The "logic" of doveaman that I critizised was the claim that "theists" (all those who adhere to the religions he posted) experience "a common creator". I pointed out that to be experienced as "creator", this being would have to be experienced creating.
Hmmm. New things are "created" all time. There was no "personal computer" when I was born, let alone a cell phone, an internet, a Hubble space telescope. It would appear the creation process is still in progress from my perspective.
You are experiencing me now. But you are not experiencing me as "the enthusiastic singer of the German National Anthem". In order to EXPERIENCE me as that, you would have to hear me sing.
Sure, but since you're a living being, and so am I, you could elect to so so at any time, and post a link to the video if you'd like.
Well, one important difference is that there at least could be empirical evidence for SUSY and the rest. Perhaps there isn't.
To my knowledge there is not. From the "rumor mill" that remains LHC at the moment, I'd say it's been a rather huge disappointment. The energy ranges that apply to various hypothetical SUSY sparticles have already been looked at. If there was any evidence of a bunch of new sparticles flying out all over the place, we'd have heard about it by now. Instead we see to be hearing nothing but pure disappointment.
It seems to me if the various sparticles of the theory are a no show at the energy ranges specified in the math, then the theory is falsified once and for all. We may not be there quite yet, but I'd say that the fat lady is already warming up.
But there is a least something you can look for.
That's true. I've always found "dark matter" theories to be the least objectionable of the three metaphysical amigos, inflation and dark energy being MUCH more ad/hoc and impossible to "test".
I don't know what experiences Jesus had, nor can I ever know.
I tend to disagree. Jesus already explained some of the morality lessons he picked up from his "father" as it's recorded in the Bible, along with the methods he used to "connect" to that father. He claimed in John 17 that we are all capable of such experiences with God. It seems to me that we can make some pretty educated guesses based on our own experiences of God and based on the historical writings.
Yes, quite recently, as it goes. The results were the same as always: none. Now does that make you reconsider your theory?
Not really. My results haven't been the same as yours. Does that make you reconsider your faith in atheism?
No. But I am not an astrophysicist.
Me either. I suppose it's no skin off either of our noses if SUSY theory goes up in flames.
Everything lacks empirical laboratory support... until it is either found or disproven. And that is the basic problem of an "empirical" God-theory: he is so extremly elusive.
How so? Compared to "dark energy"? Really? My early proposals in terms of 'testing' involved setting up experiments where the EM fields inside of a room with a person in meditation can be "finely" measured. My 'hope' would be to observe EM field interactions between the external EM fields and the subjects brain. How might I even falsify the concept that "dark energy" is somehow related to "acceleration"? Ditto for "inflation". Guth literally invented that bad boy in his head, and killed it off in his head too!
If something CANNOT have a tangible effect, then it cannot be empirically shown.
Inflation is supposedly dead now, so it has no tangible effect. SUSY theory seems to have no 'tangible effect' either. "Dark energy" is such a big woosy, it can't even be measured on Earth, even if their theory WERE true. IMO Lambda-CDM theory takes a "greater faith' to believe in than your average religion. At least in your average religion one expects to see God/human interaction, so at least in theory it MIGHT be testable. Nothing about standard cosmology theory is particularly 'testable' other than SUSY theory, and it seem to have bitten the dust.
If it is then still considered to be true, then I would regard it as "faith" rather then "scientific theory".
Let's see if NASA changes their website and removes all references to "non baryonic dark matter" anytime soon.
But I think you are wrong for wanting these theories discarded, because they have not provided results yet. Perhaps they will.
I never really "discarded" SUSY theory by the way. In fact I found it to be the least objectionable of their theories because it does not defy empirical testing, unlike their other two invisible friends. When however shall we discard the theory assuming nothing is found or said in say another 6 months? When is any theory falsified?
Perhaps the scientists haven't looked at the right point, with the right means. They still have not ruled it out completely - that means they still have options before they have to go back to the drawing board. You are giving up to soon.
I'm technically 'giving up' on SUSY theory for the same reason that most atheists "lack belief' in God. Perhaps your criticism is well founded?
In the case of SUSY theory, I think a real "failure" of the "basic model" is good enough reason to complain about astronomers pointing at the sky and claiming that "dark matter annihilation did it". Those kinds of claims are just bizarre IMO, particularly since no "new" particles have ever been observed. Assuming any new particles are ever seen, we have no evidence that any of them will last longer than a couple of milliseconds. I'm tired of their sky mythologies. I can't rule out EVERY possible brand of 'dark matter' any more than an atheist can rule out every possible theory of God. I can however form "strong opinions" about the ad hoc nature of one "religion" called "Lambda-CMD" theory, and reject that ONE theory.
Contrast that with the millenia of theological "research", which inevitable resulted in every researcher finding God... and finding it different from anyone elses.
I really have no evidence that they've found a "different God", anymore than different opinions about the current President demonstrate that they are talking about completely different individuals.
I admit that I haven't been following your empirical theory of God thread... to much lag behind for me... but I have never "ruled it out". I would be delighted to find a feasable one... I will check out your thread.
Please do.
But as for being "too liberal"... I think you are to hasty in ruling scientific theories out. Does that now mean I can acuse you of not having a leg to stand on and that your criticism of me is moot?
Only if you can explain to me why you reject, or lack belief in all empirical theories of God.
ETA: So I checked the initial post of your thread. I didn't find any empirical theory though.
Keep reading. It's all about EM fields. They show up in the lab. You won't find any laboratory no shows in that theory of God, no dark energies, in fact it contains no mythical forms of matter or energy.
I was in that thread for the first few million pages, and I don't remember seeing an actual testable theory.
