miracles

[George-ananda]

Yeah, I have heard of number of people, who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and tested. They were regular people, but the only evidences are their testimonies, which I think are unreliable and unverifiable. There are 4 possibilities that I can think of,

1. they are delusional,
2. they are fanatics,
3. they are seeking 5-minute fame,
4. or they are trying to scam people.

1. As I've been saying, after decades of looking into this, I believe the above 4 possibilities can not account for all the higher quality cases, in my judgment.

The same things I think of, regarding to people who believe miracles, supernatural/paranormal.

But seriously, although I do think there are life in other planets, I seriously doubt that could travel light years away, just to abduct someone for testing purposes.

To give you another example of regular people acting stupid, like the faith healers, is the Pentecostal church, where people supposedly can Speak in Tongues (Glossolalia).

In the NT Acts, disciples supposedly received a gift from the Holy Spirit, in which they can speak languages from different cultures, where they can preach to foreigners.

It is not languages they can speak. They are simply making incoherent noises, in another word, gibberish.

Again all the above is not all there is from my experience.

 

[gnostic]

All I can say is for decades now I have looked at the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and find the case for the paranormal/miracles overwhelming to the point of no doubt. Miracles do happen I believe.

Again, testimonial evidences of miracles are not reliable evidences, because there no to verify them.

 

[George-ananda]

Again, testimonial evidences of miracles are not reliable evidences, because there no to verify them.

A single thread is not strong. But enough threads can make a strong twine.

 

[gnostic]

A single thread is not strong. But enough threads can make a strong twine.

Sorry, but it is not same.

I can make a strong rope or twine from many threads.

That mean I ca verify what you claim about the threads to be true, simply by “doing”.

I cannot verify claims of miracles, supernatural or paranormal, because I have not experienced any.

The only claims to these miracles and paranormal, only come from unverifiable claims, delusions, scams, stories from books (including scriptures), movies, tv series, etc. They are merely words that I cannot “do”, hence not testable.

Science is all about testing and verifying, and I cannot repeat the miracle, to make it happen any place, any time.

Do you understand now?

I don’t have high expectations that you do understand the differences between scientific evidences and testimonies, since they are not the same.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry, but it is not same.

I can make a strong rope or twine from many threads.

That mean I ca verify what you claim about the threads to be true, simply by “doing”.

I cannot verify claims of miracles, supernatural or paranormal, because I have not experienced any.

The only claims to these miracles and paranormal, only come from unverifiable claims, delusions, scams, stories from books (including scriptures), movies, tv series, etc. They are merely words that I cannot “do”, hence not testable.

Science is all about testing and verifying, and I cannot repeat the miracle, to make it happen any place, any time.

Do you understand now?

I don’t have high expectations that you do understand the differences between scientific evidences and testimonies, since they are not the same.

I do understand the difference. But I am not doing science, but rather an analysis of everything using my common sense.

I am fine with science at this time actually being agnostic to miracles but I not being a follower of scientism, learn about the universe from sources other than physical science.

Science is limited to studying what can be sensed with our five physical senses and physical instruments. That's actually fine, but there is no reason to believe that the physical then must be all that exists. The evidence for miracles and the paranormal argue there is more than the physical.

 

[gnostic]

I do understand the difference. But I am not doing science, but rather an analysis of everything using my common sense.

I am fine with science at this time actually being agnostic to miracles but I not being a follower of scientism, learn about the universe from sources other than physical science.

Science is limited to studying what can be sensed with our five physical senses and physical instruments. That's actually fine, but there is no reason to believe that the physical then must be all that exists. The evidence for miracles and the paranormal argue there is more than the physical.

There you go again.

Anyone who disagree with you, is a "follower of scientism". You are generalising. And you are really that predictable...and tiresome to boot.

Let, me say it once again. I am not follower of scientism.

All I am interest in science is what can be verified and tested, which show what it is, and how it work. Because of the courses and works I have done, which involved some background knowledge in science, I'd normally approach science from engineering perspective, and not for science just for the sake of science.

That's not mean scientism.

I am very well aware of the limitations of science, also from engineering perspective.

Just because there are limitations, doesn't mean I need to seek knowledge from the supernatural or paranormal angle. You don't really understand how absurd you are being, saying that, especially when you think you are using common sense in matter of the paranormal.

 

[George-ananda]

There you go again.

Anyone who disagree with you, is a "follower of scientism". You are generalising. And you are really that predictable...and tiresome to boot.

Let, me say it once again. I am not follower of scientism.

All I am interest in science is what can be verified and tested, which show what it is, and how it work. Because of the courses and works I have done, which involved some background knowledge in science, I'd normally approach science from engineering perspective, and not for science just for the sake of science.

That's not mean scientism.

If you go back and check, you will see all I said was that I was not a follower of scientism. Where did I say 'YOU' were a follower of scientism.

You don't really understand how absurd you are being, saying that, especially when you think you are using common sense in matter of the paranormal.

I absolutely believe I am using common sense in evaluating the paranormal. Where is my common sense breaking down in your opinion?

 

[Sapiens]

... The evidence for miracles and the paranormal argue there is more than the physical.

Except, as has been pointed out to you many times in the past, there is no evidence for the actual existence of anything paranormal.

 

[George-ananda]

Except, as has been pointed out to you many times in the past, there is no evidence for the actual existence of anything paranormal.

As has been pointed out to YOU many times in the past, there is controlled experimental and strong anecdotal evidence for the paranormal.

 

[Sapiens]

As has been pointed out to YOU many times in the past, there is controlled experimental and strong anecdotal evidence for the paranormal.

There are no controlled experiments with positive results.

The plural of anecdotal is not data.

The phrase "strong anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.

 

[George-ananda]

There are no controlled experiments with positive results.

The plural of anecdotal is not data.

The phrase "strong anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.

Not doing this debate again.

 

[Sapiens]

Not doing this debate again.

I can't say I blame you, it must be very hard to be forced to use such weak arguments. I would be embarrassed to use them, much as you seem to be. My condolences.

 

[George-ananda]

I can't say I blame you, it must be very hard to be forced to use such weak arguments. I would be embarrassed to use them, much as you seem to be. My condolences.

How mature.

 

[Sapiens]

How mature.

Why thank you.

 

[viole]

I believe that to be false. I believe there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence to command belief. Also, I believe there is scientific evidence showing fantastic odds against chance in controlled scientific experiments in the fields of telepathy, remote viewing and gifted mediumship as examples.

Yes, and this is why I read about these things on magazines like Scientific American or Nature. All the time

Forget it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the things you mention exist.

Take "gifted mediumship", for instance. I tested it, by trying always to connect with Einstein. Why do all connections to the soul of Einstein break when I ask him something about the covariant character of his field equations? When I speak with him about heaven, the angels and the harp he is playing, every thing is fine. But when I start with some heavy physics, connection gets lost.

So, what is the most plausible: that Einstein's should got reset, or that the medium is a ridiculous and easy to expose charlatan?

But I believe there is a big money prize that you can win (apart from the Nobel) if you show evidence of so called paranormal events. So, are you applying to win it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, and this is why I read about these things on magazines like Scientific American or Nature. All the time

Forget it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the things you mention exist.

I think there is through controlled testing fantastic odds against chance. When I hear people like Dr. Dean Radin speak about this I can no longer accept the argument that parapsycholgists are all incompetent in running rather simple experiments. Experimental techniques is one of the disciplines of parapsychology.

I have come to believe the ‘there is no evidence’ crowd is either uninformed or has a pathological dislike towards belief in the paranormal.

 

[George-ananda]

Take "gifted mediumship", for instance. I tested it, by trying always to connect with Einstein. Why do all connections to the soul of Einstein break when I ask him something about the covariant character of his field equations? When I speak with him about heaven, the angels and the harp he is playing, every thing is fine. But when I start with some heavy physics, connection gets lost.

So, what is the most plausible: that Einstein's should got reset, or that the medium is a ridiculous and easy to expose charlatan?


Ciao

- viole

Well the gifted mediums in Dr. Gary Sceartz’s testing for instance, were blinded from the subjects being read (eliminating hot and cold reading techniques) and performed to fantastic odds against chance.

As for technical matters I have heard cases where scientists on the other side have provided technical materials.

In your Einstein example, a medium may not be able to interpret a telepathic message involving concepts the medium is not familiar with. But I have heard even this happenning on occasion. Simpler things being more easily communicated and understood is consistent with what I would expect if spirit communication was a real thing.

 

[Audie]

Now that it is established that all here but G-a are ignorant and / or sick in the head, it may be best to
leave him to it, being as he as out there somewhere past Pluto where the rest of us neither could, nor wish to go.

 

[Darkstorn]

When I hear people like Dr. Dean Radin speak about this I can no longer accept the argument that parapsycholgists are all incompetent in running rather simple experiments.

I suppose this should hammer into your head the subjective nature of your beliefs:

I got the exact opposite reaction from the same subject matter. He convinced me that all parapsychologists are incompetent. Not just in running experiments but in general.

 

[Sapiens]

I think there is through controlled testing fantastic odds against chance. When I hear people like Dr. Dean Radin speak about this I can no longer accept the argument that parapsycholgists are all incompetent in running rather simple experiments. Experimental techniques is one of the disciplines of parapsychology.

WIKI:

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.[4][5][6][7] The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.[8]

I could not have said it better myself.

I have come to believe the ‘there is no evidence’ crowd is either uninformed or has a pathological dislike towards belief in the paranormal.

Could that be because your preconceived and treasured notions are trampled under the heel of demanding rationality and quality science?