An Empirical Theory Of God

[Doveaman]

But whose life is it in surrogacy, then? ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED.

The surrogate mother's life, not its own.

 

[Michael]

By the same token, since when does popularity dictate the validity of subjective experiences? Merely because a large number of people report having had some experience or another with one or more different gods does not mean that the most likely or even only explanation is that they all actually must have communicated with God.

It is however a valid empirical possibility that they did! That's the whole point. You can't simply "ignore" what you don't like in the data.

There are other equally or more plausible explanations. You asked, "How do you explain that?" and, on a previous page, I gave you an answer that you pointedly decided not to address.

My answer (one possible and highly plausible answer, there are others) is that religious belief originated with earlier hominid species millions of years ago in some fashion - possibly some form of primitive totemic religion that attempted to harness the power that those proto-humans saw in other animals. They didn't have claws and powerful meat-rending jaws, but lions did. They didn't have prehensile tails and tree-gripping nails, but monkeys did. They could not fly, but the birds could. They could not breathe in water, but the fish could. And so on.

You call that "simple"? He hunted the birds in the air, the fish in the sea, the other animals in the jungle. Why did they need their powers when they fed on them? I'm afraid that hardly sounds "plausible" that every culture simply wanted to fly so they invented a "god". There's not even a logical connection between wanting their powers of flight and believing in God. One doesn't lead to the other. Surely humans would have figured that out sooner or later? How stupid were these ancestor anyway? Even a dog knows it can't fly.

And such beliefs continued to survive along with those proto-humans, as they spread, diversified, and as they evolved and became more advanced, so did their religious beliefs. The natural totemic powers they perceived in animals gradually became embodied in supernatural beings.

Er, what exactly does a "supernatural being" have to do with this particular theory anyway?

Again, I fail to see why human would find any of it's prey to be all that "supernatural", so the leap from one concept to the other isn't necessarily a logical progression of thought. It seems pretty contrived actually. I've heard better "explanations" related to wanting some "control" over nature by the way. You might start over and try again. Frankly the jump from polytheism to monotheism seems pretty easy to historically document, why would knowledge of God not "evolve' just like any other form of knowledge? I'm afraid the whole argument seems "fragile" at best and full of non sequitors galore. It seems as though your "theory"" boils down to "all theists are crazy". That's not much of a "theory" if you ask me.

Thereby admitting that religion is inherently part of the belief in God - that is, one must already be religious in order to have a belief in God.

No, that's certainly not true. One can choose to believe in God at any stage of their life for whatever reason they do. They can chose to "disbelieve" in all forms God too, or believe that no form of God exists. People can chose to believe in the whole spectrum, but the fact of the matter is that most choose theism to explain their life experiences. You can't simply ignore it because you chose differently for entirely *subjective* reasons of your own.

It's not the other way around - God doesn't commune with someone, and that someone then founds a religion.

Actually, I'm pretty much living proof that it does work that was sometimes too. For at least nine years of my life I labeled myself an "atheist". My views changed as my own life experiences change my viewpoint over time.

No, you don't. You share a common belief in "something supernatural" but not "God".

No. I do not believe in anything "supernatural". If I was into "supernatural" stuff, inflation would be high on my list of hunky-dory made up supernatural stuff.

The only thing we share in common is a belief that God exists and God is "real" is some way. I'm simply suggesting how God is real, how God manifests his will in "reality". I'm not suggesting it has anything to do with "supernatural" capabilities.

If God is "just natural" then that's not God. By definition.

Who's definition? Yours? Since when did you get to dictate my beliefs?

Why worship something that's just natural? Would you worship a fish? A chair or a stone? Would you worship a stellar cluster?

I worship a living God that provides me with life, food, shelter, love, all the things I need in life. I don't worship 'things', just a living God.

Totally irrelevant, because what you're trying to formulate is a scientific means of detecting God, not gathering subjective opinions about God. You said so yourself.

You skipped the whole point! The whole point is that these "experience" do in fact transcend culture and time just as this theory would "predict". You can't simply ignore what you don't want to deal with.

Answer my question with an answer, not a question. I asked why you take the sources to be reliable, not why you should assume them to be unreliable.

The 'reliability" isn't even at issue, just the "frequency" of the occurrence of the claim across cultures.

In sum total, you're basically tossing objective reality out the door. And yet, you are trying to objectively define God. Odd, no?

Your "spin" is what's odd. The individual experience may in fact be "subjective", but overall there has to be some way to find an "objective" "consensus" on the topic. No scientific theory is immune from such a consensus driven process. How could you and why would you expect this particular topic to be different in that respect?

I don't recall you ever putting forward anything that even closely resembles a theory.

Evidently you aren't listening real well because it's a very comprehensive theory with very specific requirements and very specific "predictions"

 

[Michael]

We still haven't seen any of these predictions. State them clearly, precisely, and in terms that essentially say, "If my theory is correct, then we should be able to observe X."

We should be able to observe theism in overwhelming numbers at any moment in human history.

We should see electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

How specific a list would you like?

Because all scientific theories, to be good and valid theories, must be able to both account for existing data as well as predict future observations.

So how did your "all theists are crazy" theory account for anything at all?

When Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity, he did so based on existing data, for example, the observed orbit of Mercury around the sun that turned out to be slightly inconsistent with the existing theory of gravitation (Newton's).

Likewise I observe that the number of theists on the planet is inconsistent with an atheistic approach to life.

His theory explained gravitational lensing as well, so it accounted for already observed phenomena.

And likewise this theory accounts for known solar phenomenon too.

It also made many other predictions - for example, what the effect of earth's gravitational well on starlight would be.

And I can predict with this theory what the effect on humans might be too.

That predicted a very small, nearly undetectable effect, and at the time, the technology did not exist to so precisely measure that effect. But not just a few years ago, Gravity Probe B was launched specifically to measure this effect - and the data observed coincided with what the theory predicted it should be. Thus, the theory was bolstered yet again by observable evidence.

You simply reinforce my point that all theories contain "unverified" components to them for some time before things can be properly "tested".

Dark Energy and Dark Matter theories both have been developed as theories that account for observations that don't quite jibe with previous theories about the universe that did not include these theories.

Sort of a "dark stuff of the gaps" argument eh?

They also make specific predictions about what should be observed,

Boloney. They were "postdicted" from what had already been observed like almost every theory. I "predict" you won't find anything that runs on "dark energy" or inflation at Walmart.

as in, "If this theory is correct, then we should observe X Y and Z." This is how the Big Bang theory gained acceptance over all competing theories, such as the Steady State theory. Big Bang theory accounted well for what had been observed already, Steady State did not. And BB made certain predictions about what should be found - such as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. SS theory did not predict such radiation.

Whereas my theory predict background belief in God for all time. Same basic concept, were just using slightly different "observations' and "predictions".

When that radiation was detected, precisely as BB theory predicted it should be, BB gained wide acceptance and SS theory was dropped.

Oh please. The original "prediction" was almost a whole OOM off. It was then "postdicted to fit" like any other theory.

That is how science works. If you do not like that, and you would like it to work some other way in order to permit your pantheistic god=universe theory, too bad. When your theory actually makes specific predictions about what we should observe, and can propose the means to observe those things, then you've got a hypothesis that could eventually become a theory.

The point here is that you're imposing a "double standard". You won't allow a theistic theory the same luxury as any of your "dark friend" theories only because it involves a form of theism. Care to explain that double standard? What does GR theory and "dark energy' even have in common other than you're overtly trying to stuff your invisible friend into an otherwise perfectly good physics formula? Why can't I just call it "God energy" and pilfer the same math?

I'll answer that one for you. I could. It just wouldn't be a form of "empirical physics" anymore because it would require a 'leap of faith' in "unseen entities" galore and then it would just be another metaphysical 'religion'.

 

[sandwiches]

But can it live as a separate being from the beginning, or is it dependent on the life of the mother?

If the fetus from the beginning is dependent on the life of the mother, then the life of the fetus and the mother are one and the same life.
Apart from the life of the mother the fetus has no life, it dies.

Dependency of one life upon another does not make them the same life. If an airplane's pilot an copilot die, the passengers in the plane will most likely die. Are the pilots and passengers not separate lives?

 

[Michael]

Dependency of one life upon another does not make them the same life. If an airplane's pilot an copilot die, the passengers in the plane will most likely die. Are the pilots and passengers not separate lives?

Well, in this case our lives are not "separate" from God, but rather we are completely immersed in the quantum energy of God, and dependent upon God for life, for energy, for food, for consciousness/awareness itself. We would not physically exist independently of God.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, in this case our lives are not "separate" from God, but rather we are completely immersed in the quantum energy of God, and dependent upon God for life, for energy, for food, for consciousness/awareness itself. We would not physically exist independently of God.

Did you not read what I typed?

Dependency of one life upon another does not make them the same life.

 

[Michael]

Did you not read what I typed?

Dependency of one life upon another does not make them the same life.

I was simply adding my two cents, not necessarily disagreeing with you. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

 

[Doveaman]

Dependency of one life upon another does not make them the same life.

In the case of the mother and the fetus, it is. It is the mother's lifeblood that is flowing through the fetus to give it life.

 

[Bushido216]

In the case of the mother and the fetus, it is. It is the mother's lifeblood that is flowing through the fetus to give it life.

Off topic, but that's sort of like suggesting that if I was hooked up to a dialysis machine with my friend who needed a blood transfusion, then we'd be the same life.

Anyway, Michael has yet to give us any mechanisms or specific observations to look for. He repeatedly does not understand the nature of scientific predictions "you could falsify my theory by finding that our consciousnesses aren't intertwined with the EM field" is neat, but not until I know what I'm looking for. Your theory needs to go out all the way on the limb. Give us a specific mechanism, let's look in a specific spot. You need to give me something specific to look for, not just "awareness". It's way too vague.

 

[Doveaman]

Off topic, but that's sort of like suggesting that if I was hooked up to a dialysis machine with my friend who needed a blood transfusion, then we'd be the same life.

Except that your friend would also have to be conceived in your womb and you be pregnant with him. It's the whole package.

 

[sandwiches]

Except that your friend would also have to be conceived in your womb and you be pregnant with him. It's the whole package.

You keep shifting the goal posts. First it was blood and now it's the womb. Make up your mind.

At any rate, evidence for the universe as God has not been empirically shown in this thread, yet.

 

[Gracchus]

In the case of the mother and the fetus, it is. It is the mother's lifeblood that is flowing through the fetus to give it life.

No. The fetus has its own blood, which may even be incompatible with that of the mother. In cases where there is leakage across the placental barrier, there may be medical problems, like Rh disease.

 

[RealityCheck]

You call that "simple"? He hunted the birds in the air, the fish in the sea, the other animals in the jungle. Why did they need their powers when they fed on them? I'm afraid that hardly sounds "plausible" that every culture simply wanted to fly so they invented a "god". There's not even a logical connection between wanting their powers of flight and believing in God. One doesn't lead to the other. Surely humans would have figured that out sooner or later? How stupid were these ancestor anyway? Even a dog knows it can't fly.

I didn't think you'd ever read anything about shamanism or totemic religions. And your post proves this point.

I never said that these people were trying to fly, or grow fangs... they were attempting to harness whatever power they perceived present in other animals.

You clearly know very little about ancient religious beliefs, so how about you take some time to read:

Totem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shamanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animal worship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prehistoric religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to get you started on some of the general knowledge regarding ancient religious forms.

 

[Doveaman]

You keep shifting the goal posts. First it was blood and now it's the womb. Make up your mind.

No goal posts has been shifted. We were talking about a fetus conceived by a mother from the very start.

The fetus is a part of the mother and is completely dependent on the life of the mother for its very existence.

We are not simply talking about surrogacy or blood or womb. We are talking about the oneness of the mother with her fetus just as we are one with the universe and our very existence is dependent on it.
__________________

No. The fetus has its own blood, which may even be incompatible with that of the mother. In cases where there is leakage across the placental barrier, there may be medical problems, like Rh disease.

The point is that without the mother's blood there would be no fetus blood.

 

[RealityCheck]

We should be able to observe theism in overwhelming numbers at any moment in human history.

We should see electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

How specific a list would you like?

The only part of your post worth replying to, since the rest of it was just putting words in my mouth that I never said. Especially the "all theists are crazy" part.

What you've listed here is insufficient for your hypothesis to be useful, because it doesn't explain anything that isn't already explained by other existing theories.

To illustrate why, I'll use the theory of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution is a completely naturalistic theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet, and makes specific predictions about what we should observe or find. For example, part of the theory deals with genetic mutations over succeeding generations of a plant or animal, and what should be observed. We've observed that - we've done numerous experiments with fruit flies, for example. Another part of the theory deals with what types of transitional fossils we ought to find. We've found hundreds, thousands of such fossils. So the theory explains a great deal about life on this planet - all without introducing anything supernatural.

Evolution is thus, on its own, "atheistic" in that it requires nothing supernatural to work. But there is also the belief in "theistic evolution". Theistic evolution is just a belief that evolution works exactly as atheistic evolution posits, but inserts "this was God's mechanism for making life." This belief is fine and good, but adds nothing to evolution. It doesn't say anything useful that evolution doesn't already say. It makes no different predictions than atheistic evolution does. It works exactly the same, but with a belief inserted that has no impact on it.

Your belief is pretty much the same at this point. You've formulated nothing new that isn't already accounted for. "We should see electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere." So what? Existing theories account for solar activity. "We should be able to observe theism in overwhelming numbers at any moment in human history." So what? Numerous theories already account for this. You're not posing anything new, here.

How about this?

- Under your hypothesis, should there be diverse forms of theism (polytheism, animism, monotheism, etc.) or should theism be overwhelmingly one form? If diverse, why should it be diverse - why would you expect that? If single form, why?

- Under your hypothesis, why would there be beliefs that are followed by millions of people that involve no god? Buddhism, for example.

- Under your hypothesis, should atheism increase or decrease over time? Does your hypothesis fit with observed data?

- Under your hypothesis, how highly correlated should people's experiences of god be? Should there be high agreement, little agreement, or none expected at all? Why would that be, whatever you choose?

- Under your hypothesis, is it possible to control communications with god? Can we expect to make god work for us? If so, how, what's the proper method? Is there some useful way to make this theory work, in other words.

- Under your hypothesis, IF you actually could find evidence that actually supports your theory (very hypothetical now), would this tend to support one religion over another? Is there a particular religion that ought to be supported, or would this say that all religions are pretty much equally poor attempts at understanding god?

 

[RealityCheck]

No goal posts has been shifted. We were talking about a fetus conceived by a mother from the very start.

The fetus is a part of the mother and is completely dependent on the life of the mother for its very existence.

We are not simply talking about surrogacy or blood or womb. We are talking about the oneness of the mother with her fetus just as we are one with the universe and our very existence is dependent on it.
__________________
The point is that without the mother there would be no fetus.

But if the fetus is moved from bio mom to surro-mom, how is that life transferred? What process makes it no longer bio-mom's life, and makes it surro-mom's life? Can you point to the exact moment when it is no longer one and becomes the other? And whose life does it belong to while it's being transferred?

 

[Doveaman]

But if the fetus is moved from bio mom to surro-mom, how is that life transferred? What process makes it no longer bio-mom's life, and makes it surro-mom's life? Can you point to the exact moment when it is no longer one and becomes the other? And whose life does it belong to while it's being transferred?

You are missing the point.

The analogy of mother and fetus does not involve surrogacy since there is no surrogate universe to which we can be transferred.

The assumption is that there is one universe which conceived us all, and we all are one with that universe just as the fetus is one with the mother who conceived it.

 

[RealityCheck]

You are missing the point.

The analogy of mother and fetus does not involve surrogacy since there is no surrogate universe to which we can be transferred.

The assumption is that there is one universe which conceived us all, and we all are one with that universe just as the fetus is one with the mother who conceived it.

Made 100% no sense.

 

[Michael]

The only part of your post worth replying to, since the rest of it was just putting words in my mouth that I never said. Especially the "all theists are crazy" part.

What you've listed here is insufficient for your hypothesis to be useful, because it doesn't explain anything that isn't already explained by other existing theories.

I'm sorry but your "theory" about why humans are overwhelmingly theistic was simply "lame" at best. It didn't "explain" anything. It simply "assumed" that everyone who's a theist is simply nuts, or "primitive' in their thinking. That's both insulting and irrational. This theory is "better' than that, if we only graded them on that specific issue and nothing else.

To illustrate why, I'll use the theory of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution is a completely naturalistic theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet, and makes specific predictions about what we should observe or find.

Likewise this theory makes specific predictions about what we should find in human culture, and in space. What do you want, egg in your beer?

For example, part of the theory deals with genetic mutations over succeeding generations of a plant or animal, and what should be observed. We've observed that - we've done numerous experiments with fruit flies, for example.

Likewise, part of this theory deals with events in space. Some of it deals with the communication mechanism between God and humans. Some of it deals with the biology of human beings and living organisms in general.

So the theory explains a great deal about life on this planet - all without introducing anything supernatural.

Ditto as it relates to this specific "God" theory. I introduced absolutely nothing that is "supernatural".

Evolution is thus, on its own, "atheistic" in that it requires nothing supernatural to work.

Then I guess this empirical theory about God is also "atheistic" in that it also requires nothing "supernatural" to work. I think your definition of "atheism" vs. 'supernatural' is a bit misguided. "Inflation", now *that* is a "supernatural" creation. It that an atheistic or theistic theory?

I'll skip the redundant stuff.

How about this?

- Under your hypothesis, should there be diverse forms of theism (polytheism, animism, monotheism, etc.) or should theism be overwhelmingly one form? If diverse, why should it be diverse - why would you expect that? If single form, why?

It seems logical that it would "progress" towards a form of monotheism over time. Everything in nature is "diverse", so anything that deviates from that scenario seems "unnatural" and unlikely.

- Under your hypothesis, why would there be beliefs that are followed by millions of people that involve no god? Buddhism, for example.

I'm not sure the concept of "no gods" is actually applicable to all sects of Buddhism. They typically believe in a soul that evolves over time, survives physical death, and can be "reborn" into a new form at a later time to "grow and learn". That's hardly a form of pure "atheism". Most tend to 'meditate' if not pray, and see themselves as being connected to a whole (universe?). It doesn't seem like such a wide deviation in beliefs, certainly not great a deviation from theism as your run of the mill atheist.

- Under your hypothesis, should atheism increase or decrease over time? Does your hypothesis fit with observed data?

It would probably fluctuate over time but always favor theism.

- Under your hypothesis, how highly correlated should people's experiences of god be? Should there be high agreement, little agreement, or none expected at all? Why would that be, whatever you choose?

Depends on the topic and it depends on the individual. Peoples individual "experiences" of the last two Presidents were quite unique and certainly not in full agreement with each other. A deviation in experience is almost inevitable.

- Under your hypothesis, is it possible to control communications with god?

It's certainly possible to learn to meditate and to take time to pray. God isn't a pet you can call on command however. On the other hand, we do have the ability to open ourselves up to God at any moment.

Can we expect to make god work for us? If so, how, what's the proper method? Is there some useful way to make this theory work, in other words.

Can a virus expect the host to "work for them"? I suppose you could look at it that way in terms of the raw materials being provided by the host, but the attention of the host is a whole different topic.

- Under your hypothesis, IF you actually could find evidence that actually supports your theory (very hypothetical now), would this tend to support one religion over another?

It would tend to support a "monotheistic" religion over say a polytheistic one. In terms of supporting a specific set of religious dogma, I doubt it would favor any "loving" oriented religion over any other one. I suppose the experiences would tend to favor a particular set of humanistic oriented "teachings" sooner or later.

Is there a particular religion that ought to be supported, or would this say that all religions are pretty much equally poor attempts at understanding god?

The latter is closer to the way I percieve "religions". Jesus represents an idealized set of moral behaviors that I believe are ultimately universal, but unfortunately his words and the meaning tend to be 'interpreted' in very subjective ways that aren't always even congruent with his words IMO.

 

[RealityCheck]

I'm sorry but your "theory" about why humans are overwhelmingly theistic was simply "lame" at best. It didn't "explain" anything. It simply "assumed" that everyone who's a theist is simply nuts, or "primitive' in their thinking. That's both insulting and irrational. This theory is "better' than that, if we only graded them on that specific issue and nothing else.

We can stop right here and say I'm done with you. If you're going to do nothing but sling insults and misrepresent what others say, it's time to end discussion. Read my tagline.