An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

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.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to insult you. I was simply not impressed very much with the "explanation" provided earlier. What do you want me to say? Just because someone CAN explain the existence of theism in society in a particular (subjective) way, doesn't mean there are not 'better" explanations of the same observation. I don't think you offered me much to work with in terms of why "modern humans" are still overwhelmingly theistic in their beliefs.

Even on that single point, I don't believe there was a "better" theory offered to this point in the thread. It's a subjective opinion of course, just like all opinions.

 

[Doveaman]

Made 100% no sense.

Does God make sense to you?

 

[sandwiches]

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's blood there would be no fetus blood.

Does dependency of one life on another life make them the a single entity or life, yes or no?

 

[Doveaman]

Does dependency of one life on another life make them the a single entity or life, yes or no?

Yes.

A hand will lose its life if it is cut off from the life of the body, likewise a foot.

The life of the hand and the foot is dependent on the life of the body, yet the body with all of its members, including the hand and foot, is a single entity having a single life.

The universe is one living body having many members.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes.

A hand will loose its life if it is cut off from the life of the body, likewise a foot.

The life of the hand and the foot is dependent on the life of the body, yet the body, including the hand and foot, is a single entity having a single life.

As I said before, if the pilots of an airplane die, most likely the rest of the passengers will die. Are the pilots and passengers considered one life?

 

[Doveaman]

As I said before, if the pilots of an airplane die, most likely the rest of the passengers will die. Are the pilots and passengers considered one life?

You are obviously missing the point.

Imagine the airplane as a living body and the pilots and passengers as the members of that body with the pilots being the head.

If the head pilots die, then the airplane body will perish along with all of its passenger members, just as your human body would perish with all of its bodily members if you lose you head.

The universe is one living body having many members, and the life of the universe is the life of those members.

 

[sandwiches]

You are obviously missing the point.

Imagine the airplane as a living body and the pilots and passengers as the members of that body with the pilots being the head.

If the head pilots die, then the airplane body will perish along with all of its passenger members, just as your human body would perish with all of its bodily members if you lose you head.

The universe is one living body having many members, and the life of the universe is the life of those members.

So the plane is alive, then?

And by extension, does that make the Earth, the Sun, the solar system, etc alive?

 

[Michael]

Sorry that I missed your earlier post.

Anyway, Michael has yet to give us any mechanisms or specific observations to look for.

Actually I have given you a number of things to "look for", including electrical currents between objects in space, EM connections between the human brain and objects in space, emission patterns from the sun consistent with "intelligence", etc.

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.

Well, therein lies the rub IMO. We don't even understand "awareness" well enough to fully appreciate how it manifests itself inside all living creatures. How and why do single cell animals "hunt" food and what motivates them to eat a "balanced diet"?

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

Do we even know how to isolate the emission patterns that are common to all living things? IMO you're asking for a lot considering how little we know about life, and awareness/intelligence in general.

Your theory needs to go out all the way on the limb. Give us a specific mechanism,

That was the intent of isolating the EM field as the primary means of communication between humans and the larger universe. I am providing you with a *highly* specific mechanism IMO.

let's look in a specific spot.

Well, we can look at the emission patterns in and around the brain during prayer and meditation. The specific spot would be related to the areas of the brain that change during the process.

You need to give me something specific to look for, not just "awareness". It's way too vague.

I really do hear you, but how does one measure a macroscopic "awareness" if not via the effect on human beings? Would you accept that type of thing as "evidence"? If not, what types of emission patterns should we be looking for in something like a sun that might give us a clue as to whether or not it's behaviors are related to "intelligence"?

 

[Spacewyrm]

I've got an idea to test this. Get some people who are deeply religious/theistic or whatever, who have claimed to have had communication or experience of god(s), and put these people in rooms which block all incoming electromagnetic radiation. Then, see if these people still have these religious/spiritual experiences. If they do, so much for the "theory". If they don't, you might be on to something (maybe).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The entire physical universe is God.

By and large, this is playing word games. And as such I could easily reject it. And why not? The universe is not God.

Now what?

 

[Michael]

Hmmm. Well, I'm not sure I'd try to "block God" in my first attempt at an empirical test. I think it might be more productive to simply attempt to isolate the areas of the brain directly changed by meditation/prayer and then see if it's possible to track an external energy exchange between that location and the outside world. Just my two cents.

 

[Michael]

By and large, this is playing word games. And as such I could easily reject it. And why not? The universe is not God.

Now what?

You certainly "could" reject it, but why are you rejecting it? How do you know that the universe is not God? What exactly do you reject about the idea, and why do you reject it without "testing" it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You certainly "could" reject it, but why are you rejecting it? How do you know that the universe is not God? What exactly do you reject about the idea, and why do you reject it without "testing" it?

It is a semantic issue. I reject it in the same fashion that I reject the idea that the universe is a cat. Surely, you could call the universe "a cat," but that does not mean that the universe all of a sudden would turn into what is *normally* understood as a cat. Likewise with what you are doing here in the cases of "God" and "univese," and "awareness" and that electrical stuff (I have forgotten what it was exactly, already).

Normally God is not understood to be anything ... 'physical.' Yuck!

 

[Michael]

It is a semantic issue.

You can't reject a scientific theory based on "semantics".

I reject it in the same fashion that I reject the idea that the universe is a cat. Surely, you could call the universe "a cat," but that does not mean that the universe all of a sudden would turn into what is *normally* understood as a cat. Likewise with what you are doing here in the cases of "God" and "univese," and "awareness" and that electrical stuff (I have forgotten what it was exactly, already).

Well, "generally", the idea is that the "circuits" of our physical structures give rise to awareness, and awareness controls and manifests in the activation of these circuits within our forms. So too, the circuits of the universe give rise to a macroscopic awareness that ultimately controls these current flows in spacetime.

Normally God is not understood to be anything ... 'physical.' Yuck!

Well, that doesn't mean God cannot be described in "real" and "physical" terms. The Hubble images don't look 'yuck' to me at all, in fact they look rather beautiful.

 

[Michael]

I've got an idea to test this. Get some people who are deeply religious/theistic or whatever, who have claimed to have had communication or experience of god(s), and put these people in rooms which block all incoming electromagnetic radiation. Then, see if these people still have these religious/spiritual experiences. If they do, so much for the "theory". If they don't, you might be on to something (maybe).

Links to Spirituality Found in the Brain - Yahoo! News

Here's an article that Washington cited in another thread. It could help isolate the centers of the brain that are likely to be linked to the ability to "transcend self (little s)" and begin identifying with the SELF (whole universe).

Technology Review: Meditation and the Brain

These type of technologies might also be quite effective in isolating the centers of the brain that change during prayer/meditation.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You can't reject a scientific theory based on "semantics".

And you cannot just call stuff names. Ok, you can, but you cannot expect other people to follow suit.

And when I said "I could easily reject it" the "it" was not referring to your scientific theories at all, instead I was referring to "playing word games." And I do, I can easily reject your terminology, your, well, defintions.

Well, "generally", the idea is that just as the "circuits" of our physical structures give rise to awareness, and awareness controls and manifests in the activation of these circuits within our forms, so too, the circuits of the universe give rise to a macroscopic awareness that ultimately controls these current flows in spacetime.

Well, that doesn't mean God cannot be described in "real" and "physical" terms. The Hubble images don't look 'yuck' to me at all, in fact they look rather beautiful.

See above. You can describe it however you want, but you cannot expect other people to follow suit.

 

[Michael]

And you cannot just call stuff names. Ok, you can, but you cannot expect other people to follow suit.

And when I said "I could easily reject it" the "it" was not referring to your scientific theories at all, instead I was referring to "playing word games." And I do, I can easily reject your terminology, your, well, defintions.

I'm not playing any word games! I'm not saying 'the universe is a cat'. I'm saying the universe is aware and aware of you. Big difference. There are several key components to the theory, specifically that the universe itself is "electric' for instance. Like any theory it makes 'predictions' based on a key set of tenets. There are no 'word games' involved.

See above. You can describe it however you want, but you cannot expect other people to follow suit.

I'm not asking you to "follow suit", I'm simply presenting it as an empirical theory of God. You're welcome to critique it all you like, but claiming it's a word game is pointless because it's not a "word game", it's a standard scientific theory with the ability to be verified or falsified in the standard scientific manner.

 

[Doveaman]

So the plane is alive, then?

As an analogy, Yes.

And by extension, does that make the Earth, the Sun, the solar system, etc alive?

In reality, Yes.

And that is what I think the OP aims to show.
__________________

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm not playing any word games! I'm not saying 'the universe is a cat'.

No, you were saying that the universe is God.

I'm saying the universe is aware and aware of you.

Only that this "awareness" is not in any way, shape or form is comparable to what we/I would understand as "awareness." (Or, alternatively if it is, then awareness is trivial.)

Big difference.

Exactly not.

There are several key components to the theory, specifically that the universe itself is "electric' for instance. Like any theory it makes 'predictions' based on a key set of tenets. There are no 'word games' involved.



I'm not asking you to "follow suit",

Yes, you are. If I simply reject your terminology ("God"/"Awareness") you are dead in the water.

I'm simply presenting it as an empirical theory of God. You're welcome to critique it all you like, but claiming it's a word game is pointless because it's not a "word game", it's a standard scientific theory with the ability to be verified or falsified in the standard scientific manner.

It is not even 'standard theology' (if any such beast even exists!).

 

[Tinker Grey]

We are part of the universe. We are aware of ourselves and the universe. We are the universe being aware of itself.

Are we god?