Might I add.. the tests for the empirical theory of God need to account for the full scope of what is implied by it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not just enough to predict something. I can predict things all day. You also need to develop a potential test wherein we could either falsify or fail to falsify your predictions. In other words, you need to tell us how we would test your theory against the actual world.
Otherwise, you haven't given us anyway to disambiguate your theory from the standing theory that the universe is inanimate.
It's not just enough to predict something. I can predict things all day. You also need to develop a potential test wherein we could either falsify or fail to falsify your predictions. In other words, you need to tell us how we would test your theory against the actual world.
Otherwise, you haven't given us anyway to disambiguate your theory from the standing theory that the universe is inanimate.
Can you explain how you got all those answers from the idea of an electrical universe?Besides "Location, location, location"?
Evidently he has a funny sense of humor as I am reminded every time I look in the mirror.
Unconditional love and your attention.
Unconditionally.
Sure.
According to Jesus, inside you. All around you. Everywhere you look.
I've never felt judged by God.
I would say say he inspired Jesus, the "Living Word Of God", yes. Books are books.
Well, an inanimate object wouldn't explain why humans report having a relationship with God. It wouldn't explain much about human theology or human experiences in a general sense. An inanimate object wouldn't explain why atheists and theists alike report meeting God during NDE's. A living universe would in fact "explain" and 'predict' all these things and more.
I am however open to suggestions if you have some better ideas.
So, it should be pointed out that electrical activity is necessary, but not sufficient. The electrical signals you're talking about effect changes on other things, namely cells in our brain. Our consciousness isn't just electricity zapping around, but electricity acting on our biological cells to produce an effect.
If you're going to appeal to human consciousness to explain your theory, then you're going to need to go all the way. What is the EM field acting upon to produce consciousness?
Since human awareness requires biological elements, what such elements are extant in the universe?
Can you explain how you got all those answers from the idea of an electrical universe?
This is a fallacy of false choice. "Either the Electric Universe is an aware being and that's why people experience God or it's inanimate and we don't. We do experience God, therefore the universe is aware."
Anyway, that aside, I'd suggest that yes, an inanimate universe would NOT explain the above listed phenomena. Further, you have yet to give me any reason why I should believe that the universe is in fact animate. So, we can either conclude that no one experiences God, OR, that something else is the reason.
I'd suggest that you take a brief overview of sensation and perception and report back. Failing that, I'll simply say that what we experience in our awareness does not bear a 1:1 relationship with reality. Rather, what we experience is filtered sensations. Our "perceptions" are reconstructions of what we sense provided to us by the machinery in our brains.
If that goes nuts for whatever reason, you experience God. That's the scientific answer.
The theological answer is to state that trying to bottle God up into a set of electrical impulses completely misses the point of God in the first place.
Stop trying to understand Him as a physical entity and start trying to understand Him as as Why.
That's it right there.
Might I add.. the tests for the empirical theory of God need to account for the full scope of what is implied by it.
Well, in plasma that typically equates to cellular separation by "double layers' that tend to insulate and separate various parts of the circuit arrangements. Technically this energy exchange could include the transfer of energy of other types (not only EM fields) between the various objects of spacetime.
It's technically a quantum energy exchange that is acting upon all "solid" objects in space that makeup approximately 4% of the physical universe according to current theories. Just like the human brain is more than the activity of one single circuit in the brain, no single circuit or quantum energy exchange in space can be described as "God", just the sum total of all those energy exchanges between physical (solid) objects in spacetime. Human awareness is more of a "quantum" process, even in the brain. During "thinking' there are many areas of the brain that are accessed and that process information. At some point the "observer" of that thought process makes a "decision" and actions ensue.
Everything that is present, every single element in the human body exists in spacetime in massive quantities. Most of it is in the form of superheated plasma. Solids provide a consistent physical structure, but most of the universe is in the form of fast moving "energy", like cosmic rays and high energy wavelengths.
Note that while human consciousness may in fact be limited to the transfer of energy via the EM field, that is not necessarily the case in spacetime as a whole. Other types of energy exchanges between structures may also lead to "awareness".
I actually agree with you, but keep in mind that the whole point of any theory is to figure out ways to "test" it, and I'm open to suggestions.
Actually I'm simply noting that a "conscious" universe would go a long way to explaining the human condition on Earth. A "non positive" scenario doesn't explain any of it.
What "something else" did you have in mind exactly?
FYI, we already know that the entire physical universe cannot be "inanimate" since life already exist in it. It probably exists elsewhere too. There's also that small problem with how single cell animals are "aware' enough to hunt food without the luxury of a sophisticated set of neutrons in something called a "brain".
Unless you're suggesting that the machinery in the brain is completely incapable of being influenced by outside machinery, I fail to see what difference that makes? The machinery is bound to be "subjective" to the individual, and we all have different opinions on every topic under the sun, so why should the topic of God be any different?
That's not an "answer", that a "wild *ss guess". The folks that claim to experience God don't all have to be "nuts" do they? You realize that only about 4 percent of humans consider themselves to be 'atheists'?
Huh? I'm not interested in a "theological answer". I'm looking for an empirical scientific answer, one that embraces all the tenets of empirical physics and has nothing to do with "religion" or "theology", but is more of a straight forward empirical look at the topic.
In that "clinical view", it might in fact be useful to "bottle God up" into real physical components. Do you have some moral objection to my attempt to look at it as an empirical scientific theory?
I respectfully suggest you're missing the point of the thread. I'm interested in discussing the empirical physics, not the theology of God. I'll discuss theology if you like, but that really isn't the point of this thread. I was more interested in looking at God from a purely physical and rather "clinical" way, something you might actually be able to teach in a classroom as a valid empirical scientific theory. If you stuff too much theology in there, I guarantee you that you'll 'muck up the process' in a big way.
So, it seems like you're going more into physics. I don't have the wherewithal to go into a physics discussion so I'll leave that to people that do.
Regardless, there are still some lacunae in your discussion. They are as follows.
1. You're suggesting that the Universe is aware. How would you test this?
What observable impacts does the Universe have that we can say "ah, there's the Universe at work!"
2. You're stating that various objects (the sun, etc.) are part of this network. What are the mechanisms involved?
How do they work? Again, how do you test same? What can we see in the activity of the Sun that is a result of consciousness.
When a human undergoes an experience, their physical makeup is changed. The experience produces an effect with re-organizes the make up of the neurons in their brain. The difference may be slight, but it's there. That's the difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient creature. A plant doesn't re-arrange its own neurons and change its behaviour. A human or a marmot or whatever would.
That has implications for your model. Go into detail about how these implications effect your model, how you account for them, how you tested for them, their impacts, etc.
As an aside, I'm going to bed for the night. I'll catch up on this tomorrow.
Right, and so would the Flying Spaghetti Monster shooting thoughts into our heads. That being said, you're excluding that other factors could explain a God experience.
If you're limiting it to "a non-conscious universe doesn't explain God, so it must be conscious" you're not performing science. You're limiting yourself unnecessarily to those two choices, and for no good reason.
No one's suggested that single-celled organisms are aware, but that's a wierd sort of claim to make. "Animate creatures that aren't aware can do things, so therefore the Universe must be conscious". That's a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
If p then q, q, therefore p is that fallacy, and you're committing it. You're essentially trying to argue that because your theory could potentially explain some phenomena, it must be correct.
Again, your theory doesn't offer us anything meaningfully different than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
The FSM shoots "hunt, kill" messages into unicellular organisms. An FSM universe explains this behaviour. A non FSM universe doesn't, therefore, the FSM is real.
I am exactly suggesting that the machinery in our brains is incapable of being effected by other machinery.
Don't play this game. This is a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that only insane people experience God. I suggested that non-realistic perceptions can be an experience of God.
The problem is that when you label a conscious universe as being God, you have to bring up the theology.
If you want to keep this conversation as "is the universe aware", then that's fine so long as we avoid the label. I'm willing to agree to consider this without the label of God if you are.
Without getting into the theology of God:The problem is that when you label a conscious universe as being God, you have to bring up the theology. If you want to keep this conversation as "is the universe aware", then that's fine so long as we avoid the label. I'm willing to agree to consider this without the label of God if you are.
Having to believe in something before you can see it, and something that you can't test =/= empiricism.
What do you mean by "you can't test" the idea? The whole point of sticking with an empirical theory is that it can in fact be tested in a standard scientific manner.
"Faith" or "belief" in something that has yet to be demonstrated to date is almost always necessary to even construct a valid scientific experiment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?