• 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!

joe1776

Well-Known Member
But you yourself admitted that he is not an expert. His area of expertise is as you admitted quantum mechanics, not biology.
I think the question of creation of the universe well within the range of physics and less so of biology.

Actually you believe that telepathy and precognition exist.
I don't believe it. I know they exist as facts from one experience with each.

If you knew you could demonstrate the fact.
I don't know how to repeat the precognition experience. The experience with telepathy happened many years ago when my daughter was six. She sent, I received images of 13 playing cards in a row.

Do you remember The Amazing Randi's Million Dollar Challenge? Many others thought that they knew as well, but could not perform when steps were taken to prevent cheating.
I think it amusing that self-proclaimed "skeptics" weren't at all skeptical of the Randi prize despite the fact that Randi made his living for years as a stage magician, an expert at deception. Your first clue should have been that he called the pass-fail decision a "negotiation." As long as he or someone in his place was part of a negotiation, no one would pass. The only fair structure would have been an independent arbitration.

There is no bias against the paranormal, there is just no reliable evidence for it.
You're repeating what you've read from skeptics. You haven't searched for evidence. Recently, in another thread, I posted several pages of links to research-evidence. I'll try to find the thread for you.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
It's also quite biased against funding research into Stork Theory, Intelligent Falling, Bigfoot, alien abduction, etc.
For obvious (and good) reasons.
Scientists were also biased against general relativity and quantum theory when first offered. If you can offer sound logic to support your claim that my analogies are false and yours true, then you will have made an actual argument.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Scientists were also biased against general relativity and quantum theory when first offered.
I think this is something of a romantic myth, and a canard against science.

In the case of relativity, they were quickly converted. Einstein was appointed a full professor by the remarkably young age of 32, a mere 7 years after his annus mirabilis papers. So evidently the scientific establishment rapidly recognised the value of his contributions, though it is true there were some who took a while to get their heads round GR.

I do not recall any material resistance to the ideas of quantum theory, as it immediately resolved all the contradictions of c.19th classical electromagnetic physics. It took only 20 years for it to grow from the first key findings to acceptance as the standard model of physics.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I think this is something of a romantic myth, and a canard against science.

In the case of relativity, they were quickly converted. Einstein was appointed a full professor by the remarkably young age of 32, a mere 7 years after his annus mirabilis papers. So evidently the scientific establishment rapidly recognised the value of his contributions, though it is true there were some who took a while to get their heads round GR.

I do not recall from any material resistance to the ideas of quantum theory, as it immediately resolved all the contradictions of c.19th classical electromagnetic physics. It took only 20 years for it to grow from the first key findings to acceptance as the standard model of physics.
Now that both are accepted, it's easy to minimize the criticism that GR and quantum physics encountered in their early years.

I recall reading that much of the criticism leveled against Einstein's work was labeled anti-Semitic. I also recall that Einstein and Niels Bohr clashed on quantum theory. Einstein was regarded as a conservative proponent of Newtonian physics.
 
Last edited:

qaz

Member
if by "scientific" you mean supported neither by empirical evidence not by logical deduction , yes, it is the most "scientific" idea ever thought in history.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Scientists were also biased against general relativity and quantum theory when first offered

And big bang theory. And evolution. And heliocentrism.
The correct word isn't "biased" though. It's rather "sceptical".

But anyway.... the difference is rather obvious....

1. relativity, big bang, evolution, ... all those things have something in common: they are actually testable / falsifiable

2. EVIDENCE and succesfull experiments then changed their minds. Your "paranormal researchers" get the exact same treatment as everybody else. Science will include "the paranormal" the second someone can actually demonstrate its existance in testable ways. Until then, why should science bother at all, any more then it is bothering with bigfoot or alien abduction?


If you can offer sound logic to support your claim that my analogies are false and yours true, then you will have made an actual argument.

I just did.

The paranormal, the supernatural, bigfoot, alien abduction, astrology.... they all have some things in common: a total lack of objective evidence, testability, falsifiability...

Whereas the very opposite is true for things like relativity, plate tectonics, big bang, evolution, quantum mechanics, etc etc etc.

This is why the latter are actual scientific ideas (even if they turn out to be wrong), while the former are indistinguishable from sheer fantasy and imagination.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Now that both are accepted, it's easy to minimize the criticism that GR and quantum physics encountered in their early years.

I wonder why you mention this as if it somehow makes your case of unfalsifiable supernatural / paranormal shenannigans any more credible.

ALL new ideas in science SHOULD, MUST even, be heavily questioned / scrutinized / tested / reviewed / ...
NO idea in science is ever accepted at face value.

The question you need to ask yourself, is HOW ideas like GR and quantum physics ended up being accepted by consensus, while your supernatural / paranormal shenannigans remains in the realm of magic and religious beliefs.

What is it, that theories like GR, big bang, evolution, plate tectonics, etc have, that ideas like the supernatural / paranormality lack?

Hint: it starts with "e" and it ends with "vidence".

I recall reading that much of the criticism leveled against Einstein's work was labeled anti-Semitic. I also recall that Einstein and Niels Bohr clashed on quantum theory. Einstein was regarded as a conservative proponent of Newtonian physics.

Yes. So?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I think the question of creation of the universe well within the range of physics and less so of biology.

You said he supports ID and ID is in the realm of biology. Perhaps you meant something else, you should not use personal definitions in a debate.

I don't believe it. I know they exist as facts from one experience with each.

That is hardly enough to base a claim of knowledge. People can be mistaken in their observations. Especially personal ones that were not properly recorded.

I don't know how to repeat the precognition experience. The experience with telepathy happened many years ago when my daughter was six. She sent, I received images of 13 playing cards in a row.

A one time precog experience screams of confirmation bias. And telepathy tended to fail when people are studied. It would be interesting if true, but in almost all cases there is a non-woo-woo explanation.

I think it amusing that self-proclaimed "skeptics" weren't at all skeptical of the Randi prize despite the fact that Randi made his living for years as a stage magician, an expert at deception. Your first clue should have been that he called the pass-fail decision a "negotiation." As long as he or someone in his place was part of a negotiation, no one would pass. The only fair structure would have been an independent arbitration.

What is there to be skeptical about? The whole process was very open. I don't know where you are getting your claim from. They required the claimant to be part of designing the tests. They only made sure that the tests were such that people could not cheat. If Randi himself cheated on how they applied their tests he would be very open to a lawsuit.. Your claim hold no water..

You're repeating what you've read from skeptics. You haven't searched for evidence. Recently, in another thread, I posted several pages of links to research-evidence. I'll try to find the thread for you.

Of course. I am repeating what I have learned from rational people. Would you want me to take lessons from irrational thinkers? And I will check out your evidence, but I do not have high hopes.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As with the acquisition of all knowledge, science begins when we see, hear, smell, taste or feel an effect and wonder what caused it.
And sometimes there is no apparent cause. That is why there is no formal law of cause and effect. On the quantum level there may be who cause but a certain probability that an event will occur.

Science is all about constructing models and testing them.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Now that both are accepted, it's easy to minimize the criticism that GR and quantum physics encountered in their early years.

I recall reading that much of the criticism leveled against Einstein's work was labeled anti-Semitic. I also recall that Einstein and Niels Bohr clashed on quantum theory. Einstein was regarded as a conservative proponent of Newtonian physics.
Can you provide any references to support what you say?

I mean, I know that both were described by the Nazis as "Jewish Physics" and disparaged, but that was not a judgement of the science community, obviously.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
As with the acquisition of all knowledge, science begins when we see, hear, smell, taste or feel an effect and wonder what caused it.
Sure that is where science begins, when a caveman wonders why something happens they way it does. But as soon as people began to develop science we rapidly moved beyond such simplicity.

As Subduction Zone says, modern physics embraces the idea of apparently uncaused effects. This is embedded in quantum theory and amply supported by experiment.
 

sealchan

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?

God, as the creator of all, is also the destroyer. Gods creation is amoral. If we give up the notion that God is all-powerful, then God might be moral.

God creates complex, adaptive systems poised on the edge of chaos. The only way, in our Universe, order survives is in it can withstand some measure of chaos. In fact all natural order arises from a dance with chaos. Artificial order is only as permanent as the next encounter with chaos.

So it is not so much fascinating that a cosmic constant here and there is miraculously tuned for our dance, but rather that our universes particular dance is likely to be one of many possible though mostly unimaginable universes if all universes are the result of such a dance.

And we should be careful to note that no creation seems likely to be witnessed except by some mirror which can arise within it composed of some small portion of that universes own stuff and also participating in a similar dance between order and chaos, knowledge and mystery.

The knower reflects the known to the extent that its imperfect mirror allows it to. The knower is also one with the known and shapes it often unknowingly with it's own glass.

So it is also always true that we see our own intelligence in every form of order we describe. Sometimes we think like a scientist and wonder "what a clever boy am i?" Sometimes we think like a believer "what greatness is our God?" But the two thoughts are opposite sides of the same coin.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I think this is something of a romantic myth, and a canard against science.

In the case of relativity, they were quickly converted. Einstein was appointed a full professor by the remarkably young age of 32, a mere 7 years after his annus mirabilis papers. So evidently the scientific establishment rapidly recognised the value of his contributions, though it is true there were some who took a while to get their heads round GR.

I do not recall any material resistance to the ideas of quantum theory, as it immediately resolved all the contradictions of c.19th classical electromagnetic physics. It took only 20 years for it to grow from the first key findings to acceptance as the standard model of physics.

Of course there is some skepticism and resistance
to new, especially radical theories in science.

It is human nature! And the inherent nature of
science. Due diligence!

If someone finds fault in human nature, and the
essential nature of science, let them. They
probably do not like birds, either.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
God, as the creator of all, is also the destroyer. Gods creation is amoral. If we give up the notion that God is all-powerful, then God might be moral.

God creates complex, adaptive systems poised on the edge of chaos. The only way, in our Universe, order survives is in it can withstand some measure of chaos. In fact all natural order arises from a dance with chaos. Artificial order is only as permanent as the next encounter with chaos.

So it is not so much fascinating that a cosmic constant here and there is miraculously tuned for our dance, but rather that our universes particular dance is likely to be one of many possible though mostly unimaginable universes if all universes are the result of such a dance.

And we should be careful to note that no creation seems likely to be witnessed except by some mirror which can arise within it composed of some small portion of that universes own stuff and also participating in a similar dance between order and chaos, knowledge and mystery.

The knower reflects the known to the extent that its imperfect mirror allows it to. The knower is also one with the known and shapes it often unknowingly with it's own glass.

So it is also always true that we see our own intelligence in every form of order we describe. Sometimes we think like a scientist and wonder "what a clever boy am i?" Sometimes we think like a believer "what greatness is our God?" But the two thoughts are opposite sides of the same coin.

I am always curious how people feel comfortable
making these announcements of fact. Things you
nor anyone could possibly know, for which there
is absolutely no material evidence, but, here they
are, "facts" anyway. How do you do that?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think it amusing that self-proclaimed "skeptics" weren't at all skeptical of the Randi prize despite the fact that Randi made his living for years as a stage magician, an expert at deception. Your first clue should have been that he called the pass-fail decision a "negotiation." As long as he or someone in his place was part of a negotiation, no one would pass. The only fair structure would have been an independent arbitration.
You've been misinformed. In every case the method for the test including the definition of success or failure was the subject of negotiation and agreement in advance between the parties. You can read about the procedure >here<.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You've been misinformed. In every case the method for the test including the definition of success or failure was the subject of negotiation and agreement in advance between the parties. You can read about the procedure >here<.

And, honestly. regardless!!! IF someone could ever
demonstrate telekinesis, or any of that, it would quickly
become a world wide sensation of the first order!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Of course there is some skepticism and resistance
to new, especially radical theories in science.

It is human nature! And the inherent nature of
science. Due diligence!

If someone finds fault in human nature, and the
essential nature of science, let them. They
probably do not like birds, either.
You mean they're gay? o_O Or do you mean the feathered variety?
 
Top