the existence of god is a scientific fact

[exchemist]

yeah....
and the means of method should be held

but the existence of God cannot be tested in the physical

God is Spirit

you think you can test God?

"....and the means of method should be held....."

OK I don't really do gibberish, so I'm out.

 

[KT Shamim]

Why must we search for God? If it was truly important shouldn't God be making themselves known? How can we be grateful if we don't know who we are being grateful to and for what?

You just admitted there were hints in your previous post with "maybe" statements. So when as humans we spend years on trivial projects then why are people not willing to make efforts towards finding a limitless treasure? there must be a differentiation between those who live their life with a sense of gratitude for what they have and those who prefer to be thankless and arrogant.

If things were made obvious everyone would just believe ... then their would be no differentiation.

I'm not saying we should believe blindly ... that is the other extreme. Very stupid. But I am not saying that everything should be handed on a platter either ...

Just as in worldly matters we make efforts to gain results so in spiritual matters ...

 

[joe1776]

But, considering James Randi has the people he tests sign an agreement on the methodology and criteria of their tests that are performed, we can conclude that the people he tested didn't feel like the tests or criteria were unfair.

Do you know that anyone was actually tested? If so, can you link me to a site with a list?

They signed the agreement, and agreed to be tested in that specific way.

How do you know that anyone actually signed such an agreement?

If you want to assert foul play, you need to demonstrate it.

No, actually I don't. James Randi made the positive claim that his offer was genuine. If you believe it so, then you inherit the burden to prove it.

If you don't believe you can prove it, then we're done here.

 

[exchemist]

It doesn't matter how well the experiment is done or how positive the results are. The standard for proof can always be raised higher in mainstream science just as it is done in this forum in support of biases. If the research in psychology had the same standard of proof as psi research, no experiment would be replicated.

I think that psi researchers are already doing what they need to do. They have created their own journal and their own sources of funding and they are finding low-budget ways to do research. Gradually, they will persuade more and more people that psi research is useful.

"Proof" is not the right word, when we are talking about science. What we are talking about is whether there is unambiguous evidence of something.

Frankly I think that setting up their own journal is likely to be start of a long march to pseudoscience. I am disappointed and it increases my scepticism. That's what the cold fusion people have done - and the creationists. Persuading "people" is easy. Any snake oil salesman can do that. (Look at Trump.) Persuading science is harder.

 

[Nakosis]

Just as in worldly matters we make efforts to gain results so in spiritual matters ...

A question that is always at the top of my mind is what can be expected to be gained "spiritually" which can't be gained otherwise?

Is it for the sake of a afterlife in which you will be rewarded for your belief?

For me, whatever the truth happens to be, doesn't care about what I believe. If there is an afterlife there is, if not, then not. What I believe won't change that. Lots of different stories about different afterlives to believe in. Any I decide to believe in could be wrong. So without knowledge I can rely on, seems a bit reckless to invest belief in any of them.

Other than a belief in some form of afterlife, how does spirituality benefit you?

 

[joe1776]

...Frankly I think that setting up their own journal is likely to be start of a long march to pseudoscience. I am disappointed and it increases my scepticism. That's what the cold fusion people have done - and the creationists. Persuading "people" is easy. Any snake oil salesman can do that. (Look at Trump.) Persuading science is harder.

We disagree on this. In this forum, I try to make my arguments persuasive to unbiased readers because I'd need a baseball bat to persuade biased people of anything.

The bias against psi research became apparent in the 1950s at Duke with the Rhine experiments. It wasn't just the intense criticism of the methods that got positive results in ESP, it was the pressure put on Duke's reputation for even allowing such research to be funded. Duke hasn't been involved in psi research since.

So, why not go around the bias problem rather than confront it?

The scientists doing psi research are subject to the same sort of peer-review process that mainstream scientists deal with.

So, you and others will associate their efforts with the creationists. Why should they care? You're not going to fund their projects anyway.

 

[Audie]

"....and the means of method should be held....."

OK I don't really do gibberish, so I'm out.

Ah, and here I would have taken it for obscurantism.
With gibberish, there is no translation possible.

 

[ecco]

With my six year-old daughter sending from one room and me in another, she sent and I received visions of playing cards that allowed me to correctly identify 13 cards in a row before my daughter tired of the game and quit sending.

My daughter didn't see the visions in my head; my wife, standing behind my daughter saw the correct choices but she couldn't see the visions in my head.
There was no way I could prove to anyone that I hadn't simply guessed 13 cards in a row although the odds of doing that are something like 18 million to one.

Maybe I'm different. If my daughter and I got such amazing results, we would have tried again many times over the years. I guess you figured you'd quit while you were ahead.

In a scientific test, there would be no way to prove that I hadn't trained my daughter to cheat because the researchers couldn't see the visions in my head. Doing 13 cards was very difficult.

Nonsense. My scenario assures there would be no cheating.

It was hard to distinguish spades and clubs and hearts and diamonds. Face cards were tough to distinguish. Counting the spots between a five and a six or a 7 and 8 was't easy.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Just use hearts and spades. Just use aces, queens, tens and twos. That's eight cards. Use six decks. That's 48 cards.

52 cards in a row would be near impossible unless the sender and receiver had an especially strong connection.

Yeah, that's another excuse that's a favorite of the woosters. Is there something in the air that allows esp to work some days and not others. Surely by now, your researchers could have found a pair that had a really good "connection". In all these years, in all these trials - no one ever found a really good pair.

The Zener cards are used in experiments. There are five cards, easily distinguishable. They would have been a snap for me and my daughter.

Yet you never tried again with your daughter. I really have to wonder why.

But it isn't enough that a pair score well. The experiment has to be conducted in such a way that it is all done automatically (no other humans involved to eliminate the transference of data).

BS! That's just another excuse to prevent unbiased monitors from catching the everpresent fraudulent actions.

Someday, when an advanced f MRI can see the cards transmitted to the receiver's brain, telepathy will be accepted by mainstream science.

Someday, someday, someday, someday.

 

[ecco]

True but there are plenty of proofs and signs to easily distinguish the true ones from the scams.

Give us some examples.

Their lives. If you study the lives of the Manifestations of God you will that it was one of sacrifice and persecution. They were tortured, imprisoned, beaten, exiled, crucified and executed to try and get them to retract their claim to be from God and They endured all this without earthly power or wealth and in time subdued the hearts and minds of billions of people all over the world after a Their passing. Their teachings transformed both the individual and civilisation. No earthly power could have achieved what They have achieved unaided and unassisted.

All of the above applies to:
Martin Luther
Moa Zedung
Fidel Castro
Gandhi

Then there is Their Holy Books which have become the guide for the daily lives of billions of people. Their influence is undeniable and has never been emulated or copied. Claims have been made but died out soon after. These Great Beings number only a handful. Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Muhammad wrote nothing.
Jesus wrote nothing.
Krishna wrote nothing.
The writings of Baha’u’llah contain obvious fabrications.
Moses was clearly fictional.

You stated there "are plenty of proofs and signs". You provided nothing.

 

[ecco]

Were you unaware that deception is what stage magicians do and that Randi made his living for many years as a stage magician. If you are aware of those facts why would you need a specific example?

Yes. Randi was a magician. That's one reason he was able to spot the ways in which frauds perpetrated their frauds. He knew the procedures that honest stage mentalists used and could ensure that the frauds were not using any of those methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, considering James Randi has the people he tests sign an agreement on the methodology and criteria of their tests that are performed, we can conclude that the people he tested didn't feel like the tests or criteria were unfair. They signed the agreement, and agreed to be tested in that specific way. So your assumption that the agreement was unfair in some way has no basis. We're talking about tests that were mutually agreed upon by both the scientists carrying them out and the applicants who submitted themselves for them, and the applicants always fail. That indicates that the circumstances and conditions of the tests ARE fair.

If you want to assert foul play, you need to demonstrate it.

Let's not forget that the people making claims played a main role in developing the tests. Randi's organization merely made sure that there could be no cheating on the test. The people being tested always agreed before the tests that they had a major part in developing were fair tests.

And this raises the question, if the tests were unfair why could not these people develop their own tests outside of Randi's organization and demonstrate that they could do what they do? Randi gave those people a platform that they would not have otherwise. To claim that Randi cheated somehow without one iota of evidence otherwise smacks of desperation.

 

[ecco]

You stated...

The science of the love of God is just as valid a science as any other when you consider it has transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people...

I pointed out that Hitler and Mao had done the same...

Adolph Hitler transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people.
Mao Zedong transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people.

Not in the name of God they didn’t.

Precisely the point. The love of God was not needed to "transformed and changed entire civilisations and transformed the lives of billions of people" as you asserted.

By the way, your comment about Hitler shows a lack of knowledge of history. Hitler and the Nazis did invoke God and followed Martin Luther's admonitions regarding the Jews.

 

[ecco]

Faith given by God will always motivate people to live virtuous lives.

So, you believe...
The Spanish Inquisitors led virtuous lives?
The European witch hunters led virtuous lives?
The God-fearing Southern slave owners led virtuous lives?

I could give many, many more examples, but I'll let you address these first.

 

[ecco]

No, I can't. Can you give me an example of a candidate who was given a fair chance to succeed and didn't?

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

Year Challenger Purported Ability Test Results Notes
2007 Derek Ogilvie Mediumship Identify which one out of ten toys is being used by a child at a particular time. Failed
2009 Connie Sonne Dowsing (Pendulum) Identify playing cards in sealed envelope. Failed[28]
2010 Anita Ikonen Medical Dowsing Determine by observation which of five subjects was missing a kidney. Failed Billed as "demonstration" not "test"
2012 Andrew Needles Performance-enhancing bracelet Distinguish participants wearing real product significant number of times Failed
2013 Brahim Addoun Remote viewing Remotely identify 3 of 20 objects Failed
2014 Fei Wang Can send energy through his hand that can be felt by another person Electricity to the hand felt correctly eight out of nine times Failed
​

Read the entire article for more examples and criticisms.

 

[ecco]

well then....
even if you could test for the existence of God....
you would be testing for the wrong item

That makes no sense in the context of our discussion.

 

[ecco]

To quote the Quran;

'There is no compulsion in religion'.

It is also true in faith, this is the end of a prayer revealed by the Bab, that shows what was offered, is a spiritual reality.

".... Indeed shouldst Thou desire to confer blessing upon a servant Thou wouldst blot out from the realm of his heart every mention or disposition except Thine Own mention; and shouldst Thou ordain evil for a servant by reason of that which his hands have unjustly wrought before Thy face, Thou wouldst test him with the benefits of this world and of the next that he might become preoccupied therewith and forget Thy remembrance." Bab

What does that have to do with your quote from the Koran: 'There is no compulsion in religion'?

 

[ecco]

A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.

Another comparison to Creationists. Are you starting to get the point?

 

[joe1776]

Maybe I'm different. If my daughter and I got such amazing results, we would have tried again many times over the years. I guess you figured you'd quit while you were ahead.

No. I think we can both agree that you're just a superior human being.

 

[joe1776]

Another comparison to Creationists. Are you starting to get the point?

That you love your false analogies? Sure, I knew that.

 

[ecco]

That you love your false analogies? Sure, I knew that.

What false analogies?

You: PSI Researchers cannot get funding.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get funding.

You: PSI Researchers cannot get published in scientific journals.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get published in scientific journals.

You: A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.
Creationists. 1000 scientists have signed a document stating Evolution if false.