the existence of god is a scientific fact

[ImmortalFlame]

It's a claim to you but a fact for me. It explains to others why I sound like I know the truth on this topic.

As for your disbelief. Why do you think that matters in this debate?

Why do you think your belief matters?

Please explain why you think your opinion, rather than argument, should be persuasive to any reader of this debate.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact that you've presented no hard evidence and rely almost entirely on baseless personal judgements predicated on your own bias.

 

[joe1776]

Why do you think your belief matters?

I told you twice before that by telling of my experiences, readers would understand why I've taken my positions. I hope this third explanation registers.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact that you've presented no hard evidence and rely almost entirely on baseless personal judgements predicated on your own bias.

It's scary to think that you might actually believe that your opinions are facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I told you twice before that by telling of my experiences, readers would understand why I've taken my positions. I hope this third explanation registers.

Then why doesn't the same hold true for me? Why does your belief matter in order to express your position, and my belief not matter as an expression of my position? Why the double standard?

It's scary to think that you might actually believe that your opinions are facts.

No, that's what you're doing. You've expressed nothing but opinions this whole time and asserted them as facts.

 

[Audie]

Then why doesn't the same hold true for me? Why does your belief matter in order to express your position, and my belief not matter as an expression of my position? Why the double standard?


No, that's what you're doing. You've expressed nothing but opinions this whole time and asserted them as facts.

Well, there is a bit more, the subtext re the thought
processes of a creo or psi-ist.

But we've seen all that a thousand times.

And of course-
Asked to come up with one (1) good solid
fact for psi,or, against ToE, there is never
anything forthcoming.

 

[joe1776]

Ugh. Look, you're mis-reading what they wrote and misunderstanding the point of it. It's an analogy OF YOUR LOGIC. It's the logic YOU were using, not the logic they were using to discredit psi research.

How do you not get this?

Take another look:

The parallels are very uncanny...

1. fail to get your stuff published (because it doesn't meet the standards of those journals)

2. accuse them of conspiracy / being biased (or "anti god" or "anti psi")

3. create your own journals and indiscriminatly publish all the stuff in there that you can't get published in the mainstream

4. pretend as if that means something

5. when questioned, accuse the scientific community again

The five parallels only exist if the poster uses his own take on them right down the line. If he doesn't, there's no analogy. The reasoning is circular.

 

[joe1776]

Then why doesn't the same hold true for me? Why does your belief matter in order to express your position, and my belief not matter as an expression of my position? Why the double standard?

There's no double-standard because the situations are different. If you had experienced telepathy, you would believe in telepathy and argue knowing you were right even if persuading others was challenging. If I had never experienced telepathy, my position would depend on many other factors. There's no telling what I'd believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The people who conduct the experiments are scientists, the statisticians are qualified, they go through the very same review process.

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that 64% of Psychology studies failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

If that is the case then you should be asking yourself why they can't be published in real peer reviewed journals. And yes, psychology is a fuzzy science with a high failure rate in experiments. Think how much worse your beliefs have to be.

 

[Audie]

If that is the case then you should be asking yourself why they can't be published in real peer reviewed journals.

Seriously???
The WWOOSSTSTTOG&WW
will never ever let anything that does not
fit the satanic secular paradigm get published.

 

[joe1776]

If that is the case then you should be asking yourself why they can't be published in real peer reviewed journals.

I know why they haven't been published. Mainstream science is biased against the paranormal. In previous posts, I've given likely reasons for the bias.

And yes, psychology is a fuzzy science with a high failure rate in experiments. Think how much worse your beliefs have to be.

I don't think they're worse. They are probably much better ironically because of the intense scrutiny they have endured which has produced some very strong methods such as the autoganzfeld.

It's no surprise to me that psychology research fails. So much of it involves self-reporting which presumes that subjects know the truth and are willing to report it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know why they haven't been published. Mainstream science is biased against the paranormal. In previous posts, I've given likely reasons for the bias.

I don't think they're worse. They are probably much better ironically because of the intense scrutiny they have endured which has produced some very strong methods such as the autoganzfeld.

It's no surprise to me that psychology research fails. So much of it involves self-reporting which presumes that subjects know the truth and are willing to report it.

You need to show evidence for this bias. The fact that journals ignore a bunch of loons that cannot properly test or demonstrate their claims is not bias. Your claim of"scrutiny " is another one that you need to support. Personally I do not think there is any by serious scientists since in general they appear to be a bunch of nutters.

Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know why they haven't been published. Mainstream science is biased against the paranormal. In previous posts, I've given likely reasons for the bias.

I don't think they're worse. They are probably much better ironically because of the intense scrutiny they have endured which has produced some very strong methods such as the autoganzfeld.

It's no surprise to me that psychology research fails. So much of it involves self-reporting which presumes that subjects know the truth and are willing to report it.

You need to show evidence for this bias. The fact that journals ignore a bunch of loons that cannot properly test or demonstrate their claims is not bias. Your claim of"scrutiny " is another or that you need to support. Personally I do not think there is any by serious scientists since in general they appear to be a bunch of nutters.

Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary?

 

[joe1776]

You need to show evidence for this bias. The fact that journals ignore a bunch of loons that cannot properly test or demonstrate their claims is not bias. Your claim of"scrutiny " is another one that you need to support. Personally I do not think there is any by serious scientists since in general they appear to be a bunch of nutters.

Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary?

I've already covered this ground in previous posts. Here's a little more.

The pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing27 referred to the ‘overwhelming’ statistical evidence for telepathy in a landmark paper on artificial intelligence

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, wrote the preface to a telepathy book38 and commented, ‘We have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete.’39

Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've already covered this ground in previous posts.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, wrote the preface to a telepathy book38 and commented, ‘We have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete.’39

Quotes without links are not worth very much. And no one has ruled it out a prori, just as we have not rules out that blue bottomed Pixies made the universe. We simply do not find reliable evidence for either one and the burden of proof always lies upon the person that claims such a thing exists. You should learn what qualifies as evidence in the world of science. The simple fact is that there is no scientific evidence for telepathy. That I can say, and you will even support it.

EDIT: I see that there was a link of a sort, but not to the quote, but to the site that you got that from. I would not call that a very reliable source.

 

[joe1776]

[

... I would not call that a very reliable source.

Well, of course you wouldn't! It's filled with stuff that doesn't support your opinion.

 

[joe1776]

...The simple fact is that there is no scientific evidence for telepathy. That I can say, and you will even support it.

Like hell I will!

 

[Subduction Zone]

[
Well, of course you wouldn't! It's filled with stuff that doesn't support your opinion.

No, it is a site written by and for believers in nonsense. Find a reliable source. Not one biased towards lunacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like hell I will!

Are you sure? Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Then can you tell me what reasonable test would refute your beliefs?

 

[joe1776]

No, it is a site written by and for believers in nonsense. Find a reliable source. Not one biased towards lunacy.

Give me an example of a site that you would consider a reliable source on this topic. I'm guessing this one:

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

 

[joe1776]

Are you sure? Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Then can you tell me what reasonable test would refute your beliefs?

My beliefs in telepathy and precognition can't be refuted. I know the truth about both.

For other people, there is no single test that will prove anything. Research will eventually persuade most people that telepathy is real. That's the easiest to prove because it can be reliably replicated.

 

[Wandering Monk]

"It's true because I had an experience" is not a scientific argument. It is anecdote.