An Empirical Theory Of God

[sandwiches]

I really do not understand this comparison. What's the point of comparing a "typical' experience of 'love" to something like an acid trip? I really don't get it.

As concisely explained to you, it is all in your head, regardless of what you may have accomplished or done because of those feelings. Just like an acid trip can make people do stuff like stab themselves, jump off a building, or run around screaming, the fact remains that the feeling of love remains in your head the same way an acid trip does.

Due to the design of my DNA I have 'eyes' that I trust to help me provide an input into awareness that tells me something useful about the outside world around me. The same goes for my nose, my sense of touch, my sense of smell. I trust all those inputs into 'awareness" to provide me with accurate and useful information. I do the same thing with my 'feelings'. They provide useful input that helps me have "compassion" for my fellow man, and that help me to live less selfishly. Why would I distrust my feelings (like love) the way I might distrust my experience on an acid trip? Your analogy is meaningless IMO.

I never said you should distrust your feelings. I said that feelings alone aren't enough proof of anything other than you're having a feeling, is all. If I feel a sense of dread like someone is in the house with me when it is demonstrably empty, then my feeling is unwarranted and a conclusion that there's someone in my house merely because of my feeling would be incorrect.

 

[Michael]

As concisely explained to you, it is all in your head, regardless of what you may have accomplished or done because of those feelings. Just like an acid trip can make people do stuff like stab themselves, jump off a building, or run around screaming, the fact remains that the feeling of love remains in your head the same way an acid trip does.

I suppose my basic question is: Are feelings any less of a physically real process by virtue of the fact that feelings require "specific circuitry"' that happens to be located in my head?

 

[Nostromo]

I think the reason that many theists use this definition is because they believe that some or most atheists think they're taking a neutral stance or no stance at all in the question of the existence of a god.

Many theists know that many atheists try to portray atheism this way. But what you have described is agnosticism, not atheism.

I disagree, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. A person can be one or the other, or both.

Agnosticism is sometimes used to describe the opinion that matters of God are essentially unknowable, and sometimes someone who only believes what the evidence tells him, and I suppose you could say that sandwiches' example could fit either description. It also fits someone who does not have a belief in god(s), i.e. an atheist. It might seem a little too obvious, but an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist, regardless of why they're not a theist, and any other beliefs they might have.

I would say that the type of person described by sandwiches is both agnostic and an atheist.

 

[Doveaman]

There are over 20,000 denominations of Christianity...However, all of them adhere to the Nicene Creed. That is the necessary and sufficient beliefs to be Christian.

What about those who do not adhere to this part of the creed:

"We believe in one holy catholic...church."

There are some Christians who reject catholic teachings and consider some of their practices to be a form of idolatry.

Are those Christians not Christians?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

What about those who do not adhere to this part of the creed:

"We believe in one holy catholic...church."

There are some Christians who reject catholic teachings and consider some of their practices to be a form of idolatry.

Are those Christians not Christians?

Well, they're not True Christians.

 

[razeontherock]

As concisely explained to you, it is all in your head, regardless of what you may have accomplished or done because of those feelings. Just like an acid trip can make people do stuff like stab themselves, jump off a building, or run around screaming, the fact remains that the feeling of love remains in your head the same way an acid trip does.

A truly deplorable thought, both tending toward and coming from hopelessness.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

A truly deplorable thought, both tending toward and coming from hopelessness.

Say no to drugs.

 

[Gracchus]

As concisely explained to you, it is all in your head, regardless of what you may have accomplished or done because of those feelings. Just like an acid trip can make people do stuff like stab themselves, jump off a building, or run around screaming, the fact remains that the feeling of love remains in your head the same way an acid trip does.

A truly deplorable thought, both tending toward and coming from hopelessness.

Whether a thought is "deplorabe" or not is, I think, of secondary importance to whether it is true.

What we are inclined to believe is largely determined by pheromones, hormones and endorphins. It takes some care and courage to involve reasoning at all.

 

[razeontherock]

I suppose my basic question is: Are feelings any less of a physically real process by virtue of the fact that feelings require "specific circuitry"' that happens to be located in my head?

Obviously not.

Back to your OP, have you ever read Enoch? He sure refers to "circuits" of celestial bodies a lot ...

 

[Michael]

Whether a thought is "deplorabe" or not is, I think, of secondary importance to whether it is true.

What we are inclined to believe is largely determined by pheromones, hormones and endorphins. It takes some care and courage to involve reasoning at all.

You still seem to be ignoring the implications of that God helmet information IMO. The fact that the chemical/circuit processing takes place *inside* the skull doesn't necessarily mean the experience is a completely *internally* driven event. Did you folks care to address that point?

 

[Nostromo]

You still seem to be ignoring the implications of that God helmet information IMO. The fact that the chemical/circuit processing takes place *inside* the skull doesn't necessarily mean the experience is a completely *internally* driven event. Did you folks care to address that point?

It doesn't necessarily mean the experience is completely internally driven, but until we have evidence to confirm something else (and by that I mean evidence that something else actually is happening, not just that it could happen), that's the understanding we have.

 

[sandwiches]

I suppose my basic question is: Are feelings any less of a physically real process by virtue of the fact that feelings require "specific circuitry"' that happens to be located in my head?

Of course they are as physical and as real as any result of a physical process.

 

[sandwiches]

You still seem to be ignoring the implications of that God helmet information IMO. The fact that the chemical/circuit processing takes place *inside* the skull doesn't necessarily mean the experience is a completely *internally* driven event. Did you folks care to address that point?

I have said multiple times that thoughts and feelings CAN BE affected by external stimuli. This much is obvious as evidenced by drugs, blows to the head, being moved by a song or painting, etc. This does not change the fact that simply feeling or thinking something is evidence that these are reflect reality.

For instance, if I hear a beautiful song, I close my eyes and I feel like I'm flying. Am I actually flying? No. I feel like I am flying even though I'm not. This is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Internal feelings and thoughts do not necessarily reflect what is actually happening.

 

[Doveaman]

For instance, if I hear a beautiful song, I close my eyes and I feel like I'm flying.

What song is that? Sounds very addicting.

 

[sandwiches]

What song is that? Sounds very addicting.

Different songs and types of music can make me have different feelings. Some make sad, some happy, some make me feel nostalgia, some give me a sense of freedom, some make me paranoid, some nervous, etc.

 

[fester30]

I've seen an awful lot of effort in proving gods exist by showing that the origins of the universe had to have an intelligent design. God is not measurable in any way. God is not in the realm of science. God is purely in the realm of faith, so the efforts to prove an existence of god are never sound in science, and all "scientific" theories on the existence of gods that I've seen involve at least some philosophy and/or metaphysics. True science does not require such things.

My biggest issue is with people who follow religions. I can understand Deists. Okay, sure, perhaps there's a god if that's what you feel you need to believe to explain gaps in our understanding of the universe. That's fine. How does this lead to Christianity over Buddhism, or Islam over Hinduism, or Judaism over believe in Amun-Ra? Are you really certain Jesus or Muhammad is the way to go instead of Zeus? Deists, at least, can claim some sanity in the argument. Once a theist goes to specific religions that preach that gods are actively involved with the world, that's where science and even common sense goes out the window.

 

[Michael]

I've seen an awful lot of effort in proving gods exist by showing that the origins of the universe had to have an intelligent design.

I'm saying that the universe *IS* intelligent. There's a difference actually.

God is not measurable in any way.

In the sense that the universe is measurable, this definition of God is definitely measurable. That is you "statement of faith" by the way. And you guys claim atheism isn't a "religion". Tsk, tsk.

God is not in the realm of science.

Hey, two statements of faith, back to back. Your version of atheism is *definitely* a "religion" based on "faith".

God is purely in the realm of faith, so the efforts to prove an existence of god are never sound in science, and all "scientific" theories on the existence of gods that I've seen involve at least some philosophy and/or metaphysics.

Well then, you really need to read through this thread for real. Compared to standard cosmology theory, pantheism is complete "physics" whereas mainstream theory is 96 percent metaphysical in nature.

True science does not require such things.

You mean besides dark energy, dark matter and inflation genies?

My biggest issue is with people who follow religions.

Well, I do in fact consider myself a "Christian" and Jesus is my Lord and savior. I suggest you get over your fear of all religion, particularly if you intend to swing around your own statement of faith's as you see fit.

I can understand Deists. Okay, sure, perhaps there's a god if that's what you feel you need to believe to explain gaps in our understanding of the universe. That's fine. How does this lead to Christianity over Buddhism, or Islam over Hinduism, or Judaism over believe in Amun-Ra? Are you really certain Jesus or Muhammad is the way to go instead of Zeus? Deists, at least, can claim some sanity in the argument. Once a theist goes to specific religions that preach that gods are actively involved with the world, that's where science and even common sense goes out the window.

I suggest you ignore the religious implications of pantheism entirely as you read through this tread. Once you've actually read it, I'll be happy to discuss the "religious" implications, but I have no confidence at the moment that you even begin to grasp the scientific implications of pantheism yet.

 

[Michael]

New Scientist TV: Time-lapse Tuesday: A frog's electric face

This article caught my attention. It seems that "electricity" is the ingredient in the DNA replication mechanism that is responsible for cell specialization. My how well that fits with an electrically oriented view of the universe.

 

[hasone]

edit: nevermind, I hadn't read the OP yet.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just as the electrical circuits in our physical forms give rise to awareness and consciousness in our brains, so too the macroscopic “circuits” of the universe give rise to awareness and a consciousness on a truly cosmic scale.

I can't think of any good reason to believe this. The Universe isn't structured like a brain.

Scientific research into living organisms demonstrates that the intricate structures of the brain give rise to awareness.

True.

The electrical exchange of energy between neurons, the circuits of the brain create a kind of ‘quantum awareness’ that is the sum total of the thinking processes, of an organized structure, over some period of time.

This is not known to be true.

Honestly, all this sounds like New Age fluff.


eudaimonia,

Mark