An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

It is an assumption on your part that complex hunting behavior in amemoas is indicitive of awareness.

They evidently go out of their way to eat a balanced diet. That's pretty sophisticated behavior.

If I were so inclined, I could probably build a robot that had behavior exactly as complicated as these single-celled bugs. Is my robot then aware?

I personally think you overestimate your robotic capabilities. Your robot would not be "alive" or "aware", but it would be "intelligently designed".

Organic compounds in space don't really indicate a universe filled with life, though it does raise the odds somewhat, I suppose.

It shows that the basic building blocks were abundant long before the Earth formed. For all we know at least "primitive" life is abundant in the universe.

Then again, that doesn't really go one way or the other for your God = Universe hypothesis; organic compounds wound up on Earth, and the Earth is a big space rock that was formed from a bunch of smaller space rocks that formed from smaller space rocks, that formed from space dust that was released by some exploding star(s), so we might expect to see organic compounds in elsewhere in space, even according to conventional cosmology (I don't know how you plasma cosmology guys figure planets formed, but I figure I could make an analogous argument there, that even is an electric universe, we could expect to see organic compounds without the Universe needing to be aware).

Well, if raw compounds from many different places all seem to become "aware over time', what does that suggest to us about the nature of the universe and of "awareness"? Why would the universe keep creating different forms of aware beings?

Also, I don't see how that would say anything in particular about the ancient-ness of the universe.

It's more how it speaks to the ancientness of life and awareness within the universe.

The "circuitry" in space is well defined and widespread, huh? I don't think many people here would agree with you on that...

Oh, you might be surprised. EU/PC theory has been gaining momentum now for quite awhile. It's only a matter of time.

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
[0806.1701] Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops

 

[Doveaman]

So, everything in the universe is alive because it's part of the universe, which itself is alive.

Since the universe provides all the elements essential for life, intelligence, and awareness, is it fair to say that the universe "creates" intelligent life?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Nobody ever said science would be "simple".

In fact it was not about science at all:
"Well then, the next logical question is how do you define awareness,"
That was your question. And that was what I responded to by pointing out that this is very tricky.

You don't "have" to do anything, but if you can't provide any scientific definition of awareness or an explanation of awareness that fits the observations of awareness in nature then I'd have to go with any theory that did. Awareness IMO is an intrinsic part of nature and it can and does manifest itself through every living thing.

They aren't "alive", nor do they exhibit any signs of life. Anything living is potentially a candidate for "awareness". Awareness does seem to be connected to living things.

Now a clever and cunning person could attempt to redefine "alive" in such a fashion that motion sensors would under that definition be alive. But that would not be very convincing, or would it? Or what about ant-hills?

I don't really see awareness as being a theistic or atheistic issue. You can claim awareness is related to circuit processes, but even that gets dicey when we start talking about why single cell organisms go out of their way to eat a balanced diet.

All I'm noting is that for any two individuals to communicate, we need to agree upon terms and make some effort at communication. The topic is virtually irrelevant. If I was talking about a magnetic rope, I'd have to use terms related to MHD theory, and you'd either have to accept them or not. If not, we wouldn't have much to talk about.

Well, we'll see how things go. So far we only seem to be scratching the surface.

Sure. The second sentence in my post is a direct quote from Jesus. He also said that the kingdom of heaven is found within. What did he mean by these statements in your opinion?

I hope you are not expecting a serious reply here?

That's not really much help actually. My point is that "religious belief" does and has changed over time. It can continue to change over time.

Sure it can change.

You can't simply assume this (or any) theory is wrong based upon a popular opinion.

You just don't understand it. I was and am not even commenting on your scientific theory (if it passes muster as such).

Just because you (or someone else) perceives God to be "supernatural" doesn't mean he is in fact 'supernatural'.

And this is precisely why I said it was a word game. Watch:
"Just because you perceive a unicorn to be a horse-like creature with a horn on its head, doesn't mean it in fact is a horse-like creature with a horn in its head."

You don't even believe God exists, so your use of the term is simply used in a derogatory manner and irrelevant to this or any other empirical theory.

Watch some more: "You don't even believe unicorns exist, so your use of the term ..."

I never suggested we were discussing "standard theology".

And verily you aren't. To my mind you are doing the equivalent of redefining "unicorn" to "a horse-like creature that does not necessarily have a horn on its head," and then to procede to point towards what is normally called "horse" in order to create a scientific theory about unicorns.

I was discussing "empirical physics". I have no desire to fixate overtly on the "theology" because it is by definition an "empirical" theory that is unrelated to any particular "theology".

But once it has in fact been explained to you, you must then choose again to 'believe in God" or not.

No, not at all. Just like I don't have to reevaluate the existence of unicorns if someone were to redefine it.

By definition, the "not" option would imply that you simply "lack belief' that the universe is "aware", not that it "exists".

 

[Michael]

In fact it was not about science at all:
"Well then, the next logical question is how do you define awareness,"
That was your question. And that was what I responded to by pointing out that this is very tricky.

It is a valid scientific question with a valid scientific answer. I have no idea why you think the question was "not about science".

Now a clever and cunning person could attempt to redefine "alive" in such a fashion that motion sensors would under that definition be alive. But that would not be very convincing, or would it? Or what about ant-hills?

I'm not trying to 'redefine' life, awareness, or anything else. I'm simply asking you to offer an explanation/definition for awareness that explains the behaviors of agreed upon forms of life. A colony of ants is certainly alive and aware. The hill itself is not.

I hope you are not expecting a serious reply here?

I guess the real question is, were you expecting a serious conversation?

And this is precisely why I said it was a word game. Watch:
"Just because you perceive a unicorn to be a horse-like creature with a horn on its head, doesn't mean it in fact is a horse-like creature with a horn in its head."

Woah. You don't personally get to define God as "supernatural", and then start excluding theories about God on such a basis. Get over it. God is whatever God is. Assuming that God is "real", there has to be a physical explanation of his existence which should exist within the laws of nature. God isn't necessarily "supernatural".

And verily you aren't. To my mind you are doing the equivalent of redefining "unicorn" to "a horse-like creature that does not necessarily have a horn on its head," and then to procede to point towards what is normally called "horse" in order to create a scientific theory about unicorns.

You're the only one *ASSUMING* it's a "unicorn". I started a theory about horses, and you're insistent that I talk about unicorns instead. What's up with that? You're simply avoiding the conversation by not discussing a perfectly good theory about horses.

No, not at all. Just like I don't have to reevaluate the existence of unicorns if someone were to redefine it.

I never "redefined" anything. I simply offered you a valid empirical definition of God that requires nothing "supernatural". You're the only one insisting that God 'must be" a "supernatural unicorn". This thread was always related to emprical horses and never had anything whatsoever to do with "supernatural unicorns'.

 

[sandwiches]

Er, no. My evidence is accumulated on several levels, including the fact that humans can and do claim to interact with a being they call 'God', in the present moment, and consider it to be "real" and valid. That is completely congruent with this scientific theory and is in fact a "prediction" of this theory. All theories are graded on how well the predictions match reality. In this case, the "prediction" of human interaction with a higher level of consciousness is verified by empirical observation. Your personal subjective experiences are irrelevant as are mine. I do however see that other humans make such a claim just as this theory 'predicts".

Theories are not "graded" on anything. If you mean that their validity depends on predictions, again, this is wrong. The validity of a theory is dependent on the strength of the evidence supporting it. If your idea of predictions were true, I'll make the following prediction: "If a god doesn't exist, there won't be one congruent idea of what or who god really is." My prediction is true; Imagine that! I guess my idea is right. Nope. I have no evidence much the same you don't. Anecdotes are NOT empiricial evidence no matter how much you wish it so, since they're not independently verifiable. In other words, I can't verify what this person felt about some 'overmind' or whatever is correct or not.

Likewise this theory "predicts" that electrical currents connect objects in space. Indeed we find direct empirical evidence in modern satellite images of exactly such currents. Again, the theory successfully predicts something that has and can be empirically verified.

Enough with predictions. Show the INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support you idea.

Now I'm not claiming that the theory is "proven true" at this point in time. I am simply simply noting that it is an empirical theory, it can be "tested" in the standard empirical manner, and it makes very specific predictions that have in fact been shown to be accurate.

If the evidence for your HYPOTHESIS (and I'm applying the term loosely here) is that many people feel or think that there must be a god, then we simply can't test it. How do we test it empirically, exactly?

 

[sandwiches]

Since the universe provides all the elements essential for life, intelligence, and awareness, is it fair to say that the universe "creates" intelligent life?

Since the Earth provides everything needed for earthly life and specifically human life, is it fair to say that the Earth "creates" intelligent life? Can we say Mother Earth, then?

 

[Michael]

Since the Earth provides everything needed for earthly life and specifically human life, is it fair to say that the Earth "creates" intelligent life? Can we say Mother Earth, then?

Interestingly enough many cultures (and individuals) treat the planet as 'sacred'. Perhaps one of the key reasons for the success of the movie "Avatar" is due to it's use of that premise. That idea deeply touches something in the human psyche in some way.

 

[Michael]

Theories are not "graded" on anything. If you mean that their validity depends on predictions, again, this is wrong. The validity of a theory is dependent on the strength of the evidence supporting it.

Define "evidence". What "evidence" supports 'inflation' in your opinion?

If your idea of predictions were true, I'll make the following prediction: "If a god doesn't exist, there won't be one congruent idea of what or who god really is." My prediction is true; Imagine that!

Gee, you just demonstrated that G.W. Bush doesn't exist not to mention the current President. Congrats.

I guess my idea is right. Nope. I have no evidence much the same you don't. Anecdotes are NOT empiricial evidence no matter how much you wish it so, since they're not independently verifiable.

They are "verified" by their consistency over time. It's not as though only a single human being ever claimed to be directly influenced by a living God. What exactly do we do with that objective observation?

In other words, I can't verify what this person felt about some 'overmind' or whatever is correct or not.

What about the fact that other individuals have the same or similar experiences?

Enough with predictions. Show the INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support you idea.

Define "independently verifiable evidence" as it applies to something like "dark energy" or "inflation", or something on the macroscopic level. How does that compare to the "circuit" aspects of this theory as it relates to cosmology? Why isn't that also "evidence" to support this theory in your opinion?

If the evidence for your HYPOTHESIS (and I'm applying the term loosely here) is that many people feel or think that there must be a god, then we simply can't test it. How do we test it empirically, exactly?

Well, that Buddhist study is a step in the right direction IMO. The equipment would have to be sensitive enough to see more than just the local energy waves of the brain, but it would need to see the energy waves patterns inside the room as well. It still seems like a reasonable way to empirically test the notion of an EM interaction between humans and the universe during prayer and meditation.

 

[sandwiches]

Define "evidence". What "evidence" supports 'inflation' in your opinion?

Scientific evidence are sets of facts that can be verified to be true, to the best of our abilities, regardless of any starting premises or beliefs. For instance, whether or not you think gravity comes from God, from energy, from mass, etc, we can all agree that there is a force that attracts matter to Earth. Even if you think gravity is false, you will still be attracted to Earth by it. So, the statement "All humans are attracted to Earth" is a scientifically verifiable statement in that sound, scientific evidence exists. Now, you can say, "but there could be a human you don't know about that is not attracted to Earth." Anything is possible but science limits itself to what is observable the best of our abilities.

How does inflation fit into this? Well, we can see the universe expanding and there's a lot of evidence that seem to support this idea. Now, what evidence support this idea?

Lots. To name a few observation from talkorigins:
1) Large-scale homogeneity of the universe
2) Abundances of light elements
3) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
4) Large-scale structure of the universe
5) Age of stars
6) The observed evolution of galaxies
7) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves

Another big piece of this, as mentioned before, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE evidence. The fact that the evidence gathered through different methods is all consistent and points to the same conclusion.

Gee, you just demonstrated that G.W. Bush doesn't exist not to mention the current President. Congrats.

They are "verified" by their consistency over time. It's not as though only a single human being ever claimed to be directly influenced by a living God. What exactly do we do with that objective observation?

What about the fact that other individuals have the same or similar experiences?

It's not objective observation in that when someone says that they've seen God, or a ghost, or Sasquatch, we can't verify by their statement alone that what they're saying is indeed what happened. It doesn't matter how many people claim something. Popularity or consensus does not dictate reality. And not even scientific consensus is part of the scientific method, as even if all the scientists in the world agree on something, the evidence will always come out on top.

Define "independently verifiable evidence" as it applies to something like "dark energy" or "inflation", or something on the macroscopic level. How does that compare to the "circuit" aspects of this theory as it relates to cosmology? Why isn't that also "evidence" to support this theory in your opinion?

Because we can see expansion through the evidence I showed on top. Also, as far as we can tell, the universe seems to be expanding through independent evidence and much of what I showed on top.

Now, the problem with your idea is that you're jumping to conclusions. Science works backwards from the way you are operating. A scientist sees something and then proceeds to find out why and how it happens. Assuming that the electric universe idea was shown to be true, what would this be show us? That the EU idea idea is correct. Now, you still have to provide evidence that there is indeed circuitry, a consciousness, and that this is the all-powerful being(s) of legend. Those are all separate claims that require individual evidence. It's one thing to say that the universe is electric and another to say that this proves that the universe is god.

Well, that Buddhist study is a step in the right direction IMO. The equipment would have to be sensitive enough to see more than just the local energy waves of the brain, but it would need to see the energy waves patterns inside the room as well. It still seems like a reasonable way to empirically test the notion of an EM interaction between humans and the universe during prayer and meditation.

Interaction between human brains and ambient radiation would still not be evidence that the universe is God.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I'm going to give you the "gravity" example. IMO that's a good example of something that has a tangible effect whether you believe it or not.

Scientific evidence are sets of facts that can be verified to be true, to the best of our abilities, regardless of any starting premises or beliefs.

Ok, let's apply this logic to "inflation" for a moment.

How does inflation fit into this? Well, we can see the universe expanding and there's a lot of evidence that seem to support this idea. Now, what evidence support this idea?

Lots. To name a few observation from talkorigins:
1) Large-scale homogeneity of the universe

What the heck does "inflation" have to do with a "homogeneous layout of matter? Remember, I have no starting "faith" in inflation, and we cannot assume anything about it that you can't physically demonstrate. Please demonstrate that inflation can cause stuff to 'spread out" evenly in some physical experiment.

2) Abundances of light elements

Ditto. What does inflation have to to with elemental abundance?

3) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Ditto. Please demonstrate a physical link between radiation (of any wavelength) and "inflation".

4) Large-scale structure of the universe

Same question. Demonstrate any link between inflation and the movement and layout of matter.

5) Age of stars

Again, you're *assuming* there is some physical link between some property of a mythical inflation deity (now dead I might add) and the age of stars. What do these things have in common in terms of empirical cause/effect relationships that you can demonstrate here and now?

I'll not bore you with the last two because they are repeats of the last questions. Without *assuming* that inflation exists, how did you demonstrate any cause/effect relationship between anything and "inflation"?

 

[Doveaman]

Since the Earth provides everything needed for earthly life and specifically human life, is it fair to say that the Earth "creates" intelligent life? Can we say Mother Earth, then?

The Earth life is dependent upon input from the sun, which itself is dependent upon input from the galaxy, which itself is dependent upon input from the universe. So "Mother Universe" or "Father Universe" might be more appropriate.

 

[sandwiches]

Ok, let's apply this logic to "inflation" for a moment.

What the heck does "inflation" have to do with a "homogeneous layout of matter? Remember, I have no starting "faith" in inflation, and we cannot assume anything about it that you can't physically demonstrate. Please demonstrate that inflation can cause stuff to 'spread out" evenly in some physical experiment.

Ditto. What does inflation have to to with elemental abundance?

Ditto. Please demonstrate a physical link between radiation (of any wavelength) and "inflation".

Same question. Demonstrate any link between inflation and the movement and layout of matter.

Again, it's your backwards mentality that's getting in the way. The observations are the following: The universe is relatively homogeneous, expanding, etc. One explication for all of this inflation theory.

An example:
Observation (aka Fact Things fall
Explanation: Gravitation theory or general relativity.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Now, I should ask you, what's you observation that lead you believe in god, since that seems to be your starting point for everything?

Again, you're *assuming* there is some physical link between some property of a mythical inflation deity (now dead I might add) and the age of stars. What do these things have in common in terms of empirical cause/effect relationships that you can demonstrate here and now?

So, you're saying we can't tell the age of stars?

I'll not bore you with the last two because they are repeats of the last questions. Without *assuming* that inflation exists, how did you demonstrate any cause/effect relationship between anything and "inflation"?

Inflation is a proposed explanation for observed phenomena. I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

Your idea is not a proposed explanation for an observation. Your idea, on the other hand, is merely justification for what you want the universe to be.

Start with your observation and work down to explain it.

 

[sandwiches]

The Earth life is dependent upon input from the sun, which itself is dependent upon input from the galaxy, which itself is dependent upon input from the universe. So "Mother Universe" or "Father Universe" might be more appropriate.

So, is the Earth a living entity?

 

[Michael]

So, is the Earth a living entity?

The best way to put it is that the entire physical universe is a living entity. A single piece is not necessarily the same as the sum total off all the parts, just as a single cell doesn't define or contain a whole human being.

 

[Michael]

Again, it's your backwards mentality that's getting in the way. The observations are the following: The universe is relatively homogeneous, expanding, etc. One explication for all of this inflation theory.

You skipped a step. I might be able to physically demonstrate an empirical connection between something like dynamite and "homogeneous expanding matter". When did you demonstrate a physical connection between inflation and any physical movement of matter?

 

[Michael]

Inflation is a proposed explanation for observed phenomena.

It's a totally ad hoc and bogus "explanation" because inflation doesn't have any effect on any physical object in any physical experiment. All the presumed "properties" of inflation were simply made up in Guth's head.

 

[sandwiches]

It's a totally ad hoc and bogus "explanation" because inflation doesn't have any effect on any physical object in any physical experiment. All the presumed "properties" of inflation were simply made up in Guth's head.

So, are you saying that red shift, CMB, etc are all made up?

 

[sandwiches]

You skipped a step. I might be able to physically demonstrate an empirical connection between something like dynamite and "homogeneous expanding matter". When did you demonstrate a physical connection between inflation and any physical movement of matter?

Then please show this OBJECTIVELY OBSERVABLE connection between dynamite and "homogeneous expanding matter".

 

[Michael]

Then please show this OBJECTIVELY OBSERVABLE connection between dynamite and "homogeneous expanding matter".

Like your gravity example earlier (which I liked), I could use dynamite or some other explosive to "create expansion of matter" from a singular point. You may not believe it will explode, but it will in fact explode regardless of your beliefs, and it will create an expansion of matter.

How did you intend to demonstrate a pattern of expanding matter from "inflation"? Where do I get "inflation"?

 

[sandwiches]

The best way to put it is that the entire physical universe is a living entity. A single piece is not necessarily the same as the sum total off all the parts, just as a single cell doesn't define or contain a whole human being.

I don't know why you answer points I never made. I didn't ask or comment on the anything defining or containing anything else.

It's a simple, yes-or-no question. Is the Earth a living organism?