Thanks for clarifying.
I must admit that I haven´t seen you doing all this (but that´s probably due to the fact that I haven´t followed you around all the time). So let´s just say you have.
I will, of course, concede that a physically defined entity is - unlike a "supernaturally" defined one - subject to science. I needn´t even be "forced" to concede that.
If that was your entire point, ok.
Great. We're off to a good empirical start.
However, to me this looks pretty banal. If we can redefine religiously loaded terms like "God", "Holy Spirit" as we see fit (and in view of the fact that they aren´t copyrighted and used in many different definitions, anyway, this appears to be the case), I don´t think it´s a good idea to introduce them into science.
Hmmm. Let's talk "neutrinos" then. At one point in time, we discovered from particle physics experiments that some particle physics transactions resulted in what appeared to be the loss of some small amount of energy. The laws of physics *insisted* that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. So where did that little extra bit of energy go anyway?
A few folks came up with the idea that a small amount of energy was being released as a 'new particle', one never seen in nature before. A great deal of effort was put into trying to figure out exactly how much energy was missing, and what kinds of atoms such a small amount of energy might interact with in terms of actual experiments.
At *some moment in time*, there was no actual "empirical laboratory evidence" for such a particle. After *years* of efforts and lots of money, they finally did demonstrate the existence of such particle in controlled experiments on Earth. There was however a moment in time where the particle itself was "unseen in the lab", only the *effect* of the missing particle was seen in the lab, in the form of a small amount of 'missing energy'.
This is the point in time where Elendur's evidence model is actually useful IMO. Furthermore, you and I have to show some sort of "latitude" about whether or not that law of physics combined with observations in controlled experimentation can be considered evidence of a "missing particle/energy"?
I'm specifically talking about the period of time from the observation of 'missing energy/mass' to the moment that neutrinos were verified in the lab.
Yes? No?
In terms of 'introducing them into science', I'm not actually doing that, I'm simply "observing" that humans the world over have written about *communing with God". They describe *methods* that were used to initiate the process, and they typically describe the 'presence' of God within themselves (as in physically inside them). They often describe the experience of 'Becoming one with the Universe", or "One with God". Christianity takes this one step further in the sense the Jesus described an "intelligent comforter" that would come to others, and "testify" as to the authenticity of his statements. I'm not technically 'introducing' anything into the conversation other than 'evidence' that the connection between God and humans has been talked about for thousands of years.
I'm not changing the term for this 'communion presence', I'm using a term straight from a religious text that describes this process in detail.
As I said before, I could likewise define "God" as this pencil here in front of me, and immediately prove God´s existence.
Or, instead of defining "God" the way you do, someone else could define "Satan", "Vishnu", "Karma", "the Tooth Fairy" the same way.
Now, I could simply ignore the mythological baggage added by those loaded terms (it´s just words, after all) and write it off as a quirky wording (just, say, like people name their boats after their wives´ names).
So, in short, I guess it´s not forbidden to verbally associate one´s scientific ideas with the religion of their preference, but I think it´s stupid, distracting and confusing.
I disagree about the confusion aspect. I'm providing you with a perfectly 'physical' definition of "God" so that we have an empirical starting point. We can debate whether or not that physical structure is "alive" and "aware" and whether it interacts with humans in physical ways, but at least we have a physical definition of God as a logical starting point in our discussion. You can understand the *physical* thing I'm talking about when I use the term "God".
Furthermore there is nothing 'supernatural' in anything that I have ascribed to God. The same atoms that make up our bodies, make up the body of God. The same energy we *feel*, is used and processed by God. The same *awareness* that you and I experience on Earth is experienced by God. Just as the electrical current flowing through the structures of our bodies gives rise to our awareness, so too the flow of electrical current and chemical energy through the structures of spacetime give rise to "God's" awareness. Every attribute, every type of matter and energy that we experience, is also used and experienced by "God".
We can now debate the merits of the "issues' that really matter, and forget all the 'supernatural' stuff entirely. Nothing "invisible" was introduced into our definition. Nothing *untestable* was introduced into our discussion.
The next guy could call the BigBang "Jesus", evolution "Holy Spirit", EM-fields "Zeus" or gravity "Satan".
You'd at least have to concede here that I've provided us with a logical empirical starting point, and there is merit to the concept. I *personally* did not invent the term "Boltzmann brain". I didn't personally invent the term "panentheism". These terms both describe a macroscopic intelligence that is created by the same laws of physics we experience on Earth. One terms comes from the halls of 'science'. The other term comes from the realm of 'religion'. They both describe a macroscopic intelligence, and one calls it "God".
Yes, I do see that physically defined ideas are subject to science whereas "supernaturally" defined ones aren´t.
Exactly. I'm trying to give us a fully empirical debate, and something we can actually "put to the test" in a purely empirical manner, in the lab in controlled testing.
Like the neutrino issue however, and it's true also of the Higgs, there can be a period of time between the *concept* and the *discovery* in the lab. I'll concede right now, that to a certain degree at least, we're in the stage of the process in terms of our technology, in terms of our understanding of the human brain, and in terms of our understanding of 'awareness' and what it is.
(Indeed I would argue against the notion that the universe is "alive", but this discussion - as interesting as it may be - would distract from the topic).
I agree. I suggest we discuss that actual topic in the Empirical Theory Of God thread.
Well, the logic of this seems to escape me completely. Even if I would agree with the premises, I still wouldn´t see how renaming the universe "God" is following logically.
Maybe you can walk me through this logical deduction, step by step. (Which, if successful, would at the same time do away with my above criticism of arbitrarily naming scientific ideas after religious concepts).
I'll try to take some time today to do that for you in the other thread. Stay tuned.
