An Empirical Theory Of God

[Non sequitur]

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

The universe has the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills?

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.

I was not aware of any scientific tools that allowed us to see "God"...

You are hopping from the tangible to the intangible, by forcing an interpretation of what "it" is.

If you do that, then "it" can be an infinite amount of things, with an infinite amount of characteristics.

That leads us no further along than where we started.

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.

Getting high on PCP gives you the sense of invulnerability and some people don't go killing themselves.

Why get over the fear of PCP?

 

[Michael]

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

Well, it is certainly electromagnetic in nature like a brain. It has non consistent energy exchanges like a brain. It has central energy points (suns and galaxies) like a brain (neurons). I has quantum process going on inside of it like a brain.

This is not known to be true.

Honestly, all this sounds like New Age fluff.

Pantheism is actually an ancient idea. It's only because we have new technologies and better understanding of the universe and of brain activity that the idea has "new" scientific merit in this age.

 

[Michael]

FYI, cats may think of themselves as "God", but most of us humans think of ourselves as being one *IN* God.

 

[Michael]

The universe has the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills?

Perhaps so. New "experiences" seem to be possible which would imply new knowledge and new skills.

I was not aware of any scientific tools that allowed us to see "God"...

It's called a "telescope".

You are hopping from the tangible to the intangible, by forcing an interpretation of what "it" is.

If you do that, then "it" can be an infinite amount of things, with an infinite amount of characteristics.

That leads us no further along than where we started.

Sure it does. We started with NO understanding of the living nature of the universe we live in. We end up with an understanding that the universe we live it is alive and capable of interacting with us. It surely could have virtually an infinite amount of characteristics, but there are in fact "laws of physics" that seem to apply to all things, including the universe as a whole.

Getting high on PCP gives you the sense of invulnerability and some people don't go killing themselves.

Why get over the fear of PCP?

Talk about non-sequiturs.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, it is certainly electromagnetic in nature like a brain. It has non consistent energy exchanges like a brain. It has central energy points (suns and galaxies) like a brain (neurons). I has quantum process going on inside of it like a brain.

And yet, it's not a brain. If you hear hooves, don't automatically think 'zebra'.

Pantheism is actually an ancient idea. It's only because we have new technologies and better understanding of the universe and of brain activity that the idea has "new" scientific merit in this age.

Only among those who find merit in New Age fluff and 'quantum mysticism'.

 

[Non sequitur]

Perhaps so. New "experiences" seem to be possible which would imply new knowledge and new skills.

You are talking about our understanding of the universe, not the universe acquiring new skills.

It's called a "telescope".

Please provide coordinates for your god. I would like to see this.

Sure it does. We started with NO understanding of the living nature of the universe we live in. We end up with an understanding that the universe we live it is alive and capable of interacting with us. It surely could have virtually an infinite amount of characteristics, but there are in fact "laws of physics" that seem to apply to all things, including the universe as a whole.

Again, "it" would still be an unknown.

Talk about non-sequiturs.

Yes, that statement was made to parallel your statement.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[Michael]

You are talking about our understanding of the universe, not the universe acquiring new skills.

Perhaps both things happen simultaneously?

Please provide coordinates for your god. I would like to see this.

Pick any coordinate you like, and pretty much any wavelength of light you like. There is nowhere you can look that you won't "see" God.

Again, "it" would still be an unknown.

I could identify a living creature in the ocean, say a dolphin, and label it, and film it, etc, but it's personality remains "unknown" to me. So?

Yes, that statement was made to parallel your statement.

I'm glad you agree.

I think you haven't actually read this thread yet. I have provided a lot of links between external EM influences and internal thought processes (responses) to show a physical link between a human brain and an electric universe.

 

[Michael]

And yet, it's not a brain. If you hear hooves, don't automatically think 'zebra'.

How do you know that? When I hear hooves I often think "horse' and when I finally do see the animal, that's very often what is in fact making the noise.

Only among those who find merit in New Age fluff and 'quantum mysticism'.

Actually quantum mysticism isn't all that "new age". By your definition then Jesus was into "new age quantum mysticism" as well. He said things like the kingdom of heaven is found within and that in the end we would know that we are all one *in* God and stuff like that. I'm evidently in good company.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think you haven't actually read this thread yet. I have provided a lot of links between external EM influences and internal thought processes (responses) to show a physical link between a human brain and an electric universe.

Says you. There's a reason the rest of us are unconvinced by your claim that "The universe is God's brain! Literally!".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do you know that? When I hear hooves I often think "horse' and when I finally do see the animal, that's very often what is in fact making the noise.

Yea, that's rather the point. If you see electrical discharges in the universe, it's fallacious to instantly assume they create a conciousness just because there are electrical discharges in a brain. It's like recognising similarities between the eye and a camera, and concluding that the eye is a camera, or that a camera is an eye. Superficial similarities are often just that. The simpler option ("It's a horse") is more probable than the exotic option ("It's a zebra").

Actually quantum mysticism isn't all that "new age". By your definition then Jesus was into "new age quantum mysticism" as well. He said things like the kingdom of heaven is found within and that in the end we would know that we are all one *in* God and stuff like that. I'm evidently in good company.

Jesus was not espousing quantum mysticism. Unless I miss a part in the Sermon on the Mount about how the quantum mechanical observer effect proves that conciousness creates reality (or whatever these mystics are throwing out there these days).

 

[Non sequitur]

Perhaps both things happen simultaneously?

Perhaps. I'd think either of us who lay claim to knowing the truth would be foolish, then.

Pick any coordinate you like, and pretty much any wavelength of light you like. There is nowhere you can look that you won't "see" God.

Keep generalizing something, until it fits every definition?

That seems to be cop-out and moving the goal posts.


"Love is all around us" lends credit to the concept of it existing, but can't make any claims about it, much less any specific love.

I could identify a living creature in the ocean, say a dolphin, and label it, and film it, etc, but it's personality remains "unknown" to me. So?

Agreed.

Any person, in that situation, would see this physical thing you labeled.

Not sure what naming the physical has to do with anything...

I think you haven't actually read this thread yet. I have provided a lot of links between external EM influences and internal thought processes (responses) to show a physical link between a human brain and an electric universe.

And what is that supposed to prove?

 

[nebulaJP]

I have a thread going that is somewhat related to this. I have a theory about how to explain the Bible if a conscious universe actually had something to do with 'directly inspiring' it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has ever figured this out (what I wrote about in the thread) but I just realized it. Click on the arrow to the right of my screen name below:

link above

 

[Michael]

Perhaps. I'd think either of us who lay claim to knowing the truth would be foolish, then.

I suppose that depends on the kind of "truth" we're talking about doesn't it? Gravity seems like a "truth" from my perspective. Whether you believe in gravity or not, it allows for life on Earth, it has a physical and tangible effect on all living things, etc. The "truth" of the matter is that I have every reason to believe that the sun will continue to shine for many days.

Keep generalizing something, until it fits every definition?

Well, in this case, you probably have a valid criticism on that score. Then again, there are in fact electromagnetic and physical similarities between life on Earth, and conditions everywhere in the universe. Water for instance has been seen at distances of over 12 billion light years from Earth.

That seems to be cop-out and moving the goal posts.

IMO it's neither. Nobody has technically "moved" anything in your lifetime or mine. In other words, Pantheism (as a scientific theory) precedes us both and will survive us both. Whether you buy into the idea, I certainly didn't shift any goal posts. Jesus himself said over 2000 years ago that in the end we would know that we are one *IN* God. I believe he meant that quite literally.

"Love is all around us" lends credit to the concept of it existing, but can't make any claims about it, much less any specific love.

I'm mostly interested in the kind of love that Jesus describes, specifically the divine, unconditional love of our universal creator. Assuming such a thing does exist and permeate the cosmos, it should be measurable on some wavelength.

Agreed.

Any person, in that situation, would see this physical thing you labeled.

Not sure what naming the physical has to do with anything...

Well, the stars in the cosmos are in fact there and physically visible. We might disagree that it's "alive" at the moment, but we can both certainly see it at various wavelengths of light. You would observe pretty much the same images in x-ray as I would see were we to look at YOKHOH or SDO images of the sun, even if we "interpret" them differently.

And what is that supposed to prove?

My point is that I've provided some specific and direct "experiments" to support these ideas. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept, pantheism predates us both. I simply provided empirical support for the idea, and noted the EM similarities between human brain activity, and EM events in space. Again, you can "observe" these very same EM driven events, even if we 'interpret' them very uniquely.

Compared to standard Lambda-gumby-magic theory for instance, this particularly empirical theory of the universe requires no magical "dark" energies, not special forms of matter, no magical density defying, faster than light expanding inflation processes, etc. There's really no other cosmology theory that is entirely empirical in that way, and no other theistic theory that I'm aware of that is entirely empirical by design.

Whether you agree or disagree with this theory, on purely empirical scientific grounds, I can certainly support pantheism better than you can support standard cosmology theory at the dawn of the 21st century. IMO we're still living in the "dark" ages of astronomy.

 

[Michael]

I have a thread going that is somewhat related to this. I have a theory about how to explain the Bible if a conscious universe actually had something to do with 'directly inspiring' it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has ever figured this out (what I wrote about in the thread) but I just realized it. Click on the arrow to the right of my screen name below:

FYI, that thread is a bit off topic in this particular discussion, but I'll say briefly that the term 'sin' derives from the term "missing the mark." Humans can sometimes act very 'selfishly' and they will often ignore our common connection to all living and conscious things to generate a "profit", or for personal gain. That is the inherent "danger" of allowing free beings to have 'free will'. They will misuse power as well as use it correctly. I think you're missing the mark by trying to pin the sins of humans on God.

Why for instance do some people chose to "kill" when they have political or religious differences with others? Is that really God's fault, and God's doing?

Jesus was very specific about God's love, and his characterization of God's love. He insisted that we "love our enemies" and that we "turn the other cheek". Jesus sacrificed his life for his beliefs, but not once did he "kill" over his religious or political differences with anyone.

 

[Michael]

Yea, that's rather the point. If you see electrical discharges in the universe, it's fallacious to instantly assume they create a conciousness just because there are electrical discharges in a brain. It's like recognising similarities between the eye and a camera, and concluding that the eye is a camera, or that a camera is an eye. Superficial similarities are often just that. The simpler option ("It's a horse") is more probable than the exotic option ("It's a zebra").

Your analogy is interesting for a couple of reasons IMO. The camera (or at least the lens) is in fact an "intelligently designed" piece that does in fact mirror the functions of a human eye in it's ability to focus light. It's may have been inspired by the eye for all I know. There was an 'intelligence' behind both the design of the camera and the eye.

Secondly, whether it's a horse or a zebra, it's still a living thing. Even a guess of a "zebra" is probably better closer to the truth than claiming "it's nothing important". .

I'm simply pointing out that both the brain and the universe are EM driven process at a fundamental level. That hardly seems coincidental from my perspective. Who's to decide which is the more "probable" explanation for these similarities?

Jesus was not espousing quantum mysticism.

What do you believe he meant when he said that the kingdom of heaven was found within, or by stating that we are one *IN* God?

Unless I miss a part in the Sermon on the Mount about how the quantum mechanical observer effect proves that conciousness creates reality (or whatever these mystics are throwing out there these days).

I don't from that speech that the consciousness of the OBSERVER creates reality in terms of "macroscopic" (large scale) events. Jesus said that he makes the sun shine and rains fall on saint and sinner alike. It sounds very much like he believed that "God" was "in charge" of pretty much everything, though not in charge of "human choice".

 

[Michael]

Says you. There's a reason the rest of us are unconvinced by your claim that "The universe is God's brain! Literally!".

FYI, actually my "claim" is that the universe is the very real and very tangible physical "body" of God. It has very interesting similarities to a human brain and nervous system in terms of the EM processes that exist in it, and manifest thought it.

 

[Non sequitur]

I suppose that depends on the kind of "truth" we're talking about doesn't it? Gravity seems like a "truth" from my perspective. Whether you believe in gravity or not, it allows for life on Earth, it has a physical and tangible effect on all living things, etc. The "truth" of the matter is that I have every reason to believe that the sun will continue to shine for many days.

Gravity is demonstrable and can be tested.

Well, in this case, you probably have a valid criticism on that score. Then again, there are in fact electromagnetic and physical similarities between life on Earth, and conditions everywhere in the universe. Water for instance has been seen at distances of over 12 billion light years from Earth.

You kind of make my point.

IMO it's neither. Nobody has technically "moved" anything in your lifetime or mine. In other words, Pantheism (as a scientific theory) precedes us both and will survive us both. Whether you buy into the idea, I certainly didn't shift any goal posts. Jesus himself said over 2000 years ago that in the end we would know that we are one *IN* God. I believe he meant that quite literally.

When you keep removing qualifiers or answers, you are deluding a concept. Eventually, anything will fit.

This doesn't validate anything.

I'm mostly interested in the kind of love that Jesus describes, specifically the divine, unconditional love of our universal creator. Assuming such a thing does exist and permeate the cosmos, it should be measurable on some wavelength.

Please let me know when you find this device that tests and measures "love".

Unless you are going to start making analogies and saying metaphorical things.

Well, the stars in the cosmos are in fact there and physically visible. We might disagree that it's "alive" at the moment, but we can both certainly see it at various wavelengths of light. You would observe pretty much the same images in x-ray as I would see were we to look at YOKHOH or SDO images of the sun, even if we "interpret" them differently.

Interpreting the seen or naturally observed as an unnatural concept is rather silly and pointless.

My point is that I've provided some specific and direct "experiments" to support these ideas. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept, pantheism predates us both. I simply provided empirical support for the idea, and noted the EM similarities between human brain activity, and EM events in space. Again, you can "observe" these very same EM driven events, even if we 'interpret' them very uniquely.

Compared to standard Lambda-gumby-magic theory for instance, this particularly empirical theory of the universe requires no magical "dark" energies, not special forms of matter, no magical density defying, faster than light expanding inflation processes, etc. There's really no other cosmology theory that is entirely empirical in that way, and no other theistic theory that I'm aware of that is entirely empirical by design.

Whether you agree or disagree with this theory, on purely empirical scientific grounds, I can certainly support pantheism better than you can support standard cosmology theory at the dawn of the 21st century. IMO we're still living in the "dark" ages of astronomy.

So, we'll just have to go with the known and stay in the world of reality.

 

[nebulaJP]

FYI, that thread is a bit off topic in this particular discussion,

I said my thread is 'somewhat related'.

I think you're missing the mark by trying to pin the sins of humans on God.

I have no idea where you're getting that from. Definitions according to me:

the Bible: a completely nonliteral, fictional/allegorical dramatic novel.

sin: a narrative device used in the Bible to create a conflict between mortals and their deity.

God: the fictional supreme deity of the Bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your analogy is interesting for a couple of reasons IMO. The camera (or at least the lens) is in fact an "intelligently designed" piece that does in fact mirror the functions of a human eye in it's ability to focus light. It's may have been inspired by the eye for all I know. There was an 'intelligence' behind both the design of the camera and the eye.

I agree with every statement up until the last: it's a non sequitur. Just because the camera was fashioned to behave as the eye does, doesn't mean the eye itself was intelligently fashioned. A cave is a natural, undesigned phenomenon, but it has a function (e.g., shelter) which can be replicated in man-made objects (e.g., a tent). But, that doesn't mean the cave is intelligently designed.

Secondly, whether it's a horse or a zebra, it's still a living thing. Even a guess of a "zebra" is probably better closer to the truth than claiming "it's nothing important". .

I disagree. Electrical discharges are hardly uncommon, be it in a computer, in a brain, in a thunderstorm, or in deep space. Just because one set of discharges causes one phenomenon, doesn't mean all of them do. Lightening causes thunder, but it's fallacious to conclude that, hence, there is thunder inside my skull. Likewise, just because synaptic patterns create conciousness (let's assume), doesn't mean all electrical discharges create conciousness.

I'm simply pointing out that both the brain and the universe are EM driven process at a fundamental level. That hardly seems coincidental from my perspective. Who's to decide which is the more "probable" explanation for these similarities?

Logic, and the weight of evidence. The brain certainly uses electric charge to go about its business - but so does pretty much every other part of the body. Contracting muscles, catalysing enzymes, digesting stomach acid, everything uses the EM force in some way. How do you know the universe isn't a giant stomach that's disassembling galactic nutrients, instead of a brain processing galactic synapses? How do you know it's not just a coincidence that there are electrical phenomena in the stomach and the universe at large?

What do you believe he meant when he said that the kingdom of heaven was found within, or by stating that we are one *IN* God?

Off the top of my head, he may well have been espousing the idea that believers in God are equal before God. Spoken poetically, everyone is one in God. The sinner and the saint are all equal before God, all are children of God, all inherit the Kingdom of God, etc. That said, I'd be interested in how you took "you are one in God" and derived the Schrödinger equation.

I don't from that speech that the consciousness of the OBSERVER creates reality in terms of "macroscopic" (large scale) events. Jesus said that he makes the sun shine and rains fall on saint and sinner alike. It sounds very much like he believed that "God" was "in charge" of pretty much everything, though not in charge of "human choice".

I would conclude the same. Of course, just how God influences this control is a matter of some debate. If he makes a tree fall in a forest, diverting someone's path away from danger, does that qualify as influencing human will? If he cures someone of a brain tumour, is he influencing free will? If he can do those things, can he influence sodium intake in a cell, thereby changing how we perceive or analyse the world? That's surely just another form of control, right?

 

[Michael]

I said my thread is 'somewhat related'.

Okey Dokey.

I have no idea where you're getting that from. Definitions according to me:

the Bible: a completely nonliteral, fictional/allegorical dramatic novel.

It's also utterly unrelated to this topic actually.

sin: a narrative device used in the Bible to create a conflict between mortals and their deity.

IMO, a "sin" is actually more along the lines of a "detrimental selfish act", an act that doesn't much care for the effect it has on others and one that has a detrimental effect on others.

God: the fictional supreme deity of the Bible.

This is an EMPIRICAL theory of God, unlike "dark energies" of mainstream theory, "dark matter" and the ever popular Guthism (but utterly impotent), "inflation" genie. I'm talking about things that are tangible, real and exist in nature. We definitely aren't on the same wavelength.