An Empirical Theory Of God

[sandwiches]

Actually, I got all those answers from the life experiences of 50 revolutions around the sun, and lot of help from Jesus.

So, the explanation of the universe as God in your OP doesn't answer any of those question. What good is this explanation, if it doesn't support the assertions or claims about God?

 

[Michael]

So, the explanation of the universe as God in your OP doesn't answer any of those question. What good is this explanation, if it doesn't support the assertions or claims about God?

Actually this empirical theory does actually support peoples "experiences" of God. It provides a mechanism for God to interact with humans. It explains what (physically) God is, where God is, etc. We can "predict' things too based on this theory. We might "predict" that humans will always have experiences of God, and will always be overwhelmingly theistic.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually this empirical theory does actually support peoples "experiences" of God. It provides a mechanism for God to interact with humans. It explains what (physically) God is, where God is, etc. We can "predict' things too based on this theory. We might "predict" that humans will always have experiences of God, and will always be overwhelmingly theistic.

If God interacts with people through his electric nature, this should be measurable. Can we see this in nature?

Again, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you. You admitted that you gathered them through experience and the Bible, since the electric universe idea doesn't tell us about his motivations, personality, wishes, whether heaven and hell exist, is the Bible his doing, etc.

Now, your prediction has been made by several people without the need for an electric universe. Most humans require comfort and reassurance. Thus, it makes sense most humans will remain theists. And finally, your universe model doesn't support one religion over another.

 

[Michael]

If God interacts with people through his electric nature, this should be measurable. Can we see this in nature?

Excellent question. Hmmm.
Wired 14.02: Buddha on the Brain

Brain wave studies have been done on humans during meditation. Buddhists tend to believe in an afterlife and 'life after death', but only a tiny minority are "theists" in a technical sense. Even still, they are interacting with a "higher order" shall we say?

There are definitely signs of brainwave changes. I'm not sure the gear is sensitive enough to measure energy flow into and out of the head of the individual, but it's a worthwhile study IMO. There are in fact ways to "put the theory to the test", at least theoretically.

Again, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked you. You admitted that you gathered them through experience and the Bible, since the electric universe idea doesn't tell us about his motivations, personality, wishes, whether heaven and hell exist, is the Bible his doing, etc.

My personal life experiences however jive pretty well with the teachings of Jesus. Even while I walked a few miles as a self professed "atheist", I found many of his teachings like 'turning the other cheek', and "loving your enemy" to be applicable from a moral perspective. Once I studied the concept of Jewish afterlife beliefs, I understood the chip on my shoulder over the concept of "hell" had nothing to do with his personal statements. I found that quite fascinating by the way. It explained a lot. Likewise learning that the universe itself is "electromagnetic" in nature changed my opinions about how things worked at the level of physics. I found that fascinating too.

Now, your prediction has been made by several people without the need for an electric universe.

Well, yes, there is in fact a clear way to falsify this theory. If the universe is not electric, and has no type of "current flow', there isn't much likelihood of consciousness forming. You could falsify the theory by demonstrating the universe is not electromagnetic in nature. Good luck on that.

Most humans require comfort and reassurance. Thus, it makes sense most humans will remain theists.

Well, that's *ONE* possibility sure, but there could be other possibilities as well.

And finally, your universe model doesn't support one religion over another.

No, not necessarily, and that's just fine by me personally. Jesus is my "personal savior", but I am a "Universalist Christian". I'd almost rather focus strictly on the physics and leave religion out of it.

 

[sandwiches]

Excellent question. Hmmm.
Wired 14.02: Buddha on the Brain

Brain wave studies have been done on humans during meditation. Buddhists tend to believe in an afterlife and 'life after death', but only a tiny minority are "theists" in a technical sense. Even still, they are interacting with a "higher order" shall we say?

There are definitely signs of brainwave changes. I'm not sure the gear is sensitive enough to measure energy flow into and out of the head of the individual, but it's a worthwhile study IMO. There are in fact ways to "put the theory to the test", at least theoretically.

Brainwaves change when we sleep, when we're in a panic, and even throughout the day as we switch from different "thinking modes." However, none of that specifically shows an intelligence and will in the electric universe idea. All it shows is that our brainwave patterns change.

My personal life experiences however jive pretty well with the teachings of Jesus. Even while I walked a few miles as a self professed "atheist", I found many of his teachings like 'turning the other cheek', and "loving your enemy" to be applicable from a moral perspective. Once I studied the concept of Jewish afterlife beliefs, I understood the chip on my shoulder over the concept of "hell" had nothing to do with his personal statements. I found that quite fascinating by the way. It explained a lot. Likewise learning that the universe itself is "electromagnetic" in nature changed my opinions about how things worked at the level of physics. I found that fascinating too.

Whether your personal experiences jive with Jesus is not what I'm asking. I am talking about the electric universe idea. How does it specifically tell us anything about God's wishes, thoughts, etc? How can I see God's wishes in his electrical universe? If your answer is Jesus or the Bible, the you'll be avoiding the question, since you don't seem to be able to come up with a direct connection between the electrical universe and God's nature.

Well, yes, there is in fact a clear way to falsify this theory. If the universe is not electric, and has no type of "current flow', there isn't much likelihood of consciousness forming. You could falsify the theory by demonstrating the universe is not electromagnetic in nature. Good luck on that.

You have this backwards, I'm afraid. If you propose that a consciousness is forming from electric flow int he universe, it's on YOU to support your assertion, not on others to prove your claim wrong. Good luck with that.

Well, that's *ONE* possibility sure, but there could be other possibilities as well.

Absolutely.

No, not necessarily, and that's just fine by me personally. Jesus is my "personal savior", but I am a "Universalist Christian". I'd almost rather focus strictly on the physics and leave religion out of it.

Jesus, the Bible, etc are all part of a religion. Whether you'd like to call it a 'personal relationship' or whatever, doesn't matter. It's still religion.

 

[Michael]

Brainwaves change when we sleep, when we're in a panic, and even throughout the day as we switch from different "thinking modes." However, none of that specifically shows an intelligence and will in the electric universe idea. All it shows is that our brainwave patterns change.

Oh, I agree with you, it's just that this is the only study I can think of that specifically attempted to look at human brainwaves during meditation/prayer. A more comprehensive (more sensitive) set of instruments might be able to measure more subtle energy flows into and out of the brain during the process. The same approach might still be useful.

Whether your personal experiences jive with Jesus is not what I'm asking. I am talking about the electric universe idea. How does it specifically tell us anything about God's wishes, thoughts, etc?

I don't know. I haven't tried mechanically "reading his thoughts" from a specific data source. Got a particularly wavelength of energy in mind?

3-day GOES X-ray Flux Monitor

That's a relatively typical "active" x-ray spectrum from the sun. Got a clue how we might "read the thoughts" from something like that?

How can I see God's wishes in his electrical universe? If your answer is Jesus or the Bible, the you'll be avoiding the question, since you don't seem to be able to come up with a direct connection between the electrical universe and God's nature.

The only direct "link" in terms of "wishes/intent" that would obviously flow from such a theory is you're supposed to live and enjoy life. Was there something specific you wanted to know, and if so, how would you go about discovering it "empirically" or "experimentally" without my input? One of criteria of any valid experiment is that others can duplicate it.

You have this backwards, I'm afraid. If you propose that a consciousness is forming from electric flow int he universe, it's on YOU to support your assertion, not on others to prove your claim wrong. Good luck with that.

Well, it's actually impossible to miss the electromagnetic processes of the universe, from those million degree coronal loop "circuits" in the solar atmosphere, to those million mile per hour particles whizzing by Earth, to the magnetic fields we measure everywhere in space.

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

Jesus, the Bible, etc are all part of a religion. Whether you'd like to call it a 'personal relationship' or whatever, doesn't matter. It's still religion.

Sure. The only point I'm trying to make here is that it is in fact possible to discuss the issue without referring to any specific religion. The theory I presented is not dependent upon the validity of any specific religion or religious belief. It can be (and perhaps should be) discussed purely in terms of empirical physics. That's a lot more than can be said for many "scientific" theories taught in the classroom today.

 

[Doveaman]

Whether your personal experiences jive with Jesus is not what I'm asking. I am talking about the electric universe idea. How does it specifically tell us anything about God's wishes, thoughts, etc? How can I see God's wishes in his electrical universe? If your answer is Jesus or the Bible, the you'll be avoiding the question

When I want to know about God’s visible form, I look to the Electric Universe.

When I want to know about God’s wishes, thoughts, etc, I go over to the General Theology section.

 

[Michael]

Some historical perspective on EU/PC theory is probably in order.
Kristian Birkeland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kristian Birkeland was one of the first individuals to postulate an electrically active universe, and to empirically experiment with that concept under experimental laboratory conditions. Birkeland grew up near Oslo and was fascinated by the aurora. He began to theorize that they were related to electrical activity in the atmosphere. To verify his theory, he and his friends risked life and limb to setup magnetic field measuring stations in some of the harshest environments on Earth to measure and record the field measurements during solar storms.

During his free time, he experimented with mathematical models and he and his friends built very sophisticated (for the time) physical experiments to verify the electrical aspects of their theories.

By bombarding a sphere in a vacuum with a cathode ray, he and his team were able to replicate the auroral activity seen around Earth, Saturn and probably every planet in the universe that has a magnetic field inside an active solar system.

Of course he then turned his attention to a possible cathode ray source within the solar system, and naturally turned his attention to the sun. He then conducted a series of experiments with a cathode sphere (terella) in a vacuum. Inside the cathode metallic sphere, he put a strong electromagnet so that he could control the magnetic field strength inside the cathode sphere. He could control the voltages and amperage as well. He experimented with various textures of the sphere, various electrical and magnetic field strengths, different plasma density options and wrote about the results.

Remarkably he was able to actually take good black white images of these experiments, and he fortunately published his work in a huge volume which you can download for free at the link on WIKI, or download at the link below. Keep in mind this PDF file is 158 megs in size, so it will take time to download. If you're on dialup: foregetaboutit.

http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

 

[Michael]

Charles Bruce (physicist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

Dr. Charles Bruce applied many of these same discharge oriented ideas to the larger cosmos and to various structures in the Cosmos. Unlike Birkeland, Bruce had a bit more "modern" understanding of the size and shape of the universe and was therefore able to apply a discharge oriented theory to a larger cosmic scale.

 

[Michael]

Hannes Alfvén - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hannes Alfven received a Nobel Prize for his work on MHD theory and was the first to apply that field of science to the topic of space. He wrote about his theories prodigiously, writing literally hundreds of papers on the topic, and several books on MHD theory.

Cosmic plasma - Google Books

Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma applies MHD theory to topics in space and it's considered to be one of the most important scientific books in PC/EU theory in terms of how MHD thoery is supposed to be applied to objects in space.

Biography of Anthony L. Peratt

All of these individuals had students of course. Anthony Peratt was one of Alfven's students and began the process of creating some early computer models and was able to replicate many features found in space, including galaxy shaped structures and a host of emissions patterns that have been seen in space.

 

[sandwiches]

When I want to know about God’s visible form, I look to the Electric Universe.

When I want to know about God’s wishes, thoughts, etc, I go over to the General Theology section.

So, then, the electrical universe is, in fact, NOT an empirical or objective evidence of personality, or motivations of an intelligent all-powerful entity as previously claimed on the OP.

 

[Doveaman]

So, then, the electrical universe is, in fact, NOT an empirical or objective evidence of personality, or motivations of an intelligent all-powerful entity as previously claimed on the OP.

I cannot know what your thoughts and wishes are by just looking at you, but I can still see you and touch you to know you are real.

It will take more than just seeing you and touching you to know your thoughts and wishes, however.

 

[sandwiches]

I cannot know what your thoughts and wishes are by just looking at you, but I can still see you and touch you to know you are real.

Even if the electric universe idea is correct, all we would know is that there may be electric currents throughout the universe. However, distinguishing intelligence or life from this is another matter entirely. You can see intelligence from me when I can communicate in a manner which you can understand. Even if I didn't speak English, I'm sure you would understand me if I mimed to you that I was hungry and needed water.

Is this EU saying anything? And, more importantly, can we understand what it says exclusively from empirical evidence?

 

[Michael]

Even if the electric universe idea is correct, all we would know is that there may be electric currents throughout the universe.

Well assuming EU theory ever becomes "mainstream", that revelation would in fact be a "successful prediction" of any sort of "intelligent universe theory", whether you call it 'pantheism' or some other name.

However, distinguishing intelligence or life from this is another matter entirely.

Well, it is still possible for the universe to contain currents and still contain no "macroscopic" form of intelligence. Then again, any sort of macroscopic intelligence would need to interact physically, and therefore there is a way to falsify this particular scientific theory. That in itself seems to be light years ahead of many theistic theories about God.

You can see intelligence from me when I can communicate in a manner which you can understand.

Jesus and lots of other individual in human history have claimed to do exactly that. What do we do with that data?

Even if I didn't speak English, I'm sure you would understand me if I mimed to you that I was hungry and needed water.

And indeed, we have water and air and all the things necessary for life on Earth.

Is this EU saying anything?

It's an empirical theory based on empirical science. That's saying something, with or without a religious component. This particular theistic theory rises and falls on the validity of "some" form of EU theory, though not necessarily any particular EU theory. In that sense at least this theistic theory is falsifiable.

And, more importantly, can we understand what it says exclusively from empirical evidence?

I suppose that depends on what you consider 'empirical evidence' at some point. I would say that no matter how you eventually define the term "empirical physics", yes, eventually it could in theory be done. In other words, you might need a "translator" from something like an energy release pattern from space, but in theory at least it could be done.

Now I would argue of course that an intelligent design would not require a external mechanical "translator" in the first place, and many humans have claimed to commune with God. Do human behaviors/beliefs count as 'empirical evidence"?

 

[Michael]

So, then, the electrical universe is, in fact, NOT an empirical or objective evidence of personality, or motivations of an intelligent all-powerful entity as previously claimed on the OP.

I think you sort of missed the point of an "Empirical scientific theory of God.".

This isn't a theory about whether or not the universe is "electric". This is an empirical theory about God. It technically is not even predicated upon the scientific validity of any specific "electric universe theory", although some electrical activity would be required to "support" this specific theory about God. This theory does however "predict" that the universe is electric in nature.

All scientific theories are judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes. If EU theory is "verified" by empirical science, then this theory about God has in fact "successfully predicted" an important process of the physical universe.

Some theories are *ONLY* judged by how well they "predict" some specific observation, and defy *ANY* sort of empirical verification in the moment, "inflation theory" being the most notable.

 

[Washington]

All scientific theories are judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes. If EU theory is "verified" by empirical science, then this theory about God has in fact "successfully predicted" an important process of the physical universe.

Almost all scientific theories are NOT judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes.
Most are judged on how well they explain or demonstrate their subject. That they may be used to make predictions is secondary to their nature. Any judgment as to the accuracy of a prediction using a theory must also take into account the formulation of that prediction, a construct separate from the theory itself.

 

[sandwiches]

Well assuming EU theory ever becomes "mainstream", that revelation would in fact be a "successful prediction" of any sort of "intelligent universe theory", whether you call it 'pantheism' or some other name.

Confirming EU, does not confirm a intelligent universe idea. For intelligence, other evidence would be needed.

Well, it is still possible for the universe to contain currents and still contain no "macroscopic" form of intelligence. Then again, any sort of macroscopic intelligence would need to interact physically, and therefore there is a way to falsify this particular scientific theory. That in itself seems to be light years ahead of many theistic theories about God.

So, again, for the fourth time, there is indeed no current empirical evidence for an intelligent universe.

Jesus and lots of other individual in human history have claimed to do exactly that. What do we do with that data?

What?? Jesus claimed to communicate in a manner which you can understand??

Ironically, I don't think you understood what I said.

And indeed, we have water and air and all the things necessary for life on Earth.

Now, you're not making any sense. My point of the whole communication thing was that you can tell I am intelligent because you understand my attempts at communications, but I guess I was wrong, as evidenced by your apparent confusion. Maybe I am not intelligent, after all.

It's an empirical theory based on empirical science. That's saying something, with or without a religious component. This particular theistic theory rises and falls on the validity of "some" form of EU theory, though not necessarily any particular EU theory. In that sense at least this theistic theory is falsifiable.

I am talking about your OP. Let me see if I can make this clearer: Is the universe talking to us and telling us how it feels, what it thinks, what it wants, etc?

I suppose that depends on what you consider 'empirical evidence' at some point. I would say that no matter how you eventually define the term "empirical physics", yes, eventually it could in theory be done. In other words, you might need a "translator" from something like an energy release pattern from space, but in theory at least it could be done.

Now I would argue of course that an intelligent design would not require a external mechanical "translator" in the first place, and many humans have claimed to commune with God. Do human behaviors/beliefs count as 'empirical evidence"?

If you have a definition of empirical other than objectively verifiable observation that is independent of belief, then we're not talking about the same thing.

 

[sandwiches]

I think you sort of missed the point of an "Empirical scientific theory of God.".

This isn't a theory about whether or not the universe is "electric". This is an empirical theory about God. It technically is not even predicated upon the scientific validity of any specific "electric universe theory", although some electrical activity would be required to "support" this specific theory about God. This theory does however "predict" that the universe is electric in nature.

All scientific theories are judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes. If EU theory is "verified" by empirical science, then this theory about God has in fact "successfully predicted" an important process of the physical universe.

Some theories are *ONLY* judged by how well they "predict" some specific observation, and defy *ANY* sort of empirical verification in the moment, "inflation theory" being the most notable.

OK. To be blunt, it's obvious you don't understand what empirical means. I think you and I are on completely different ballparks. Empirical evidence is that which is objectively verifiable regardless of belief. What you presented isn't empirical evidence.

 

[Michael]

OK. To be blunt, it's obvious you don't understand what empirical means. I think you and I are on completely different ballparks. Empirical evidence is that which is objectively verifiable regardless of belief. What you presented isn't empirical evidence.

The electrical aspects of this theory are certainly objectively verifiable regardless of belief. How exactly are you defining "empirical evidence"?

 

[Michael]

Confirming EU, does not confirm a intelligent universe idea. For intelligence, other evidence would be needed.

That was the point of providing the link between EM fields and a "God experience". What other evidence might you consider?

So, again, for the fourth time, there is indeed no current empirical evidence for an intelligent universe.

That seems to depend on how one subjectively interprets the evidence. You seem to ignore the fact this theory "predicts" electrical current flows in space. All theories make predictions which either falsify or support that theory. If you refuse to even acknowledge a verified "prediction" when it's put before you, what exactly will you accept as "evidence" of any scientific theory?

What?? Jesus claimed to communicate in a manner which you can understand??

No, Jesus claimed to have a relationship with God in a manner he could understand. Many people have made similar claims throughout recorded human history. What shall we do with that data? Ignore it?

I am talking about your OP. Let me see if I can make this clearer: Is the universe talking to us and telling us how it feels, what it thinks, what it wants, etc?

Evidently so. Lot's of folks claim to know what God wants.

If you have a definition of empirical other than objectively verifiable observation that is independent of belief, then we're not talking about the same thing.

As it comes to the electrical predictions of this theory, they are entirely verifiable or falsifiable regardless of belief. We are talking about the same thing. You're just being a little stubborn over the concept of empirical "prediction/verification".