't a "better" empirical explanation of the universe. If you disagree, provide one.

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.

The point is that no minor objection on your part constitutes an instant fail in terms of this theory. Compared to mainstream theory, where 96 percent of it fails to show up in the lab, you have nothing to complain about.

 

[Michael]

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

Evidently (from my recent reading up on panentheism) the distinction between the two is the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Neither concept supports "atheism".

I realize you're sort of stepping into the middle of conversation. I've been pointing out that all such examples of sophisticated circuitry on Earth is related to intelligently designed things that living things built, or living things themselves. Neither concept supports atheism.

I'm not really sure what you're smoking here but I have no clue what sky entities you're referring to...

Inflation, dark energy and dark matter.

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,

Wouldn't a simple Bible do the trick? How about if I throw in some appocrapha for you?

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.

Nobody is denying that the universe must be shown to be sentient. That's really however only possible in a limited sense, simply based on the sizes and scales involved.

Must first attempt at showing evidence of sentience relates to that flow of current and those high numbers of connected circuits we observe in space. I've yet to hear any atheist provide a naturally occurring alternative to either life or intelligent design.

This is just inane blather.

Maybe. Then again, if we're going to compare the validity of various cosmology theories, shouldn't the same empirical rules apply? Where does dark energy even come from? The atheists cannot just do lip service to their need for cause/effect demonstrations. Such a requirement has to apply equally to all cosmology theories. One small problem with this theory doesn't constitute a trip to thrash or ALL cosmology theories should be there.

 

[sandwiches]

Evidently (from my recent reading up on panentheism) the distinction between the two is the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Neither concept supports "atheism".

You missed the point. Look up "infinite regression" and get back to me.

I realize you're sort of stepping into the middle of conversation. I've been pointing out that all such examples of sophisticated circuitry on Earth is related to intelligently designed things that living things built, or living things themselves. Neither concept supports atheism.

You've done nothing of the kind. Arguments from analogies don't hold water. Show empirical evidence that they were in fact designed and we can talk.

Inflation, dark energy and dark matter.

No entities.

Wouldn't a simple Bible do the trick? How about if I throw in some appocrapha for you?

Nope.

Nobody is denying that the universe must be shown to be sentient. That's really however only possible in a limited sense, simply based on the sizes and scales involved.

Must first attempt at showing evidence of sentience relates to that flow of current and those high numbers of connected circuits we observe in space. I've yet to hear any atheist provide a naturally occurring alternative to either life or intelligent design.

You've never heard of any scientific hypotheses for the origin of life? Seems like your problem is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Maybe. Then again, if we're going to compare the validity of various cosmology theories, shouldn't the same empirical rules apply? Where does dark energy even come from? The atheists cannot just do lip service to their need for cause/effect demonstrations. Such a requirement has to apply equally to all cosmology theories. One small problem with this theory doesn't constitute a trip to thrash or ALL cosmology theories should be there.

K. Show me the intersubjective, empirical evidence that suggests an intelligent universe.

 

[Michael]

Ignorance is a negative and the default.

You're still intent on ignoring the difference between pure ignorance of a concept, and a conscious choice to "believe" or "lack belief" in an idea that one is no longer ignorant of. That's irrational IMO. There is no 'default' that excludes you from defending your *CONSCIOUS CHOICE*.

I'll work on the rest of your post as I get time, but this is an issue that deserves it's own discussion. There is a difference in the mental and conscious state between "ignorance" and "disbelief" (ie. active choice). You and I were ignorant of the concept of God at birth. We make different conscious CHOICES to either 'believe" in the idea, and/or lack belief in the idea, and in fact I've done both at different stages of my life, so I'm familiar with all three states of awareness. At first I was simply "unaware" of the idea, blissfully ignorant of any concepts related to God. I was then introduced to the *AN* idea of God which I accepted (believed) at first and the "lacked belief in" later on in my life. While I still lack belief in THAT particular dogma related to God, I now "believe" in A concept of God that was not like the one I first rejected. The various labeling of myself as "theist", "atheist" and "theist" again, took 'conscious choice" and "subjective choices" on my part. None of them were the same as "blissful ignorance".

Why are you so intent on "atheism" being any sort of "default" in the first place? Are you trying to rationalize away the need to justify your conscious decision to 'lack belief" in the idea?

 

[Non sequitur]

You're still intent on ignoring the difference between pure ignorance of a concept, and a conscious choice to "believe" or "lack belief" in an idea that one is no longer ignorant of. That's irrational IMO. There is no 'default' that excludes you from defending your *CONSCIOUS CHOICE*.

I'll work on the rest of your post as I get time, but this is an issue that deserves it's own discussion. There is a difference in the mental and conscious state between "ignorance" and "disbelief" (ie. active choice). You and I were ignorant of the concept of God at birth. We make different conscious CHOICES to either 'believe" in the idea, and/or lack belief in the idea, and in fact I've done both at different stages of my life, so I'm familiar with all three states of awareness. At first I was simply "unaware" of the idea, blissfully ignorant of any concepts related to God. I was then introduced to the *AN* idea of God which I accepted (believed) at first and the "lacked belief in" later on in my life. While I still lack belief in THAT particular dogma related to God, I now "believe" in A concept of God that was not like the one I first rejected. The various labeling of myself as "theist", "atheist" and "theist" again, took 'conscious choice" and "subjective choices" on my part. None of them were the same as "blissful ignorance".

Why are you so intent on "atheism" being any sort of "default" in the first place? Are you trying to rationalize away the need to justify your conscious decision to 'lack belief" in the idea?

I'm not "intent" on it, it simply is the default. We were just discussing it, so I gave my opinion.


It's not a knee-jerk reaction.

Before I need to justify a belief in something, it has to first be adequately defined. Which it doesn't seem to be.

 

[razeontherock]

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

Of all the people I've known, I've never known anyone that fit this description. You really need to think through what people know when they're born ...

 

[Non sequitur]

Of all the people I've known, I've never known anyone that fit this description. You really need to think through what people know when they're born ...

You know people who were born conscious believers-in-Christ?

 

[razeontherock]

You know people who were born conscious believers-in-Christ?

That's just it. The conciousness of a newborn is neither atheist nor believer.

 

[Non sequitur]

That's just it. The conciousness of a newborn is neither atheist nor believer.

So, they are neither non-believers or believers?

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[razeontherock]

How many kids have you had?

 

[Michael]

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

Well, their precious, sacred BB theory didn't have a prayer's chance in hell of surviving without stuffing in their latest sky entity, "dark energy". It certainly functions like an ad-hoc, prayer-answering, "sky god" if you ask me. Now they have more supernatural stuff to write about!

They most certainly DO try to suspend the laws of physics with their sky creatures. According to the laws of physics, matter cannot move faster than light. The universe is larger than 30 billion light years across and yet they claim that it is only 13-14 billion years old. Without suspending the laws of physics as we understand them on Earth, that's physically impossible. They skirt around that little "faster than light speed expansion" problem by claiming that "space' expands. Of course they can't get "space" to do any expanding in the lab, but that's the whole problem with their religion. Nothing actually works in the lab. Note that only two theories known to man require 'faster than light speed expansion' trickery, young earth creationism and lambda-religion.

EU theories however have in fact been "lab tested" to a very great degree, mostly because they CAN be tested in the lab in an entirely conventional manner. That's head and shoulders "better" IMO in terms of pure empirical confirmation of theory, particularly in demonstrating cause/effect relationships.

Guth on the other hand quite literally "made up" an invisible friend in his head one day. He made it do magic, even "supernatural" expansion tricks and then he impolitely killed it off in his imagination too, so nobody can ever falsify the concept. The current mainstream theory should be called "Guthianity" IMO. I can even name it's "savior" in terms of they guy that dreamed up the sky god that suspended the laws of physics as we know them.

 

[Michael]

You missed the point. Look up "infinite regression" and get back to me.

Our conversation was not related to the topic of infinite regression. We were discussing the number of circuits found in space, and the fact that such a large number of circuits here on Earth are only found in living things or man made (intelligently designed) things. WC was trying to "handwave" in a "third" possibility, but he's been unable to provide an example of such a thing here on Earth. He did try to suggest that every charged particle was a "circuit", but that simply dumbs down the concept of circuitry to the point of absurdity.

The universe is *FILLED* with interlaced circuitry, starting with all those coronal loops we see in the solar atmosphere in x-ray and iron ion wavelengths.

You've done nothing of the kind. Arguments from analogies don't hold water. Show empirical evidence that they were in fact designed and we can talk.

The internet was used as an example of an "intelligently designed" set of interlaced and interconnected circuits, that are not "alive". I simply pointed out that it's an example of an 'intelligently designed' system. I used a living brain as another "natural" example of the function of such sophisticated circuitry. Do you have a "third option" for the existence of sophisticated circuitry here on Earth that is not part of a living being, and not an example of "intelligent design"?

I've provided concrete examples of sophisticated circuitry in living things here on Earth that supports a 'theistic' interpretation of the universes circuits. I can also accept that a panentheistic view is also "possible", in other words we may live inside of an "intelligently designed universe". Unfortunately for you that also falsifies "atheism". All I have to do is switch from pantheism to panentheism, which frankly seems more like a minor subtlety than a "big deal" from my perspective.

No entities.

Oh baloney. They claim that each one of those "entities" exists and has some effect on material objects. Unfortunately Guth simply "made up" his sky entity, and they are all empirical no-shows/wussies in the lab. They are impotent "sky entities" because they have no effect whatsoever on any experiment here on Earth.

 

[Non sequitur]

Well, their precious, sacred BB theory didn't have a prayer's chance in hell of surviving without stuffing in their latest sky entity, "dark energy". It certainly functions like an ad-hoc, prayer-answering, "sky god" if you ask me. Now they have more supernatural stuff to write about!

They most certainly DO try to suspend the laws of physics with their sky creatures. According to the laws of physics, matter cannot move faster than light. The universe is larger than 30 billion light years across and yet they claim that it is only 13-14 billion years old. Without suspending the laws of physics as we understand them on Earth, that's physically impossible. They skirt around that little "faster than light speed expansion" problem by claiming that "space' expands. Of course they can't get "space" to do any expanding in the lab, but that's the whole problem with their religion. Nothing actually works in the lab. Note that only two theories known to man require 'faster than light speed expansion' trickery, young earth creationism and lambda-religion.

EU theories however have in fact been "lab tested" to a very great degree, mostly because they CAN be tested in the lab in an entirely conventional manner. That's head and shoulders "better" IMO in terms of pure empirical confirmation of theory, particularly in demonstrating cause/effect relationships.

Guth on the other hand quite literally "made up" an invisible friend in his head one day. He made it do magic, even "supernatural" expansion tricks and then he impolitely killed it off in his imagination too, so nobody can ever falsify the concept. The current mainstream theory should be called "Guthianity" IMO. I can even name it's "savior" in terms of they guy that dreamed up the sky god that suspended the laws of physics as we know them.

I don't see the parallel as equal as you do.

 

[sandwiches]

Our conversation was not related to the topic of infinite regression. We were discussing the number of circuits found in space, and the fact that such a large number of circuits here on Earth are only found in living things or man made (intelligently designed) things. WC was trying to "handwave" in a "third" possibility, but he's been unable to provide an example of such a thing here on Earth. He did try to suggest that every charged particle was a "circuit", but that simply dumbs down the concept of circuitry to the point of absurdity.

The universe is *FILLED* with interlaced circuitry, starting with all those coronal loops we see in the solar atmosphere in x-ray and iron ion wavelengths.

The internet was used as an example of an "intelligently designed" set of interlaced and interconnected circuits, that are not "alive". I simply pointed out that it's an example of an 'intelligently designed' system. I used a living brain as another "natural" example of the function of such sophisticated circuitry. Do you have a "third option" for the existence of sophisticated circuitry here on Earth that is not part of a living being, and not an example of "intelligent design"?

I've provided concrete examples of sophisticated circuitry in living things here on Earth that supports a 'theistic' interpretation of the universes circuits. I can also accept that a panentheistic view is also "possible", in other words we may live inside of an "intelligently designed universe". Unfortunately for you that also falsifies "atheism". All I have to do is switch from pantheism to panentheism, which frankly seems more like a minor subtlety than a "big deal" from my perspective.

Oh baloney. They claim that each one of those "entities" exists and has some effect on material objects. Unfortunately Guth simply "made up" his sky entity, and they are all empirical no-shows/wussies in the lab. They are impotent "sky entities" because they have no effect whatsoever on any experiment here on Earth.

You're right. I can't think of a single circuit that's not part of a biological carbon-based lifeform with DNA or one that has been created by one such lifeform.

So, your idea is that God is a carbon-based lifeform with DNA or that he was created by such a being? Strange notion, but OK. I guess now we have to look for this carbon-based lifeform with DNA, as the universe sure isn't it.

 

[Michael]

You're right. I can't think of a single circuit that's not part of a biological carbon-based lifeform with DNA or one that has been created by one such lifeform.

So, your idea is that God is a carbon-based lifeform with DNA or that he was created by such a being? Strange notion, but OK. I guess now we have to look for this carbon-based lifeform with DNA, as the universe sure isn't it.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

How do you know that? This is a 1600 A image of the sun that is most sensitive to C IV emissions. Everything you find here on Earth exists inside of a star. What exactly does macro sized DNA look like anyway?

 

[sandwiches]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

How do you know that? This is a 1600 A image of the sun that is most sensitive to C IV emissions. Everything you find here on Earth exists inside of a star. What exactly does macro sized DNA look like anyway?

You asked:

Do you have a "third option" for the existence of sophisticated circuitry here on Earth that is not part of a living being, and not an example of "intelligent design"?

I admitted that you're right. I know of no circuit here on Earth that wasn't created by a carbon-based being with DNA or that is part of a carbon-based being with DNA. I thought that's what you wanted to convince me of. I agreed with you. Am I wrong?

 

[Michael]

You asked:

I admitted that you're right. I know of no circuit here on Earth that wasn't created by a carbon-based being with DNA or that is part of a carbon-based being with DNA. I thought that's what you wanted to convince me of. I agreed with you. Am I wrong?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out to you that Carbon is a totally "natural" element that is contained in virtually every sun.

Since all such sophisticated circuitry is found in living things or intelligently designed things, their physical abundance in space, in numbers beyond what humans can even conceive of, favors pantheism or panentheism if you prefer, but it certainly does not favor atheism.

 

[Michael]

You know people who were born conscious believers-in-Christ?

Phillips Brooks and Helen Keller

In one of her letters, Helen told Bishop Brooks that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Even before she could call God anything, she knew God was there. She didn't know what it was. God had no name for her -- nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God's love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

Care to explain?

 

[sandwiches]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out to you that Carbon is a totally "natural" element that is contained in virtually every sun.

Since all such sophisticated circuitry is found in living things or intelligently designed things, their physical abundance in space, in numbers beyond what humans can even conceive of, favors pantheism or panentheism if you prefer, but it certainly does not favor atheism.

As YOU pointed out, the only circuitry we know of is either intelligently designed BY carbon-based lifeforms with DNA OR is part of carbon-based lifeforms with DNA. And let's be more specific, the ONLY circuitry outside of living beings we know of on Earth have been created BY HUMANS.

Am I wrong in any of those assertions, yes or no?

 

[Non sequitur]

Phillips Brooks and Helen Keller

Uh.

"She had always known about God, even before she had any words"

"But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God's love."

That indicates she was a certain age above 0.00000001 seconds-old.


Now, if you are seriously going to claim that they "knew" or consciously made a decision literally when being born, then this conversation is pretty much over.