the existence of god is a scientific fact

[ecco]

...

In case you missed it...


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.

 

[joe1776]

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.

Can you support the claims you've made here or are they unsupported claims in support of unsupported claims?

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.

Only if Randi's Prize was legit which, as I've argued without opposition, is doubtful.

To claim that Randi cheated somehow without one iota of evidence otherwise smacks of desperation.

I don't need to support a claim that Randi cheated. I argued, without opposition, that he was both capable of fraud and that it would be easy to pull off.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you support the claims you've made here or are they unsupported claims in support of unsupported claims?

Only if Randi's Prize was legit which, as I've argued without opposition, is doubtful.

I don't need to support a claim that Randi cheated. I argued, without opposition, that he was both capable of fraud and that it would be easy to pull off.

Of course I can. Ask specific questions and you will get answers. And no, Randi's Prize was legit. I can't show it now, but he was able to demonstrate that the money existed when he had his challenge running. The money was in an escrow account and its existence was public knowledge. And please, your inability to do your own research does not make a claim doubtful.

 

[joe1776]

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.

I notice that you accept any evidence that supports your analogy but omit any evidence on the same point that denies it. For example, you will deny this evidence that supports psi research:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that you accept any evidence that supports your analogy but omit any evidence on the same point that denies it. For example, you will deny this evidence that supports psi research:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

A list of articles, many of them in the glamour press is very bad evidence for your beliefs. You need to lean what sources are reliable and which ones are not. That is why the demand is not just a "peer reviewed" article. There are many sources that claim to be peer reviewed that will publish anything, and have been caught in publishing nonsense. People wrote poor articles on purpose that had obvious errors that would have been caught by any expert in the field and they were still published at glamour presses. That is why the demand is now a well respected peer reviewed journal.

You are the one making the possitive assertion, that does put the burden of proof upon you, that means finding reliable sources.

 

[joe1776]

Of course I can. Ask specific questions and you will get answers.

I asked you to support the claims you made in the paragraph you wrote. That's not specific enough for you?

And no, Randi's Prize was legit. I can't show it now, but he was able to demonstrate that the money existed when he had his challenge running. The money was in an escrow account and its existence was public knowledge.

Do I need to explain to you why the existence of the money in escrow isn't on its own proof that the prize was legit? It's one factor that I haven't even questioned.

And please, your inability to do your own research does not make a claim doubtful.

If you make a claim that you can support I expect you to supply your own research for it. I have made no claims that require research.

 

[Audie]

A list of articles, many of them in the glamour press is very bad evidence for your beliefs. You need to lean what sources are reliable and which ones are not. That is why the demand is not just a "peer reviewed" article. There are many sources that claim to be peer reviewed that will publish anything, and have been caught in publishing nonsense. People wrote poor articles on purpose that had obvious errors that would have been caught by any expert in the field and they were still published at glamour presses. That is why the demand is now a well respected peer reviewed journal.

You are the one making the possitive assertion, that does put the burden of proof upon you, that means finding reliable sources.

"glam"

 

[joe1776]

A list of articles, many of them in the glamour press is very bad evidence for your beliefs.

In a previous post you told us about trying one link which you didn't identify. Now you're you're smearing a hundred links that you've never visited.

You are the one making the possitive assertion, that does put the burden of proof upon you, that means finding reliable sources.

I don't recognize your authority to define what "reliable sources" means in this debate because you're biased.

I think that unbiased minds, lurking about, looking at that long list will be impressed enough to draw the reasonable conclusion that maybe there's more evidence of psi research than they realized. That's all I care about.

 

[joe1776]

In case you missed it...


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.

I saw this post but it's going to take time for me to go though the long Wikipedia article. I'll get back to you on it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

No, it is you that thought of them. Following that line of thought is its own punishment, ones heart finds what one it is looking for.

Personally I would look for the fruit, the ones that followed what Christ taught and built strong loving communities based in justice.

Regards Tony

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
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.​

I notice that you accept any evidence that supports your analogy but omit any evidence on the same point that denies it. For example, you will deny this evidence that supports psi research:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

You seem to be having a problem keeping on point. We were talking about analogies.

 

[ecco]

I notice that you accept any evidence that supports your analogy but omit any evidence on the same point that denies it. For example, you will deny this evidence that supports psi research:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Did you bother reading any of the ~150 articles in your link? Any? When you do, then you can post comments, in your own words and post excerpts from an article that supports your comments.

 

[ecco]

I saw this post but it's going to take time for me to go though the long Wikipedia article. I'll get back to you on it.

Just the part I posted showed a list of failures - just as you asked for. I suggested reading the rest of the article for more information including some criticisms and rebuttals.

 

[ecco]

Faith given by God will always motivate people to live virtuous lives and will last thousands of years.

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.

No, it is you that thought of them. Following that line of thought is its own punishment, ones heart finds what one it is looking for.

Personally I would look for the fruit, the ones that followed what Christ taught and built strong loving communities based in justice.

Regards Tony

Whoa! You said, "Faith given by God will always motivate people to live virtuous lives". I showed, with just three examples, that your assertion was baseless. Now you want to duck and dodge.

How do you justify your comment about Godly motivated virtuous lives in light of the three examples I posted?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How do you justify your comment about Godly motivated virtuous lives in light of the three examples I posted?

As I said they are your thoughts. They are not of Christ, they are of this world.

This is what to look for, this is what it is to be inspired by Christ and not by self and greed.

Gregory the Great

Regards Tony

 

[Jainarayan]

‘I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.’ - Karen Armstrong, A History of God, page 384.

Again we have a bias towards the Abrahamic paradigm of the long-suffering God, because she sure as naraka ain't talking about Vishnu! As far as I and several hundred million Vaishnava Hindus are concerned He's God, and God is not affected by the material world. As universalist as Paramahansa Yogananda was, he was still Hindu, with a Hindu theology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science does not prove God. Science can only prove things that are within the realm of the space/time universe. God, by definition, is outside of space/time.

Intuitively, the "design" of the universe implies a designer. However, some would argue that the "flaws" in the universe show that there is no design at all.

So ultimately, science is agnostic, neither for nor against a Creator.

I do believe in God, btw.

 

[joe1776]

ecco said: ↑
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.​

You seem to be having a problem keeping on point. We were talking about analogies.

I don't understand why you don't think I'm not talking about analogies. Can you explain?

 

[exchemist]

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.

I don't expect them to care. But I will not be unique in finding it a negative development in the field.

 

[joe1776]

Did you bother reading any of the ~150 articles in your link? Any? When you do, then you can post comments, in your own words and post excerpts from an article that supports your comments.

No. Your suggestion isn't necessary since the link was posted only to refute the no evidence claim made by you and others.