• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
This excerpt called ‘Science Discovers Intelligent Order’ is taken from page 6 of The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda.

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies, Ph.D., well-known author and professor of mathematical physics, in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator (New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. If the neutron did not outweigh the proton in the nucleus of the atom, the active lifetime of the Sun and other stars would be reduced to a few hundred years; if the electric charge of electrons and protons did not balance precisely, all configurations of matter would be unstable and the universe would consist of nothing more than radiation and a relatively uniform mixture of gases … If the strong force that binds the particles of a nucleus were merely a fraction weaker than it is, deuteron could not exist and the stars such as the Sun could not shine. And if that force were slightly stronger than it is, the Sun and other active stars would inflate and perhaps explode … The values of the four universal forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear strong and weak forces) were precisely such that life could evolve in the cosmos.”

Professor Davies estimates that if – as some scientists maintain – there were no inherent guiding intelligence and cosmic evolution were governed only by the chance operation of strictly mechanical laws, “the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe by purely random processes is of the order of at least 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years – inconceivably longer than the current age of the universe. Citing these calculations, Laszlo wryly observes, “Serendipity of this magnitude strains credibility,” and concludes, “Must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness is the result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder?”

In addition, we found god’s existence in our world fifty-five years ago in the Higgs Boson, ‘the God particle,’ which scientists theorize has the ability to ‘end the universe.’ The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics that is continuously emitted by the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together. ‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’ Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

God is, most basically, consciousness. God is best described as a prism, where a beam of white light (god) goes into the prism and bounces out in a rainbow (the colors being the multiple manifestations of god in material nature). In nature, god, manifests as balance and the cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.

Humanity must start acknowledging god’s existence. Science can no longer ignore its own research. We are responsible to something greater than us that encompasses and is all of us. Human beings, as we run our civilization, are responsible for making god suffer through every starving child, every bullied teenager, every bomb victim, every mutilated farm animal, every animal test subject, every bird who dies choking on plastic – all the unnecessary grief and pain we cause from phallogocentric global capitalism. We are responsible for the disrespect and misuse of the earth, the home god gave us. We are responsible for the world that we live in as it is us who create it. We must take after god and honor god’s most basic principles of balance/equality and compassion. We must start teaching our children that all reality and experience is sacred. Alfred North Whitehead saw god as inextricably bound up in the world process. He describes god as ‘the great companion, the fellow-sufferer, who understands.’ He states:

‘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.

What do you think?
No one can prove or disprove a "God".

It seems the Abrahamic religions have the yardstick to most ideas of what a God is. That kind of God described as omnipotent, omnipresent, Omniscient, etc... is easier to disprove than the idea of a super intelligence that can harness the power of a galaxy. A God in the sense of "top of the chain", i.e. our ability to free ourselves from it would be hopeless as fish in a pond. It could eat us, make pets of us, kill all the men and enslave all the women or kill all the women and enslave all the men.

If the scifi version of the Abrahamic religion God exist... nothing matters. Everything has already been predetermined and free will is an illusion. Most of men born are going to burn in hell....
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
You stated...

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



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.

Invoking God and representing Him as a Manifestation are entirely different things. All the Manifestations of God such as Christ, Muhammad, Buddha have had a remarkable influence on the arts and sciences as well as architecture. Orphanages, schools, universities, charities were founded in their name. Red Cross, red crescent and so on. Surely you are aware that entire nations adopted a religion of one of these Great Beings. SE Asia is predominantly Buddhist, the west Christian, the Middle East follows the Prophet Muhammad.

The impact the Manifestations of God have had on the world, civilisation and in hearts and minds to this day is undeniable and unparalleled in the annals of human history.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
All of the above applies to:
Martin Luther
Moa Zedung
Fidel Castro
Gandhi




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.

Ignoring the clear and very obvious influence on civilisation of the Great Educators is outright being in denial as history books are filled to overflowing with the contribution Their Revelations made to human existence.

Have you read Draper’s ‘ History Of the Intellectual Development Of Europe’ where he states how the Arabs became a learned nation and spread that to Europe? What about King Ashoka and Buddhism?

“Within twenty-five years after the death of Mohammed, under Ali, the fourth khalif, the patronage of learning had become a settled principle of the Mohammedan system. Under the khalifs of Bagdad this principle was thoroughly carried out. The cultivators of mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and general literature abounded in the court of Almansor, who”

Excerpt from
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Volume I (of 2) / Revised Edition
John William Draper

You can deny all you want but this is the stuff our civilisations have all come from. The Manifestations influenced the arts, sciences and inventions and those who want to pretend it isn’t so do that in the face of documented history.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.

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

That is only because you have no clue as to how to tell if a source is reliable or not. I did explain to you some of the signs of the glamour press. And like so many creationists do when you don't understand what a reliable source is you try to make it my definition when that is not the case. And just because source does not accept badly written articles based upon woo woo that does not mean that they are biased. If you want to claim bias then you must provide evidence that they are 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.

No, a long list of articles in what look like bogus journals will not convince unbiased minds. In fact you supported my claim that it looks like they are all from junk journals. All you had to do was to find one article from a reliable source. You did not even try, even though it was your list. In effect you admitted that you could not support your claims.
 

Subduction Zone

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

No, you didn't. Go back and read your post. You have never asked me to support any claims recently.

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.

The money was there, that seemed to be what you were complaining about. But if you want to claim the challenge was not legitimate the burden of proof is upon you. Specific examples were given to you. I can link to Randi's site and get you all kinds of details If you wish. But I really should not have to do your homework for you.

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.

You have made countless claims that you need to support. You have not properly supported any of them.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm surprised that you recognized my assertion without evidence. Is it only your own assertions without evidence that baffle you? For example: The answer is, they were all given a fair chance and none of them succeeded.
You say that link I gave you explaining the procedure for the Randi prize wasn't evidence? Or didn't you read it?

You're the one asserting that the Randi prize was improperly conducted. You're the one who knows of no examples to support your claim. You're the one badmouthing the Randi prizes regardless. So you're the one carrying the can, and in this case dropping it. Why can't you look such things up for yourself?
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
without spirituality......will you not end up in a grave.....rotting?

You will end up in a grave rotting. Don't believe me? Dig up any grave.

tumblr_me497ihI0D1rluz0ro1_500.gif
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You will end up in a grave rotting. Don't believe me? Dig up any grave.

tumblr_me497ihI0D1rluz0ro1_500.gif
oh yeah.....the horror of it

you can't get out of your body
you did not put you into it

if you can't get out now.....how then after your last breath?

I lean to spirit
this form is here to learn all I can before I die

then.....like the shell it is...
my body will fail and break down

I believe we are formed in this life to become unique

then....as noted in the book of Job

the sons of God gather ….to present themselves
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Do you know that anyone was actually tested? If so, can you link me to a site with a list?
Here's a list of applicants:

Challenge Applications - JREF Forum

How do you know that anyone actually signed such an agreement?
Because it's part of the conditions for performing the tests. It's part of the application process. What's more, he has conducted public tests - such as the 7 he conducted on stage at the Amazing Meeting - where the applicants openly acknowledged assenting to the tests and their conditions.

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.
He set up the challenge, even assured applicants that the prize money existed with bank statements, and set up all conditions so that the applicants had to agree to them ahead of the testing. By any reasonable metric, the offer is genuine.

If you don't believe you can prove it, then we're done here.
It's easy to prove: the applicants assented to the conditions of the test.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That is only because you have no clue as to how to tell if a source is reliable or not. I did explain to you some of the signs of the glamour press. And like so many creationists do when you don't understand what a reliable source is you try to make it my definition when that is not the case. And just because source does not accept badly written articles based upon woo woo that does not mean that they are biased. If you want to claim bias then you must provide evidence that they are biased.
Do you honestly think there's any debate value in a post like this? All you've done here is to make disparaging claims against me personally while ducking the only issue on the table: your claim that there was "no evidence" supporting the paranormal.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Then you have no basis to criticize the point that @Subduction Zone made. The failure of any person to win the Randi prize stands as good evidence as to the lack of credibility of paranormal claims.
That would be true only if the methods employed to do the test were fair.

The procedure for testing is as set out in the link I gave you. I have no reason, and by your statement, neither have you, to think any of the tests were unfairly conducted.
There's plenty of reason to doubt. I've already given you some. I plan a post on more. Watch for it.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Argument by URL.
And when clicked on, it's just an endless list of even more URL's.

If you have evidence, just post it. Preferably in your own words. Include a URL as a reference.
I create posts that unbiased minds would find persuasive.To combat the false claim that there is "no evidence" supporting the paranormal that link is more than sufficient.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Do you honestly think there's any debate value in a post like this? All you've done here is to make disparaging claims against me personally while ducking the only issue on the table: your claim that there was "no evidence" supporting the paranormal.
If course there is no debate. That was a correction. There were no disparaging claims, only observations. Not was there any ducking. And I have repeatedly said there was no reliable evidence for the oaray, a claim that you have repeatedly supported.

Ask proper questions and they will be answered. Errors will be corrected. If you want a debate you must begin to do your own homework and not demand that others do it for you.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That would be true only if the methods employed to do the test were fair.
You say you have no evidence that they weren't fair. Nor do I. So as I said, you disparage but you have no factual basis to disparage.
There's plenty of reason to doubt. I've already given you some. I plan a post on more. Watch for it.
You've 'already given' me nothing but your opinion. If the future post you mention deals with facts and not just opinion, I may read it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I create posts that unbiased minds would find persuasive.To combat the false claim that there is "no evidence" supporting the paranormal that link is more than sufficient.
No, we went over this. The problem is that you have not provided any evidence. As you can see, I am not the only one to point out that a list of articles, and by your inability to find one if appears none of them are from well respected professional journals. There may be reliable evidence out there. But since you won't provide any, and we are not about to do your homework for, it is doubtful that we will ever see any in this thread.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That would be true only if the methods employed to do the test were fair.
And, since the methods employed to do the test were not only agreed upon but partially devised by the people who submitted to be tested, we can conclude that the tests are fair. You have to demonstrate that the tests were not, and you'd have to explain why people who wanted to demonstrate an ability they had decided to devise and agree to a test which was unfair on them.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
And, since the methods employed to do the test were not only agreed upon but partially devised by the people who submitted to be tested, we can conclude that the tests are fair. You have to demonstrate that the tests were not, and you'd have to explain why people who wanted to demonstrate an ability they had decided to devise and agree to a test which was unfair on them.

Eight good reasons why unbiased minds should conclude that the Randi Prize of a million dollars was probably just a publicity stunt and not a genuine offer.

(1) James Randi made his living as a stage magician. He liked deceiving people and he was good at it. “If a trick is well done, it doesn’t look like a trick. It looks real” -- James Randi

(2) If the Prize was a legitimate offer, neutral parties would have been involved to set the pass-fail standards. Instead, Randi kept full control which allowed him to create unfair tests that applicants couldn't pass.

In the words of Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics: If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”

(3) By asking the applicants to sign unfair agreements before testing, Randi would have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If they were foolish enough to sign the agreement, they would fail the test. If they didn't sign, he could accuse famous psychics of avoiding the challenge for fear of being exposed as frauds. While we have no sympathy for famous frauds, the point is that either way, whether his challenge was accepted or not, Randi gained publicity without risking money to pay for it.

(4) Telepathy is the most common paranormal phenomenon. It requires a sender and receiver. I read somewhere that Randi would not accept "pairs" as applicants. If true, that means he didn't want to test for telepathy. If you look at a list of people tested, it confirms this speculation as probably true.

Challenge Applications - International Skeptics Forum

(5) Not even hard-core skeptics took Randi's Prize seriously. According to CSICOP Fellow Dr Ray Hyman: Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments.

(6) Victor Zammit a lawyer who writes often about controversial issues wrote: "I received a number of emails from mediums, psychics and researchers who say that when they applied for the alleged $1m challenge, JR does not reply to them. Why they ask? The answer is simple: when he investigates the applicants and finds they do have the skills to pass the test, he will NOT reply to the applicant ever again."
James Randi Challenge EXPOSED!

(7) The million dollars isn't offered in cash. The JREF stated that the million dollars was in the form of negotiable bonds within a "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account." There's no way to know what they're worth. Stocks and bonds can be worthless.

(8) James Randi discovered a career far more profitable than being a stage magician. He was in demand for guest appearances on TV as a debunker of psychics. He then expanded his career by writing books and articles. His career depended on publicity that would keep his name before the public.

Bottom Line: The Randi Million Dollar Prize was most likely both a hoax and a brilliant publicity stunt.
 
Last edited:
Top