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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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, 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.
Absolutely.Well, that's *ONE* possibility sure, but there could be other possibilities as well.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I want to know about Gods visible form, I look to the Electric Universe.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 Gods visible form, I look to the Electric Universe.
When I want to know about Gods wishes, thoughts, etc, I go over to the General Theology section.
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.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.
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?
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.
Almost all scientific theories are NOT judged based on how well they "predict" specific scientifically verified processes.Michael said: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.
Confirming EU, does not confirm a intelligent universe idea. For intelligence, other evidence would be needed.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.
So, again, for the fourth time, there is indeed no current empirical evidence for an intelligent universe.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.
What?? Jesus claimed to 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?
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.And indeed, we have water and air and all the things necessary for life on Earth.
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?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.
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.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"?
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.
Confirming EU, does not confirm a intelligent universe idea. For intelligence, other evidence would be needed.
So, again, for the fourth time, there is indeed no current empirical evidence for an intelligent universe.
What?? Jesus claimed to communicate in a manner which you can understand??
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?
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.
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?