An Empirical Theory Of God

[Spacewyrm]

Your hypothetical robot would simply be a shining example of "intelligent design'. It could never occur on accident. This sort of behavior does in fact exhibit signs of "awareness" as the organism is aware enough of the environment to pick and choose from a mixture of options. There's definitely some sort of rudimentary awareness and life present in the organism.

Yes, my robot is an example of "intelligent design". But, why is not aware while the ameboa is? What are you basing the notion of awareness in the ameboa on other than its behavior?

You seem to have faith in something that no one has ever done to date. I guess you can't blame me for having a little faith in an empirical theory.

Faith? In what? The only certain example of awareness I have is myself. I am human, and not crazy, so I assume my fellow humans are also aware. By analogy I extend this to animals with working brains, since the biology of cognition links brain and mind together exactly. I don't know how a single cell could be said to have awareness, and for now I don't see any reason to accept that they do. On the other hand, I know that other cells do all sorts of complex things purly through deterministic chemical processes, so that seems like the best explaination here.

But, even if the cell is aware, so what? Why is awareness in a cell evidence of awareness in the Universe?

Even if we go with that premise, the universe is full of chemical reactions and complicated electrical interactions between objects.

Yes, but not every chemical/electrical process is a form of life.

What exactly are the "biological standards" for life and awareness?

As far as I know, "biological standards" for life means stuff made of cells. I didn't mean to bring up any biological standards for awareness, but as I said, so far I'll grant anything with a complex-enough brain (not sure where the dividing line is though).

My point however is this: You said my robot isn't alive, but it is just as aware as the ameboa. If awareness indicates life, my robot is alive. Yet noone would call my robot alive. Very few would call the Universe alive either, because it shares none of the features of anything else on Earth we call living, as far as we can tell.

Assuming that awareness is actually intrinsic to the universe and able to manifest in a variety of "forms' it's conceivable you could come up with an "intelligent design" that might "hold awareness" in some way, but what exactly would that demonstrate in your opinion?

I don't really know what it demonstrates, since that wasn't really what I was trying to say. I'm not assuming that awareness is actually intrinsic to the Universe. I was really only wondering why my robot isn't alive by your standards (I know why it's not alive by my standards).

I think all this robot-talk is beside the point, if you are willing to consider it as being alive and/or aware, though it seems to me that just about anything could be called aware if my little robot is.

Well, at least we agree on some things.

I guess I'm going to have to ask the "skeptics" what they would accept as valid empirical evidence sooner or later, because everything can be 'interpreted' rather subjectively. How do we come up with some objective standards?

I've already mentioned one piece of evidence: block God's EM signals. That wouldn't be conclusive, but if that stopped religious experience I'd be more interested in pursuing the idea of a living Universe. Here's some objective standards: if you can figure out how to communicate reliably with the Universe in similar fashion too the way I'm communicating to you right now, I'll accept that the Universe has awareness. Other than that, I can't think of anything that would really convince me.

I mean that awareness is a persistent little bugger, and it is able to manifest in a variety of 'physical forms'. What exactly is "awareness" at the most fundamental level?

Even if you ultimately choose a "mechanical' definition, the physical universe fits many of those same physical definitions.

OK. I don't really know what awareness is at a fundamental level, but I think it's more than just complex behavior (though I do think it is fundamentally mechanical in the way that I think all things that exist are, for the most part).

Well, I'm not personally convinced it's limited strictly to the animal kingdom, but it's certainly prevalent throughout the entire animal kingdom.

Would a "dumb" person be able to create the robot you described? I don't think so. It would in fact requires an 'intelligent design' at some very fundamental levels.

Eh , given that my robot isn't born of imperfectly self-replicating molecules undergoing selective pressure, I'm going to have to point out that this is where the analogy breaks down. I find abiogeneisis to be a plausible hypothesis, and I know that evolution is a solid theory. No ID god-of-the-gaps needed, as far as we know so far, and all based on the fundamental physical laws of the Universe chugging along (sort of) deterministically. I see no reason to think otherwise.

But, let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong. Life, aside from God, can't be explained except through intelligent design. This still doesn't point to your electric pantheism. Some supernatural god that created this Universe from some other universe could just as easily fit the bill.

I would be inclined to agree, but frankly it's hard to believe that life is limited to Earth. It seems as though once it gains a foothold, it figures out a way to thrive in even some of the worlds harshest physical environments.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I just don't think we know enough to make it a point of this particular discussion. Until we figure out more about how life starts and/or find some extra-terrestrial life, I don't know what we could even say about the nature of extra-terresstial life, except that it probably exists in some fashion.

IMO that would be a great idea. You're probably better off starting with Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. Birkeland and Alfven are pretty much "heroes" of the mainstream too by they way. They simply recognize tiny pieces of both of their work. Bruce was your typical electrical engineer, but he used some interesting arguments to make his points and he was also right on the money with many aspects of discharge theory.

Message board forums can be a difficult place to get useful information.

I''ll keep that in mind. Not much in the mood to do that sort of reading right now, though.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on that topic I'm afraid. Lambda-CDM theory IMO is simply another "creation mythology' no better physically supported that YEC in the final analysis. In fact only those two specific theory require supernatural "faster than light expansion'. Pure coincidence?

Alas, all I've really seen from you to discredit lambda-CDM is unbacked assertion that it amounts to nothing but supernatual nonsense. Prove me wrong by engaging Sandwich's arguments.

ETA: and your continuing to call it "godflation" is not making me warm up to your argument, that's for sure.

What else would you choose to call it, and why?

I'd call it the Universe, because that's what I've always called it. You're the one who says I should call it God. What are the defining characteristics of "God"? How does the Universe meet these requirements. Your notion of God is counter to most people's notion of what it means to be God, that I need to ask why I should accept it as valid.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This is a pointless statement IMO. Likewise if you reject terminology consistent with MHD theory, or GR theory, the conversation is likewise "dead in the water". So what? All that demonstrates is you're being obstinate and you're disinterested in discussing the topic intelligently. Big deal.



At no time did I call God "supernatural" in this thread. Stop trying to hijack my thread if you're not interested in discussing empirical concepts, because I'm disinterested in your "supernatural" definitions of God, the "supernatural" descriptions of inflation and 'supernatural" stuff in general.

Ether get with the program or stop trying to make me define God by your personal definitions.

My theory is related to empirical physics and is completely unrelated to anything "supernatural". Get it?

Listen, you put up a thread. And I commented. That is what these things are there for.

You asked me further questions. And I replied.

And now you tell me to not hijack your thread?


"Ether get with the program or stop trying to make me define God by your personal definitions. "

"The universe is God."

Ok, ok, I'll stop already. Enough with imposing personal defintions and the likes. The last thing I want is to be a roadblock for the next big scientific discoveries.

 

[Michael]

Listen, you put up a thread. And I commented. That is what these things are there for.

Your comments are meaningless:

M: Lets' talk about GR and how gravity bends 'spacetime'.
LE: There is no such thing as "spacetime", just "space" and "time". You're just playing word games.
M: No, actually gravity can essentially bend spacetime and cause "time" as you describe it to run at a different rate in different places and speeds. That's a highly specific "prediction" of GR theory.
LE: But all I have to do is disagree with your use of the term "spacetime" and you're dead in the water! This is not a scientific theory.
M: But this theory makes testable "predictions" that are very different from Newton's understanding of gravity.
LE: Gravity is gravity. There is no such thing as "spacetime". You just made that up, and all I have to do is disagree with you on the use of the term "spacetime" and your stuck and can't demonstrate your point.
M: Gah!

 

[Michael]

Yes, my robot is an example of "intelligent design". But, why is not aware while the ameboa is? What are you basing the notion of awareness in the ameboa on other than its behavior?

Unless your robot runs on the energy it collects, and rebuilds it's own damaged structures from the environment around it, and it's "alive", it's really only a 'replica" or "simulation" of a living process. The ameboa is "alive". Once it's dead it can't be turned back on again. There an element of "life" that your robot lacks.

Faith? In what?

You seem to have faith that someone is going to be able to "create life' from raw chemicals. Then again, I'm not sure if your 'robot' is actually alive, so maybe I just don't understand your argument very well.

The only certain example of awareness I have is myself. I am human, and not crazy, so I assume my fellow humans are also aware.

Technically speaking "awareness" is a core component of "observation" and is therefore a primary foundation for 'science' as we understand it. We "observe" via our 'awareness' that others demonstrate a similar trait.

By analogy I extend this to animals with working brains, since the biology of cognition links brain and mind together exactly. I don't know how a single cell could be said to have awareness, and for now I don't see any reason to accept that they do. On the other hand, I know that other cells do all sorts of complex things purly through deterministic chemical processes, so that seems like the best explaination here.

But, even if the cell is aware, so what? Why is awareness in a cell evidence of awareness in the Universe?

We're back to those complex single cell "behaviors" of collecting specific combinations of foods. How many neural connections does a single celled organism have? The complexity of these behaviors may suggest that 'awareness' is simply something that exists in nature, much like a photon or an EM field. It may even have it's one unique carrier particle for all I know. EM fields seem to be intimately related to the ability of awareness to manifest in the physical world and the ability of physical things to collect data in the physical world, but what is "awareness"? It's a very complex question.

Yes, but not every chemical/electrical process is a form of life.

Agreed. That was original complaint about your 'robot'. It lacked 'life'.

As far as I know, "biological standards" for life means stuff made of cells.

Plasma has many properties associated with living things, hence the term 'plasma' as a matter of fact. It naturally forms "double layers" to create 'cellular separation' between various types of plasma.

I didn't mean to bring up any biological standards for awareness, but as I said, so far I'll grant anything with a complex-enough brain (not sure where the dividing line is though).

I think we MUST bring it up because it has a direct bearing on the discussion. I certainly don't "blame" you for bringing it up.

My point however is this: You said my robot isn't alive, but it is just as aware as the ameboa. If awareness indicates life, my robot is alive. Yet noone would call my robot alive. Very few would call the Universe alive either, because it shares none of the features of anything else on Earth we call living, as far as we can tell.

It seems like we're just getting to the heart of the conversation, but I need another cup of coffee. I'll up it up from here in a bit.

This is a great conversation by the way! Thanks.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Your comments are meaningless:

M: Lets' talk about GR and how gravity bends 'spacetime'.
LE: There is no such thing as "spacetime", just "space" and "time". You're just playing word games.
M: No, actually gravity can essentially bend spacetime and cause "time" as you describe it to run at a different rate in different places and speeds. That's a highly specific "prediction" of GR theory.
LE: But all I have to do is disagree with your use of the term "spacetime" and you're dead in the water! This is not a scientific theory.
M: But this theory makes testable "predictions" that are very different from Newton's understanding of gravity.
LE: Gravity is gravity. There is no such thing as "spacetime". You just made that up, and all I have to do is disagree with you on the use of the term "spacetime" and your stuck and can't demonstrate your point.
M: Gah!

Micheal, all this stuff in this thread, is your problem, not mine. It is your thread, your theory, your definition of "God" and "awareness" and the like, your etc. And it is your outlook how this conversation went.

If any of this is off, if you, for instance, are running with definitions of "God," "awareness" and "life" (I believe I have seen that one, but I'm not sure) that would not ring true with the vast majority of people ... again your problem, not mine.

You must believe this stuff, not me.

And as a comment on the mock conservation that you posted ... Were I to offer and insist on non-standard definitions of space-time, then yes, that would be my problem, and you would be absolutely right to flat out reject it.

 

[Michael]

Micheal, all this stuff in this thread, is your problem, not mine. It is your thread, your theory, your definition of "God" and "awareness" and the like, your etc. And it is your outlook how this conversation went.

If any of this is off, if you, for instance, are running with definitions of "God," "awareness" and "life" (I believe I have seen that one, but I'm not sure) that would not ring true with the vast majority of people ... again your problem, not mine.

You must believe this stuff, not me.

And as a comment on the mock conservation that you posted ... Were I to offer and insist on non-standard definitions of space-time, then yes, that would be my problem, and you would be absolutely right to flat out reject it.

The basic problem is clearly demonstrated in my GR analogy LE. You're effectively complaining because I'm deviating from a Newtonian concept of "space" and "time". You are then refusing to go any further. That's not a scientific attitude that anyone can work with.

Like any empirical theory, this empirical theory makes highly specific predictions that can be "falsified" or "verified" in the standard scientific manner. Like GR when it was first proposed, some aspects of this theory cannot now be demonstrated. Like GR theory, that is not a valid reason to reject it, nor is the fact that it deviates from "standard thinking" of the time!

 

[Michael]

I've already mentioned one piece of evidence: block God's EM signals. That wouldn't be conclusive, but if that stopped religious experience I'd be more interested in pursuing the idea of a living Universe.

How exactly would we be sure if it "blocked religious" experiences even if it did "seem" to have a significant effect on something like 'meditation' for instance? I suppose you could look at the effect on the human brain, but someone who is trained to meditate might be able to internally recreate many aspects of the experience, a sense of peace for instance. I'm not sure how you'd grade the process in a "non subjective" way.

I do however see the logic of your experiment and it seems worthwhile, I'm just not sure how effective it would be, or how impartial it would be. Tracking energy flows just seems less "subjective" from my perspective.

Here's some objective standards: if you can figure out how to communicate reliably with the Universe in similar fashion too the way I'm communicating to you right now, I'll accept that the Universe has awareness. Other than that, I can't think of anything that would really convince me.

Well, I think most folks would assume that particular path is found through mediation and prayer. That is what it took to convince me personally by the way. Unfortunately it's not something I can hand you in a bottle.

OK. I don't really know what awareness is at a fundamental level, but I think it's more than just complex behavior (though I do think it is fundamentally mechanical in the way that I think all things that exist are, for the most part).

As it relates to the robot thing I'd rather not get too hung up on the concept other than to say that unless the robot is physically "alive", how do we know if what it does is "aware", or simply "programmed" in an intelligently designed way? At some point don't we have to ask ourselves, if our need to come up with an "intelligent design" to get it to simulate all these behaviors is evidence of an intelligent universe?

But, let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong. Life, aside from God, can't be explained except through intelligent design. This still doesn't point to your electric pantheism. Some supernatural god that created this Universe from some other universe could just as easily fit the bill.

Well, to explain what humans have been reporting throughout history, a "distant being" would still need some way to interact within this universe. I'd still be inclined to look at the EM field in that case anyway. It seems to me all you're doing is creating a "distance" problem, along with an "interface" problem that is simply unnecessarily complicated. I don't see how it "just as easily" fits the bill. You might be able to cobble something together, but I doubt it would be "easier".

I''ll keep that in mind. Not much in the mood to do that sort of reading right now, though.

Birkeland's work is your best bet IMO. It's free for one thing, and it's also highly empirical by design. IMO he was the quintessential scientist. He physically replicated and "predicted things" (real empirical prediction by the way) with his experiments that we now see in modern satellite images. He did all this 100 years ago, before we even had a working model of the atom and almost no understanding of the meaning of Maxwell's equations.

Alas, all I've really seen from you to discredit lambda-CDM is unbacked assertion that it amounts to nothing but supernatual nonsense. Prove me wrong by engaging Sandwich's arguments.

The problem with Lambda-CMD theory is that we could simply rename the supernatural verbiage and call it 'Godflation', "God energy' and "God matter" and the theory would be empirically indistinguishable from a 'religion'. It would be equally dependent on "supernatural" entities. Adding an awareness to the big bang process is trivially simple to justify compared to physically justifying any of the three metaphysical bad boys of Lambda-CMD theory IMO.

ETA: and your continuing to call it "godflation" is not making me warm up to your argument, that's for sure.

I'll try to focus on this theory, but there are aspects of this theory that directly related to cosmology and it's certainly a "big picture" sort of theory. It's only natural that we will have to compare it to contemporary theory and it will have to be justified just like contemporary theory is justified.

I'd call it the Universe, because that's what I've always called it. You're the one who says I should call it God.

Technically I didn't invent that concept.

What are the defining characteristics of "God"?

Electrical activity in spacetime and variable magnetic fields are defining characteristics of this particular theory.

How does the Universe meet these requirements.

Honestly I would say that it remains to be seen. At it's most fundamental level it does in fact meet these requirements both inside our solar system and outside of it as well. Whether or not it's enough to show it's "electrically active" is another story. The universe is electrically active to be sure, but is that enough?

Your notion of God is counter to most people's notion of what it means to be God, that I need to ask why I should accept it as valid.

Not necessarily. Why did Jesus say that in the end we would know that we were all one *IN* God? He also stated that the kingdom of heaven is found within and taught that no intercession between God and man is necessary. He said that a kingdom divided would not stand, and we should love even our enemies. All of these teachings are fundamentally in agreement with this theory. I believe I can make a very good case theologically speaking that this theory is completely congruent with Christianity. It seems to apply quite well to the Hindu concept of "Brahman" as well. I've not studied Islam enough to say for sure but Islam claims to honor Jesus as a great prophet. I can make a pretty good case that this theory is applicable strictly with Jesus' teachings so I think it probably applies there as well.

It's certainly 'different' than what I believed as a child, but my understanding of the universe has changed a great deal since that time and modern satellite images have taught us a lot in the last few decades.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The basic problem is clearly demonstrated in my GR analogy LE. You're effectively complaining because I'm deviating from a Newtonian concept of "space" and "time". You are then refusing to go any further.

What is what in your analogy?

The Newtonian concepts of "space" and "time"
ARE
theistic conceptions of life, the universe and everything in general, and awareness and God in particular.​

Right?

If so, then yes I am refusing to go any further. But not in the way you make it out to be. I am merely unwilling to treat what you offer even in principle, regardless of whether there is any merit to it or not, as theistic conception, or, to stay in your analogy as Newtonian concepts.


And as an afterthought ... One fundamental difference between "time" and "space" on one hand and, say, "God" on the other hand is that "time" and "space" point to the very same thing in both Newtonian and relativistic conceptions. The conceptions themselves may be different but they point to the same things *out there*. This is different with "God" as normally understood and with the type of God that you are offering. They point to very different things; one points outside of the universe, to something that creates, but is not, the universe and so on, whereas the other points to the universe.

I hope this makes it clearer:

Time (Newt. <-> Rel.)
Names: the same
Concepts: differ
Referents: the same

God (standard <-> pantheist/Michael)
Names: the same
Concepts: varies; (sometimes similar, sometimes different)
Referents: different

 

[Michael]

Gah!

 

[sandwiches]

Gah!

I have to agree with Lord Emsworth here. You've used the words 'empirical,' 'theory,' 'faith,' 'living', 'life,' 'awareness' in ways that are not their common definition and worse, in ways that would directly support your assumptions.

For a reasonable debate or conversation to take place, the participants have to agree on terms. And despite the fact that we've told you that we don't agree with your usage, you keep going on as though they're completely valid and agreed upon terms. And you take it further by then using the same terms that you had previously used in an uncommon way and then equivocate them by using them in their original form to make your assumptions fit common ideas.

 

[Michael]

I have to agree with Lord Emsworth here. You've used the words 'empirical,'

By "empirical" I mean anything you can show me here and now. Just as atheists tend to want to "see" God, "hear" God, "feel" God do something here and now, I too want to "see" inflation or dark energy (or insert metaphysical item of choice) do something to something else in a "controlled experiment".

Your analogy of gravity was a perfect example of an "empirical" force of nature. Regardless of our "belief" or "lack thereof" in something called "gravity", it does in fact have an empirical effect on the "believer" the and "skeptic" alike, right here, right now. That was an excellent example of an "empirical" force of nature.

Another example is the EM field. A skeptic of "electricity" can be shown the effect of the EM field in a variety of ways, right here right now. That is another undeniable 'empirical force of nature".

What is not an empirical force of nature:

Inflation
Godflation
Magicflation
Dark energy
God energy
Magic energy

Why? Because none of these show up in empirical experiments right here right now. They have no empirical effect on the "skeptic'. One has to be a "believer" in the aforementioned items to allow them to be used in a math formula. One cannot empirically "test" the math formula here on Earth, but only based on "point and the sky and add math" exercises that are by design an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Is inflation a 'theory' or a "hypothesis" in your opinion? Dark energy? Please explain.

If I don't have "faith" that the things listed actually exist, will you be able to make them have an effect on me right here right now like your example of gravity or electricity?

'living', 'life,' 'awareness' in ways that are not their common definition

As I mentioned to LE, Einstein didn't use the term 'spacetime' or space or time in a way that was consistent with Newtonian theory either. That's not a logical reason to reject a theory.

I'll admit that my notion of 'awareness' is somewhat unique, but virtually every explanation of awareness is in fact "unique". There is really no well defined consensus on that topic when we get to things like single celled organisms.

 

[sandwiches]

By "empirical" I mean anything you can show me here and now. Just as atheists tend to want to "see" God, "hear" God, "feel" God do something here and now, I too want to "see" inflation or dark energy (or insert metaphysical item of choice) do something to something else in a "controlled experiment".

Your analogy of gravity was a perfect example of an "empirical" force of nature. Regardless of our "belief" or "lack thereof" in something called "gravity", it does in fact have an empirical effect on the "believer" the and "skeptic" alike, right here, right now. That was an excellent example of an "empirical" force of nature.

Another example is the EM field. A skeptic of "electricity" can be shown the effect of the EM field in a variety of ways, right here right now. That is another undeniable 'empirical force of nature".

What is not an empirical force of nature:

Inflation
Godflation
Magicflation
Dark energy
God energy
Magic energy

Why? Because none of these show up in empirical experiments right here right now. They have no empirical effect on the "skeptic'. One has to be a "believer" in the aforementioned items to allow them to be used in a math formula. One cannot empirically "test" the math formula here on Earth, but only based on "point and the sky and add math" exercises that are by design an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Is inflation a 'theory' or a "hypothesis" in your opinion? Dark energy? Please explain.

If I don't have "faith" that the things listed actually exist, will you be able to make them have an effect on me right here right now like your example of gravity or electricity?



As I mentioned to LE, Einstein didn't use the term 'spacetime' or space or time in a way that was consistent with Newtonian theory either. That's not a logical reason to reject a theory.

I'll admit that my notion of 'awareness' is somewhat unique, but virtually every explanation of awareness is in fact "unique". There is really no well defined consensus on that topic when we get to things like single celled organisms.

This thread is not about inflation. This thread is about empirical evidence of God. You've yet to provide any.

 

[Michael]

This thread is not inflation. This thread is about empirical evidence of God. You've yet to provide any.

You asked me to define "empirical". I defined it exactly as you define it in reference to the topic of God. Inflation doesn't show up in a lab.

 

[sandwiches]

You asked me to define "empirical". I defined it exactly as you define it in reference to the topic of God. Inflation doesn't show up in a lab.

So, where's the empirical evidence of the universe being god?

 

[Doveaman]

So, where's the empirical evidence of the universe being god?

It is true that since Michael proposed an empirical theory of God then he is to show the empirical evidence for his idea, which he is seeking to do.

But what I don’t get is your demand for empirical evidence of his theory/hypothesis but yet you accept without question the inflation hypothesis despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence for inflation. Why?

To quote Michael:

By "empirical" I mean anything you can show me here and now. Just as atheists tend to want to "see" God, "hear" God, "feel" God do something here and now, I too want to "see" inflation or dark energy (or insert metaphysical item of choice) do something to something else in a "controlled experiment".

I would like to see this too. Can you or anyone show it?

The way I see it, if you are going to reject Michael's theory because you consider it lacks empirical evidence, then you should also reject modern cosmology which is completely dependent upon inflation for which there is no empirical evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

It is true that since Michael proposed an empirical theory of God then he is to show the empirical evidence for his idea, which he is seeking to do.

But what I don’t get is your demand for empirical evidence of his theory/hypothesis but yet you accept without question the inflation hypothesis despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence for inflation. Why?

To quote Michael:

By "empirical" I mean anything you can show me here and now. Just as atheists tend to want to "see" God, "hear" God, "feel" God do something here and now, I too want to "see" inflation or dark energy (or insert metaphysical item of choice) do something to something else in a "controlled experiment".

I would like to see this too. Can you or anyone show it?

The way I see it, if you are going to reject Michael's theory because you consider it lacks empirical evidence, then you should also reject modern cosmology which is completely dependent upon inflation for which there is no empirical evidence.

I reject inflation. Now, can you show me the evidence for the "god is the universe" claim?

 

[Michael]

So, where's the empirical evidence of the universe being god?

The evidence is in the electrical nature of the universe, it's variable "cycles", it's unpredictable energy transfers (we call them coronal mass ejections), etc.

There's a key difference here between an empirical theory like this one and a metaphysical theory like 'inflation', namely there are empirical ways to test the theory here and now.

Let's try a different question. Have you heard of a "better" theory to explain God from a theistic point of view? (In other words I'm not asking if you're heard of a "better" atheistic explanation)

 

[Michael]

It is true that since Michael proposed an empirical theory of God then he is to show the empirical evidence for his idea, which he is seeking to do.

But what I don’t get is your demand for empirical evidence of his theory/hypothesis but yet you accept without question the inflation hypothesis despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence for inflation. Why?

To quote Michael:

By "empirical" I mean anything you can show me here and now. Just as atheists tend to want to "see" God, "hear" God, "feel" God do something here and now, I too want to "see" inflation or dark energy (or insert metaphysical item of choice) do something to something else in a "controlled experiment".

I would like to see this too. Can you or anyone show it?

The way I see it, if you are going to reject Michael's theory because you consider it lacks empirical evidence, then you should also reject modern cosmology which is completely dependent upon inflation for which there is no empirical evidence.

IMO they are conditioned to believe that science is sort of a theistic substitute for 'thruthiness". It's unnerving to them to find out that much of what they believe is "science" is nothing more than a "false religion" that lacks the same empirical support that they loathe about the topic of God.

Even when you offer them a purely empirical definition of God, they balk at the concept, but blindly adhere to a metaphysical belief that has less empirical support than the topic of God. It's a fascinating double standard, but you see it play out over and over and over again with atheists.

 

[sandwiches]

The evidence is in the electrical nature of the universe, it's variable "cycles", it's unpredictable energy transfers (we call them coronal mass ejections), etc.

There's a key difference here between an empirical theory like this one and a metaphysical theory like 'inflation', namely there are empirical ways to test the theory here and now.

Let's try a different question. Have you heard of a "better" theory to explain God from a theistic point of view? (In other words I'm not asking if you're heard of a "better" atheistic explanation)

So 'coronal mass ejections' are the evidence that the universe is God? Can you elaborate?

 

[Michael]

So 'coronal mass ejections' are the evidence that the universe is God? Can you elaborate?

These high energy events are clear evidence of variable EM fields that are consistent with variable biological processes. The sun has a consistent 22 year cycle related to the rotation of the suns magnetic field that creates 11 year high and low cycles of solar energy output. We see variations galore even during "quiet" phases of the sun, and certainly during the sun's active phases. We observe all sorts of unusual energy exchanges between the photosphere and the heliosphere, particularly during active phases. All of these observations are consistent with macroscopic biological processes.