An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Well, how did the "known" laws of physics become known? At some point they had to be unknown. How do we learn of new things in science if all we can do is stick with the old?

How do I "learn" about something that someone simply "made up" in their head, and then killed off before I could put it to the test? Inflation is like a "dead deistic" religion. You either accept the concept on pure faith or your don't. I'm not proposing anything "metaphysical" at all.

Yet that's more or less what you're doing.

No, it's not at all what I'm doing. I am specifically limiting myself to *KNOWN* (not made up) forces of nature, known laws of physics, and known physical processes. At no time did I postdict any "properties" of a "made up" entity. Unlike some theories, this theory is a purely empirical theory about God. Its not acceptable to stuff this theory full of metaphysical concepts.

First: Define God, and define what the properties of God are that we can detect that are real, tangible, and physical, and distinct.

God is the collective awareness of the whole physical universe. The only 'property' I've assigned to God is awareness and interactiveness with the universe, the latter property being confirmed by humans throughout human history, and the former being true of all living things.

If your idea is "the universe is God" then you fail from the start, because by definition, you cannot detect a real, tangible, and physical god that is distinct from anything else in the universe.

That's simply not true. I could and might still detect intelligence in the energy exchanges between objects in space. I might still be able to devise a test where God does in fact "show up' in a controlled experiment in terms of how God interacts with human beings. You can't know from the outset what we might be able to discover.

If you cannot distinguish between "God" and "something that is not God" then your concept is useless.

Since there is a physical distinction between a dead and living universe, your point is moot.

You cannot search for something without having some idea of what you're looking for. You seem to have the idea that we can look for God's physical properties without knowing what we're looking for. That isn't how this works. If we find evidence X, and that evidence is real and physical, there is no reason to label X as "evidence of God" if we don't already have a reason to do so.

I do have some idea of what I'm looking for. I'm looking for patterns of intelligence in astrophysical events. I'm looking for patterns of interactions between humans and the universe during prayer and meditation. I'm looking for signs of life related to the functions of the universe.

Think of black holes. Black holes were theoretical objects long before they were ever detected. They were detected largely because the theory made predictions about what would be evidence of one. Once we had an idea of what to look for, according to the theory, we then found such evidence, and that was the first step in corroborating the theory. What we found was strong evidence of black holes, but not conclusive (and still not, technically) because as long as there were alternate means of explaining the evidence, there was "it might be a black hole" and "it might be other phenomenon XYZ."

Actually as far as I know, that theory began *WITHOUT* visual or other confirmation of anything of the sort. Furthermore, when proposed, the whole thing was "invisible" to light and could *NEVER* be "seen" directly. Even still folks managed to work out ways to 'test" the concept. This is what a "theory"" is. It's not necessarily something that has been confirmed, or easy to confirm.

So what can we predict about the physical, real, tangible properties of God?

Well, we can expect God to continue to interact with human beings as seems to have been the case for millennium according to human writings.

 

[Michael]

Pantheism is the belief that the universe and God are identical - exactly what Michael originally was saying.

I can accept that particular label. It's fine by me.

There are no Christian denominations that hold this belief -

Well, might that observation relate to the fact that none of us were "taught" that belief or even much exposed to the idea.

Christianity posits that God is outside the universe, necessarily, because the belief is that God created the universe - the universe and God are thus distinct and separate things in Christian theology. Most religions, actually.

Even a lowly goldfish can create a baby that is technically "separate from' themselves, but also 'connected to" itself. I fail to see how these concepts are in any way at odds with each other.

 

[RealityCheck]

Even a lowly goldfish can create a baby that is technically "separate from' themselves, but also 'connected to" itself. I fail to see how these concepts are in any way at odds with each other.

It's not "technically" separate from the mother goldfish, it is actually separate. They are two clearly distinct goldfish - in the same way that you are a distinct person from your mother, your father, any siblings or cousins you have, and all of the other 6+ billion people on earth. Whatever connections you have to another person does not make you identical to that person, any more than the fact that a baby goldfish bears some connection to its mother makes the baby identical to the mother. Even in cellular division and replication, the two cells that are formed from the splitting of one cell are separate and distinct cells - they are not one and the same cell!

NOW do you see why the concepts are at odds with each other?

 

[Michael]

Duplicate post

 

[Michael]

It's not "technically" separate from the mother goldfish, it is actually separate. They are two clearly distinct goldfish - in the same way that you are a distinct person from your mother, your father, any siblings or cousins you have, and all of the other 6+ billion people on earth. Whatever connections you have to another person does not make you identical to that person, any more than the fact that a baby goldfish bears some connection to its mother makes the baby identical to the mother. Even in cellular division and replication, the two cells that are formed from the splitting of one cell are separate and distinct cells - they are not one and the same cell!

NOW do you see why the concepts are at odds with each other?

No. They aren't actually "separate" until birth. Every bit of energy, every molecule and every atom that forms the body of the new fish comes from a living thing, and is processed by, and given to the new being by a living thing. They are not technically "separate" things until birth. Then and only then does the new life form breath on it's own, feed on it's own, and live independently from it's mother.

 

[RealityCheck]

How do I "learn" about something that someone simply "made up" in their head, and then killed off before I could put it to the test? Inflation is like a "dead deistic" religion. You either accept the concept on pure faith or your don't. I'm not proposing anything "metaphysical" at all.

I can't quite parse out what you're saying here, but SCIENCE IS NOT SIMPLY MADE UP IN SOMEONE'S HEAD.

And if you really feel the need to learn about something in science, you go and read a book, take a college course or twenty, and ACTUALLY LEARN.

I am specifically limiting myself to *KNOWN* (not made up) forces of nature, known laws of physics, and known physical processes. At no time did I postdict any "properties" of a "made up" entity. Unlike some theories, this theory is a purely empirical theory about God. Its not acceptable to stuff this theory full of metaphysical concepts.

Okay, what "made up" forces are you talking about?

God is the collective awareness of the whole physical universe. The only 'property' I've assigned to God is awareness and interactiveness with the universe, the latter property being confirmed by humans throughout human history, and the former being true of all living things.

If "the universe" = "God", then how does God interact with itself?

Do you interact with the individual cells in your bloodstream such that they become aware of your existence?

That latter property you're referring to is hardly "confirmed" by humans throughout human history. I can only assume you mean that a lot of people believe in god or gods in some fashion or another. The inherent problem with this idea is that 99% of all such people would reject your interpretation of what god/God is. You're essentially saying that all of their beliefs about the nature of God are wrong, because God is not "supernatural and outside the universe" but is "the universe itself." How is it that all the people on earth could get this wrong? If the universe is an intelligent thing that interacts with people, shouldn't a lot more people agree on what the nature of that thing is? [/quote]

That's simply not true. I could and might still detect intelligence in the energy exchanges between objects in space. I might still be able to devise a test where God does in fact "show up' in a controlled experiment in terms of how God interacts with human beings. You can't know from the outset what we might be able to discover.

I do have some idea of what I'm looking for. I'm looking for patterns of intelligence in astrophysical events. I'm looking for patterns of interactions between humans and the universe during prayer and meditation. I'm looking for signs of life related to the functions of the universe.

Such as?

I mean, you're listing this stuff off as if you know what such patterns of intelligence are. Do you? Because it would be very easy to actually go through the comparison of intelligent behavior in humans (for example) to whatever "stuff" goes on in the universe, and see what correlations exist, if any.

Well, we can expect God to continue to interact with human beings as seems to have been the case for millennium according to human writings.

And what, exactly, supports your idea that such writings are reliable? What supports your claim that such writings are reflections of objective reality? What makes you think that a dozen conflicting writings on "interactions with god/gods/God" constitute proof that all of them reflect an objective reality? Isn't it just as likely, or more likely, that all dozen of those writings are reflections of subjective experiences that are NOT reflective of objective reality?

 

[RealityCheck]

No. They aren't actually "separate" until birth. Every bit of energy, every molecule and every atom that forms the body of the new fish comes from a living thing, and is processed by, and given to the new being by a living thing. They are not technically "separate" things until birth. Then and only then does the new life form breath on it's own, feed on it's own, and live independently from it's mother.

So what's the period between when the goldfish egg is laid and when it hatches?



When the mother's body provides matter for the unborn embryo or fetus or whatnot, it's no longer part of the mother's body, but it is, by definition, part of the fetal body.

The fetus is already a separate being from the beginning. The chromosomes paired up between mother and father are evidence that the new life is not the same as the mother.

 

[Michael]

So what's the period between when the goldfish egg is laid and when it hatches?



When the mother's body provides matter for the unborn embryo or fetus or whatnot, it's no longer part of the mother's body, but it is, by definition, part of the fetal body.

The fetus is already a separate being from the beginning. The chromosomes paired up between mother and father are evidence that the new life is not the same as the mother.

And doesn't that same "new life' concept apply to every religion on the planet? In other words, don't most religions teach us that we are "individuals" that are separate from the parent?

 

[Michael]

Even though I was gone for a few days, I'll still go through this thread, 'cause I'm bored and at home. Cheers everyone.

Well, thanks for participating.

I'm not sure you get what a null hypothesis is.

I think before we even go there, we need to discuss some basic issues related to scientific theories and the concept of "specific" scientific theories with "predictable" interactions at the level of physics.

This is a "unique" theory, not just any old form of Pantheism for instance. It's not the only "possible" empirical theory of God either. It does however make very "specific" predictions about the interactions between "God/The Universe" and "humans/all things physical". For instance, this specific theory:

A) Is "a" form of Pantheism (not necessarily the only form)
B) it assumes the EM field is the physical process by which "God/Universe" interacts with all things here and now.
C) it assumes God does interact with all things here and now (note how this differs from something like inflation)
D) it assumes that there is a 'physical cause' related to that EM transfer of energy that has a measurable "effect" on humans beings, both at the high energy (bulk energy transfer) end of the spectrum, but also at the finer levels as well.
E) It is a "theistic' theory, not a "deistic" theory due to the continual interaction between Universe and man.

Note that these different things make this theory very 'unique' in subtle, but very important ways. It makes specific "predictions" that are not necessary or necessarily present in other theistic theories.

It "predicts" that:

A) We live inside a conscious being called "God".
B) The universe is not 'sterile', but rather it is "alive" and full of electromagnetic transfers of energy between any and all objects in space.
C) EM fields are the primary "force" behind the 'will of God' in terms of manifestation in the "here and now".
D) It assumes that there is a "living connection" between the EM fields that generate consciousness in living things and a the "macroscopic consciousness" that is 'God'.
E) It "predicts" that humans should "experience" a living presence they relate to something they call "God", regardless of culture, regardless of other theistic variations in 'religion'. The experience would not in any way be limited by "religion" unless the religious beliefs somehow directly interfered with that living connection (a belief in Deism for instance).
F) external macroscopic/microscopic EM fields could and might have an influence on human "spiritual" perceptions.

Note that the specific belief that the EM field is the "controlling influence" between God/human is what makes this theory unique and different from other scientific theories. Some other form of empirical pantheism may come along and not require the EM field provide any direct influence or physical link between God and human. In that sense, this is a highly specific and highly unique theory, that is not the "be-all-end-all" of scientific possibilities. It is but one "possible' theory that might explain the human condition on Earth.

We can "falsify" this particular empirical theory in the following manner:

We can demonstrate that:

A) The universe really has no persistent "current flows" at the macroscopic level. Note that at this moment in time, EU/PC theory is *NOT* mainstream theory. Even that much change would signal a significant swing in current thinking.

B) The universe produces no particular patterns of energy exchanges that we can associated with "awareness" or "consciousness" in living things. Since we're still learning how "living things" operate, that would take awhile.

C) The EM field produces no physical effects on human beings.

Like all good empirical theories, this particular empirical theory can be tested in real "experiments' with real "control mechanisms". It requires no particular "act of faith" in anything other than "awareness" at a larger level, only so long as is necessary to construct empirical experiments to test the idea in a lab.

Compare to the "multiple acts of faith" in current cosmology theories, this particular theory requires no 'leaps of faith' in anything that does not exist here on Earth, in abundance.

Before we go any further, you're all going to have to accept that this is a unique physical theory, with unique physical requirements and unique "predictions" related to it's tenets.

It is not the only possible empirical theory that might ever be postulated, it is simply "one possible" theory to explain the human condition on Earth.

 

[Michael]

I can't quite parse out what you're saying here, but SCIENCE IS NOT SIMPLY MADE UP IN SOMEONE'S HEAD.

I'm saying Guth "made up" the term "inflation" (he could have called it Godflation for instance) and he personally assigned every 'property' that inflation contained.

Whereas I can empirically measure and look for EM transfers of energy in the present moment, how would you suggest I "test" any the the "properties" that Guth made up in his head when he claimed "inflation did it"?

If I pilfer his math, and call it "Godflation", how is his theory distinguishable from any other dead metaphysical religion?

 

[sandwiches]

That's the only sentence you responded to?

A "theory" does *NOT* have to be 'proven' to be called a "theory". In fact almost no theory has "unexplained/unverified" parts.

This theory is however a completely 'empirical' theory, meaning it can be demonstrated in a real lab. Compared to something like inflation theory that has to be accepted on pure faith, that's light years ahead of a lot of theories, and much more straightforward to verify or falsify.

I'll have to say this again: Look up what a 'scientific theory' is and then come back and see what you proposed is NOT a theory but a hypothesis. Also, read up on how 'theories' don't graduate or become 'scientific facts.' EVER.

Also, while you're at it, look up what 'empirical' means. Hint: It does NOT mean that it can be shown in a lab.

 

[Michael]

I'll have to say this again: Look up what a 'scientific theory' is and then come back and see what you proposed is NOT a theory but a hypothesis.

Is "standard cosmology theory" a "theory" or a "hypothesis"? Is "dark energy" a "theory" or a "hypothesis"? Is inflation a "theory" or a "hypothesis"? How are you using these labels in a non arbitrarily manner?

Also, read up on how 'theories' don't graduate or become 'scientific facts.' EVER.

Well, ok, but they do become "laws" as some point in time. Do you believe for instance that energy can be created or destroyed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, while you're at it, look up what 'empirical' means. Hint: It does NOT mean that it can be shown in a lab.

In your mind, what *DOES* it mean then?

Note that every single "tenet" of this empirical theory can be tested 'here and now', in a lab, in controlled conditions. All the tenets I have proposed are based upon known forces of nature, and awareness is a known force of nature. Nothing about this theory requires an "act of faith'' in anything that fails to show up in a lab on Earth. Compared to "dark energy", "inflation", and exotic brands of 'dark matter', you've got nothing to complain about.

 

[Michael]

I'll try to nibble at your posts as I get time today at work. It's busy so bear with me a bit.

That being said, it's inappropriate to simply say 'the null hypothesis states that consciousness wouldn't exist, it does, therefore EM god" or whatever. It's something that is only appropriate in a true experimental research condition. You can't use it independently, or with a correlation or case study or anything like that.

First of all I didn't claim the null hypothesis states that consciousness wouldn't exist. That seems to be your own strawman.

I'm trying to point out that this unique scientific theory makes unique physical scientific predictions that can be "tested" like any other theory. There's nothing particularly unique about the theory in it's ability to be verified and/or falsified in the standard scientific manner.

It does however make unique "predictions" related to the human condition on Earth that that reverse position does not 'explain' with fewer variables, and in a more 'simplified" manner.

If I postulate God exists and influences human beings here and now and forever and ever, there should be some historical record of such an effect on human beings in the past, there should be some influence today, and there should be some influence and predictable behaviors that will follow in the future.

This theory "explains" three specific "empirical observations' as someone put it. It "explains" why humans are "theists" in overwhelming numbers. It explains why "theists" claim to commune with God in some way and have done so since the dawn of recorded human civilization. It explains various features of the electromagnetic universe that we live in.

If we postulate no theory at all, none of those three observations is ''explained" in any way. None of those three issues can be 'explained' in a simpler manner with fewer variables, and fewer problems related to human subjectivity.

If you want to use a null hypothesis, come up with a direct experimental condition.

How about the 'theism/atheism' breakdown of the human population? Can we "experiment" with that in some way? Can we make a null hypothesis about the physical workings of the universe? I'm open to suggestions if you don't like my choices of options, but you'll have to be a little creative and do some explaining of the human condition on Earth and how it relates to the universe at large.

I'll leave these to be evaluated by someone who knows better.

Who "knows better" in the present moment that might be doing research into the subject in your opinion?

The problem is that those phenomena are already explained by other processes.

Which "processes" explain these same observations with fewer variables, and with fewer problems in subjective interpretation?

It isn't enough to say that "the EM god expects these phenomena, they exist, therefore". You have demonstrate a link with positive evidence and work towards disproving those other paradigms.

Well, that was my point of introducing that article about the EM influences seen in labs on human brainwaves. There does seem to be a physical link between external and internal EM fields and their influence on human thinking processes. That is in fact an "expectation" of this theory, that is in fact unique to this theory. The other point I made relates to the fact that humans throughout human history have reported a "real" and "living" experience that they related to a "living" God. That would be a natural "expectation/prediction" of this theory. Again, all I can really provide you with are a string of "successful predictions" that naturally follow from the logical and physical tenets of this theory. That's really the best any 'theory' can do until and unless it becomes "law".

The problem is that even if you demonstrate that these fields are extant or whatever, how would you go about determining that they are signs of consciousness?

That's a great question. I suppose we could start by cataloging a list of brainwave patterns related to living organisms and see what sort of "patterns' we can identify that are "common" to all known forms of life. We could could then apply these same techniques to identify or at least try to identify energy release processes at the macroscopic level that match these same patterns.

Again, the changes are both 1. cyclical (meaning not relevant to what I meant by biological change)

Woah! How do you know that? Lot's of processes in life are both cyclical and biologic in nature.

and 2. well explained by other phenomena. You can't just point to some phenomena and say "there is proof of my theory".

Um, how exactly does one offer any 'evidence' to support any cosmology theory and not point at some phenomenon and say "there is evidence of my theory"? How is that different from 'dark energy' or "inflation" theory/hypothesis?

Why should we neglect other explanations for those phenomena in favour of yours?

You should choose all theories for the same reason, specifically because they explain the data "better than" other competing theories.

 

[Doveaman]

When the mother's body provides matter for the unborn embryo or fetus or whatnot, it's no longer part of the mother's body, but it is, by definition, part of the fetal body.

The fetus is already a separate being from the beginning.

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.

 

[Michael]

If "the universe" = "God", then how does God interact with itself?

Electromagnetically, chemically, gravitationally, etc. Possibly other ways as well.

Do you interact with the individual cells in your bloodstream such that they become aware of your existence?

Alcohol would probably do the trick, assuming the cells were "conscious" of course.

That latter property you're referring to is hardly "confirmed" by humans throughout human history. I can only assume you mean that a lot of people believe in god or gods in some fashion or another.

They haven't just claimed to "believe in God", they have claimed for thousand of years to commune with God in some manner. This goes back now for thousands of years in virtually every religious oriented culture on the planet. How do you explain that?

The inherent problem with this idea is that 99% of all such people would reject your interpretation of what god/God is.

No 'interpretation' of what God is can claim 100% acceptance. In the sense that I believe that I can make a good argument that my beliefs are fully congruent with "Christianity", how can you be sure that number will remain that high forever? Since when did "popularity" dictate the validity of a scientific theory? Some "aspects" of this theory might not be "accepted" by all "theists", but we all share a common belief in God

You're essentially saying that all of their beliefs about the nature of God are wrong, because God is not "supernatural and outside the universe" but is "the universe itself."

Define "wrong". Many cultures and individuals consider Earth to be "sacred". Why? Why must God be 'supernatural', rather than just "natural"? Is that a necessary requirement in all religions for every individual?

How is it that all the people on earth could get this wrong?

What makes you think everyone did? When did you present a scientific pole to support that assertion, or did you just pull that number out of your back pocket?

If the universe is an intelligent thing that interacts with people, shouldn't a lot more people agree on what the nature of that thing is?

How many people agree about the character and nature and 'wisdom' of the current or former Presidents of the US? Did people *EVER* agree on a topic with 100% agreement?

And what, exactly, supports your idea that such writings are reliable?

Why would I "assume" them to be "unreliable" in historical terms?

What supports your claim that such writings are reflections of objective reality?

They don't have to be "objective" at all. The sum total is all I'm looking for, along with a recorded "instance of" other individuals claiming to commune with God. Every culture seems to have such "accounts".

What makes you think that a dozen conflicting writings on "interactions with god/gods/God" constitute proof that all of them reflect an objective reality?

I don't think *any* historical account of *anything* doesn't have some kind of "spin" associated with it, and some amount of subjective interpretation. Why would I expect this topic to be any different?

Isn't it just as likely, or more likely, that all dozen of those writings are reflections of subjective experiences that are NOT reflective of objective reality?

Individually they don't necessarily reflect a "pattern". Collectively however, they do demonstrate a "pattern" that emerges in every culture. Why? The theory I presented "explains" the "why" part, as well as the "how" part.

 

[RealityCheck]

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.

What do you make of surrogate motherhood, then? Removing the life from one mother and putting it in the womb of another?

 

[RealityCheck]

They haven't just claimed to "believe in God", they have claimed for thousand of years to commune with God in some manner. This goes back now for thousands of years in virtually every religious oriented culture on the planet. How do you explain that?

Interesting that you bring this up, because you then say:

Since when did "popularity" dictate the validity of a scientific theory?

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. 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.

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. These beliefs also evolved, and many different polytheistic religions eventually emerged, many of them similar to each other because different cultures came in contact with each other and they shared their beliefs. Polytheism, it must be noted, is almost always benign in its treatment of other polytheistic religions, because there is nothing wrong or "blasphemous" with the idea of other gods existing. One of these cultures, however, got the notion that the god they worshipped was more powerful than any other gods, and their god had chosen them to be His special people, destined to dominate over all other people and gods... and when this god failed to prevent their fall and captivitiy, centuries later, they gradually developed the idea that there were not multiple gods, but one God, and only one God.

Yes, religion has been a part of many cultures, most cultures, for centuries. The fact that it has does not mean that the supernatural thing or things at the center of that worship must actually exist.


One interesting thing you let slip:

This goes back now for thousands of years in virtually every religious oriented culture on the planet.

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

Some "aspects" of this theory might not be "accepted" by all "theists", but we all share a common belief in God

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

Define "wrong". Many cultures and individuals consider Earth to be "sacred". Why? Why must God be 'supernatural', rather than just "natural"? Is that a necessary requirement in all religions for every individual?

If God is "just natural" then that's not God. By definition. Why worship something that's just natural? Would you worship a fish? A chair or a stone? Would you worship a stellar cluster?

How many people agree about the character and nature and 'wisdom' of the current or former Presidents of the US? Did people *EVER* agree on a topic with 100% agreement?

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.

Why would I "assume" them to be "unreliable" in historical terms?

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.

They don't have to be "objective" at all. The sum total is all I'm looking for, along with a recorded "instance of" other individuals claiming to commune with God. Every culture seems to have such "accounts".

And then you say:

I don't think *any* historical account of *anything* doesn't have some kind of "spin" associated with it, and some amount of subjective interpretation. Why would I expect this topic to be any different?

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

Individually they don't necessarily reflect a "pattern". Collectively however, they do demonstrate a "pattern" that emerges in every culture. Why? The theory I presented "explains" the "why" part, as well as the "how" part.

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

 

[Doveaman]

What do you make of surrogate motherhood, then? Removing the life from one mother and putting it in the womb of another?

If the life of the fetus was its own, then it could survive on its own.

 

[RealityCheck]

I'm trying to point out that this unique scientific theory makes unique physical scientific predictions that can be "tested" like any other theory. There's nothing particularly unique about the theory in it's ability to be verified and/or falsified in the standard scientific manner.

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."

Um, how exactly does one offer any 'evidence' to support any cosmology theory and not point at some phenomenon and say "there is evidence of my theory"? How is that different from 'dark energy' or "inflation" theory/hypothesis?

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.

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). His theory explained gravitational lensing as well, so it accounted for already observed phenomena. It also made many other predictions - for example, what the effect of earth's gravitational well on starlight would be. 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.

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. They also make specific predictions about what should be observed, 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. When that radiation was detected, precisely as BB theory predicted it should be, BB gained wide acceptance and SS theory was dropped.

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.

 

[RealityCheck]

If the life of the fetus was its own, then it could survive on its own.

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