Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

[Michael]

How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

It can be "determined" exactly the way that supernatural claims like "space expansion", and "dark energy", and "dark matter" can be "determined", specifically based on the *effect* it might have on the physical universe.

Science has never restricted itself to claims that show up in the lab as atheists tend to presume.

 

[quatona]

It can be "determined" exactly the way that supernatural claims like "space expansion", and "dark energy", and "dark matter" can be "determined", specifically based on the *effect* it might have on the physical universe.

Good thing that these ideas have as little significance in my life as the idea that there´s a "God".

Science has never restricted itself to claims that show up in the lab as atheists tend to presume.

As far as I can tell, no atheist here ever gave that criterium - the "lab"-thing is your personal pet strawman.

 

[Michael]

Good thing that these ideas have as little significance in my life as the idea that there´s a "God".

How can you be sure? Suppose you'd been told your entirely life that the universe *is* God, and God can be seen, felt and experienced at every level of reality. Would you still doubt the existence of "God" right now in your life?

As far as I can tell, no atheist here ever gave that criterium - the "lab"-thing is your personal pet strawman.

Yet when it comes to the topic of God, atheist typically *require* a direct cause/effect relationship to be demonstrated for them. There's no such requirement in "science". The *effect* is often the only "given" and the "cause" is simply *implied* by the effect. In that sense, and by "scientific standards of evidence" there is *overwhelming* evidence of the *effect* of God on human beings, and overwhelming evidence of the existence of God.

 

[quatona]

How can you be sure? Suppose you'd been told your entirely life that the universe *is* God, and God can be seen, felt and experienced at every level of reality. Would you still doubt the existence of "God" right now in your life?

It would merely be a change in terminology.

Yet when it comes to the topic of God, atheist typically *require* a direct cause/effect relationship to be demonstrated for them. There's no such requirement in "science". The *effect* is often the only "given" and the "cause" is simply *implied* by the effect. In that sense, and by "scientific standards of evidence" there is *overwhelming* evidence of the *effect* of God on human beings, and overwhelming evidence of the existence of God.

If "the *universe* **is** "God", we *even* have "*solid*", *"direct"* *evidence* for its "existence".

 

[Michael]

It would merely be a change in terminology.

Well, it might be more of a change in conceptual understanding too. The amusing part is that it would actually require four fewer supernatural constructs than is presently required in LCMD.

If "the *universe* **is** "God", we *even* have "*solid*", *"direct"* *evidence* for its "existence".

LOL. I suppose I deserve that.

 

[quatona]

Well, it might be more of a change in conceptual understanding too.

No, I already have no doubt that the universe exists. Calling it by another name wouldn´t change anything in terms of conceptual understanding.

The amusing part is that it would actually require four fewer supernatural constructs than is presently required in LCMD.

...and the other amusing part is be that a mere change of terms wouldn´t actually explain anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How can you be sure? Suppose you'd been told your entirely life that the universe *is* God, and God can be seen, felt and experienced at every level of reality. Would you still doubt the existence of "God" right now in your life?

We already have a word for the universe. It's "universe".

 

[Michael]

No, I already have no doubt that the universe exists.

So we know that it exists, but nobody seems to know much about what it's made of, what it's function might be, or how it actually works. In fact mainstream theory is currently using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it.

...and the other amusing part is be that a mere change of terms wouldn´t actually explain anything.

That's not necessarily true. If I conceptually think of the universe that I live inside of as a living organisms, I might "predict" things like "circuits" in space, and alternative explanations for photon redshift (because living things don't tend to be "expanding" faster than C), etc. There might be a whole host of different predictions that could either be verified or falsified, simply by making a conceptual switch in our understanding of the universe.

Since 95 percent of current theory is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, it's not like we have some profound "understanding" of how it really works. Simply making a shift in ones conceptual relationship with the universe might very well make it easier to "understand" it.

 

[Michael]

We already have a word for the universe. It's "universe".

The words that are used to describe the universe currently requires no less than four supernatural constructs, and most of our description of the universe amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance. Call it whatever you like, but at least I'm not required to ascribe supernatural properties to it in order to describe it, regardless of what I call it.

 

[quatona]

So we know that it exists, but nobody seems to know much about what it's made of, what it's function might be, or how it actually works. In fact mainstream theory is currently using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it.

So?

That's not necessarily true. If I conceptually think of the universe that I live inside of as a living organisms, I might "predict" things like "circuits" in space, and alternative explanations for photon redshift (because living things don't tend to be "expanding" faster than C), etc. There might be a whole host of different predictions that could either be verified or falsified, simply by making a conceptual switch in our understanding of the universe.

Of course, a switch of understanding will change our understanding. But that´s not what we were talking about. We were talking about merely renaming the universe. Now you reveal that your renaming comes with a lot of silent preassumptions.

Since 95 percent of current theory is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, it's not like we have some profound "understanding" of how it really works. Simply making a shift in ones conceptual relationship with the universe might very well make it easier to "understand" it.

Then go ahead and do that, instead of pretending you just want to rename it.
Btw, you can easily plead for shifting the conceptual relationship with the universe without renaming it "God" or any other fancy name from mythology. Actually, I´m sure that would help your goal quite a lot (unless just changing the conceptual understanding of the universe is actually not your main motive).
But we have been there.

 

[Michael]

So?

So the actual "knowledge" that we hold about the universe which we live in hovers at around 5 percent at the moment. There's a whole lot more that we don't know about it yet than we do know.

Of course, a switch of understanding will change our understanding. But that´s not what we were talking about. We were talking about merely renaming the universe. Now you reveal that your renaming comes with a lot of silent preassumptions.

I personally was never suggesting that we simply rename the universe without questioning anything else about it. Someone would have to have been living under a rock somewhere if they think I personally agree with current cosmological theory.

Then go ahead and do that, instead of pretending you just want to rename it.

I never "pretended" any such thing! You're apparently discussing your own strawman.

Btw, you can easily plead for shifting the conceptual relationship with the universe without renaming it "God" or any other fancy name from mythology.

Of course, and that's exactly what happened when I rejected LCDM theory in favor of EU/PC theory. The whole Panentheism angle didn't even occur to me at that time, and my decision to embrace EU/PC theory had nothing to do with my preference for theism. It's just that once I had *already* embraced EU/PC theory, I could not help but notice the implications of a universe made of interwoven circuitry as it related to the topics of Pantheism, Panentheism and theism in general.

A lot of EU/PC proponents are atheists/agnostics too, and I agree that EU/PC theory itself is better than LCMD with or without Panentheistic connotations.

Actually, I´m sure that would help your goal quite a lot (unless just changing the conceptual understanding of the universe is actually not your main motive).
But we have been there.

Well, I agree with you that it's hard enough to embrace EU/PC cosmology theory over LCDM without worrying about the theistic aspects of that change. It's confusing enough as it is.

 

[quatona]

So the actual "knowledge" that we hold about the universe which we live in hovers at around 5 percent at the moment. There's a whole lot more that we don't know about it yet than we do know.

So? What does "the universe is God" add to our understanding?

I personally was never suggesting that we simply rename the universe without questioning anything else about it.

Then focus on the things you actually want to change. Your obsession with labels loaded with ancient mythology and emotions isn´t doing anything for me.

Of course, and that's exactly what happened when I rejected LCDM theory in favor of EU/PC theory. The whole Panentheism angle didn't even occur to me at that time, and my decision to embrace EU/PC theory had nothing to do with my preference for theism. It's just that once I had *already* embraced EU/PC theory, I could not help but notice the implications of a universe made of interwoven circuitry as it related to the topics of Pantheism, Panentheism and theism in general.

I think you would be well advised to keep those two entirely different approaches separate.

A lot of EU/PC proponents are atheists/agnostics too, and I agree that EU/PC theory itself is better than LCMD with or without Panentheistic connotations.

Well, it´s never really clear whether you are arguing for your cosmological ideas or your religious convictions.

 

[variant]

There are God proofs, but in debates we call them "arguments". So, we are inviting unbelievers to argue (the word "argue" is like the "argu-ment"). Let the opposer-s call our proofs the "arguments". Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."?!

Philosophers say argument because they have some humility and a good understanding of the difficulty of what they are doing. To offer an argument is an attempt to offer good reasons to settle some disputed idea that all parties can then accept.

Theologians are types of philosophers.

 

[Michael]

So? What does "the universe is God" add to our understanding?

It depends on whether it's correct or not of course, but consider the implications if that is correct. Since humans first walked the Earth, long before the dawn of recorded civilization, humanity has asked questions about the universe, the origins of humanity, the nature of reality, and their personal connection to what they have perceived as a "higher power".

It might be finally possible to begin to answer those fundamental questions. If someone needs to understand what God is at level of empirical physics, they'll have an answer to that question. They may even be able to begin to understand how God functions, the circuitry involved, and many answers to fundamental questions about the physical universe at the same time.

EU/PC theory, with or without theistic connotations offers us the opportunity to explain every observation from space in terms of pure empirical physics. It's essentially the application of circuit theory to the plasma interactions and movement patterns of a mostly plasma universe.

By adding theistic overtones, it's possible understand our physical connection to "God", our physical relationship, and it's functional components as well. These are fundamental questions that can finally be explained in terms of pure empirical physics.

We may not be able to answer every possible question about our relationship with God at the levels of emotion and "personality", but we certainly might be able to answer some fundamental physics questions about the means of communication between humanity and that "higher power".

Then focus on the things you actually want to change.

I do for the most part. This particular forum however tends to be the exception since it's fundamentally a board related to theism and Christianity, and I tend to "let it all hang out" here. I allow myself to explore every possible option as it relates to this issue on this particular forum in cyberspace. Consider yourself fortunate (or unfortunate) depending on your point of view.

If you'd prefer the pure physics approach to understanding EU/PC theory, I tend to be more focused at Thunderbolts, Physics Forums and Reddit and pretty much everywhere else I've posted. Most of the discussion of my Eu/PC beliefs has occurred at Thunderbolts. Some of the "best" purely scientific conversations were with Tim Thompson over at ISF/JREF.

Your obsession with labels loaded with ancient mythology and emotions isn´t doing anything for me.

I don't know where you're even coming from with respect to "ancient mythology". I'm simply focused on empirical physics and it's application to cosmology and theism in general. I tend to prefer 21st century solutions to problems, so I fail to see where 'ancient mythology" is particularly applicable. The fact that both cosmology theory and theistic concept of the universe happen to predate me as a human being is ultimately irrelevant IMO. I'm sure I'm not the first human being to consider these various ideas.

I think you would be well advised to keep those two entirely different approaches separate.

I really do try to do that on every astronomy, and/or science forum that I've ever posted on, including Bad Astronomy (now Cosmoquest), JREF (ISF), Thunderbolts, Physics Forums, Reddit, etc. I'm pretty sure that this particular board is the rare exception where I tend to allow myself the freedom to explore the full range of implications including the questions related to theism and atheism. It's really due to the nature of this particular forum that tends to bring out the 'evangelical' in me.

The truth is that I really do enjoy the ability to explore the full implications somewhere in cyberspace, and I give myself the freedom to do that here. I appreciate this forum immensely because of it.

Well, it´s never really clear whether you are arguing for your cosmological ideas or your religious convictions.

In my defense, consider the nature of this forum. Yes it's a "science" forum, but it's also located on a "Christian" website that is frequented by atheists and agnostics from all over the world, who claim to be seeking answers to their legitimate scientific questions about "God".

I don't consider myself an "evangelical" by nature, but I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't at least *try* to answer the questions of visiting/resident atheists/agnostics from the perspective of empirical physics (science), and to explain it from a "Christian" perspective when it seems appropriate. This is a "Christian" website after all, and atheists come knocking on it's doors. They are initiating the contact with "Christians" and a follower of Christ. I'm just providing the answers from my perspective. You're all free to ignore them at your discretion of course.

I am sensitive to the fact that intermixing the two topics tends to make it "complicated" at times. I hear you in terms of that criticism, but I enjoy discussing my love of God and Jesus somewhere, and well, you are here.