• 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!

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Your "argument" is a logical fallacy. It's circular. You are sure that some government hasn't weaponized it and sure no company is profiting from it because it doesn't exist. And since no company is profiting from it and no government has weaponized, it therefore must not exist.
Disagreed. You assert it exists but it only exists in dubious books and blogs, not in any practical sense. Where are the reputable "Seers" giving advice? Where are the companies profiting from doing business providing supernatural information? Why doesn't the US recruit PSI specialist and have a PSI corps?

Sorry, dude, but yours is the circular argument. There is no evidence of PSI except in books and the only people profiting off PSI are authors profiting off suckers.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Good science is central to this conversation, because you seem to think if studies fail replication, that somehow means it low quality research as if the scientific method is perfect already.
You're crafting a strawman with that argument.

Let' s remember that you jumped into the middle of my debate with another poster and asked my why I had posted the 64% study. I have explained to you that I was dealing with that poster's claim that PSI journals can be expected to be of a lower quality than mainstream journals. The 64% study was evidence supporting my position that because of the intense scrutiny PSI research gets, PSI journals might even be more reliable for publishing replicated studies than the journals of mainstream psychology.

Most of he rest of your post challenges a position I never took, one that is not relevant to our topic so I won't comment on it. But there is this:

Psi lacks in reproducibility and gets worse and worse. I can show the difference, if you want, between 30-50 year research to today.
Sure, please do.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Disagreed. You assert it exists but it only exists in dubious books and blogs, not in any practical sense. Where are the reputable "Seers" giving advice? Where are the companies profiting from doing business providing supernatural information? Why doesn't the US recruit PSI specialist and have a PSI corps?

Sorry, dude, but yours is the circular argument. There is no evidence of PSI except in books and the only people profiting off PSI are authors profiting off suckers.
As I've said before in this debate, I make arguments to persuade unbiased, intelligent minds who might happen by and read these posts. I'm willing to let those readers decide on whether your argument was circular or not. I didn't expect you to admit it.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
As I've said before in this debate, I make arguments to persuade unbiased, intelligent minds who might happen by and read these posts. I'm willing to let those readers decide on whether your argument was circular or not. I didn't expect you to admit it.
Awesome. Let me know when there are PSI businesses and government agencies are using PSI. It's been 70 years and so far nothing. I'll let those seeking fruitless desires for proving their existence matters to decide if you're right or not.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Awesome. Let me know when there are PSI businesses and government agencies are using PSI. It's been 70 years and so far nothing. I'll let those seeking fruitless desires for proving their existence matters to decide if you're right or not.
If your argument isn't circular, you should be able to explain how you know that business and government agencies like the CIA are not using PSI. Can you?
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
If your argument isn't circular, you should be able to explain how you know that business and government agencies like the CIA are not using PSI. Can you?
Ahh, you expect me to prove a negative? Where are these businesses profiting off PSI? All I see are palm readers.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Ahh, you expect me to prove a negative? Where are these businesses profiting off PSI? All I see are palm readers.
Your claim was there's no evidence. I gave you a link to more than a humdred links to evidence and you came back in after a quick peek trashing it.

I didn't ask you to prove there's no evidence, I asked you how you know that businesses and government agencies like the CIA don't use PSI and you can't explain it but you think you've made a logical argument by asserting what you don't know.
 
Last edited:

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Your claim was there's no evidence. I gave you a link to more than a humdred links to evidence and you came back in five minutes trashing it.

I didn't ask you to prove there's no evidence, I asked you how you know that businesses and government agencies like the CIA don't use PSI and you can't explain it but you think you've made a logical argument by asserting what you don't know.
Awesome. So use your PSI powers to cause my computer to go on the blink or make me poor. I'll wait.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Awesome. So use your PSI powers to cause my computer to go on the blink or make me poor. I'll wait.

Ahgg!...urp....seroqewafagafgas....adaga23.....ackkkkk!

Wow! PSI exists!!!!

Wow, that was quick! It usually takes me more posts than that on this topic to cause my debate opponents to stoop to ridicule.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
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?

Word salad

If you have a scientific paper that has gone through peer review and been published in a respectable scientific journal that has as it's conclusion "a god exists", please provide a link.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I don't think you can assume that everyone will agree with you.

I think I can assume that those who truelly understand how science is done, will agree.
Science is done in the community journals, not in those that only exist because the contents can't get publications in the actual journals.

OK, let's go back to the 1950s and the Rhine studies at Duke which showed positive results for ESP. The reaction of mainstream science went well beyond intense scrutiny of the research. It closed down the project and Duke never got involved in funding paranormal research again.

That's still just an empty accusation.
Tell us specifically how "the mainstream" was in the wrong.
You're claiming that they weren't fair in their review. How weren't they fair?

You'r trying to compare apples and oranges. The "hard sciences" are less prone to biases.

What are the "hard sciences" and what makes them "hard"?

You asked me what causes the bias but criticize me for explaining it in terms of a human failing (arrogance)?

You didn't explain anything. You just piled on more claims and accusations.

How would you explain a bias that wasn't caused by a human failing?

You haven't explained anything. You just claimed again.
You have to actually explain how this alleged bias manifested and how it lead to false conclusions.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This is easily tested.

Begin with this premise:

Psi researcher indeed can't get their papers published because the mainstream journals are biased against publishing them.

Now, try to make your argument.

That premise is not supported by evidence.
The premise that the papers are rejected for publication because they don't meet the standards of quality, is supported.

See, this is the core of the matter.
You are CLAIMING that they are rejected for some "special" and even personal reason that has nothing to do with science (bias).

You have yet to support this claim.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

Sounds like you still don't understand.
On top of that, it seems like you don't understand what circular reasoning is either..............................

The 5 points are a comparision between paranormal proponents and creationists / ID-ists.

1. they both can't manage to get published in the mainstream.
2. they both, as a result, accuse the mainstream of "bias", "conspiracy", "arrogance", etc
3. they both then create their own journals where they can publish their stuff and all agree with eachother
4. they both wave with those journals to make it look like they both have publications to make them look "science-y"
5. when questioned, accuse the scientific community again.

I'll also add:

6. when asked to demonstrate this bias / conspiracy in science against their "work", they'll just pile on more accusations and pretend as if those are legit explanations.



It is exactly what creationists do and it is exactly what you have been describing in this thread.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

Are you aware that as a human, you are extremely capable of experiencing things that never actually happened the way you experienced them?

Ask any alien abductee.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
My beliefs in telepathy and precognition can't be refuted.

:rolleyes:

Groovy.

Another paralell with creationists: dogmatism

upload_2019-6-10_11-21-50.png
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Albert Einsten is an authority on science.

Wow, red flag alert!!!


There are NO authorities in / on science!!!
There are, at best, only experts. Experts that can be wrong.


The topic he comment on was the scientific value of telepathy.
Albert Einstein isn't qualified to offer his opinion on a question of science , but you are?

Einstein, along with every other scientist, has opinions. They can be insteresting or not. They can be correct or not. More importantly: they are also very irrelevant to his actualy scientific work, as well as the rest of science.

Not everything that Einstein thinks is correct. And the same goes for all scientists.

This was probably the most blatant argument from authority that I've ever encountered.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Word salad

If you have a scientific paper that has gone through peer review and been published in a respectable scientific journal that has as it's conclusion "a god exists", please provide a link.

Heck, a lot of us would settle for a bit of raw data.
 
Top