the existence of god is a scientific fact

[joe1776]

How many of these pieces of research, or meta-studies, actually showed strong evidence of a phenomenon? I've had a look at a couple of them at random and they seem inconclusive.

It's good that science studies such things, as to simply ignore them could be construed as prejudice, but studying them is not the same thing as providing strong evidence they are real.

Proponents of the Ganzfeld tests claimed positive results for telepathy using ordinary people selected at random. The results were challenged on the grounds that there might have been a transference of data in some way. So, the auto-ganzfeld tests were devised which involved no staff at all. They also showed positive results which were challenged on the math... and so it goes.

Proponent's of psi research claim that if the standard of proof for telepathy was no higher than say for getting drugs approved by the FDA, telepathy would have been accepted by mainstream science back in 1950 when the Rhine tests were done at Duke University. The Rhine tests were positive for ESP but brought the university under controversy so they dropped the research. They now do research on drugs for Big Pharma.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To begin with, These Beings are unique in human history. Why does the Bible or Quran or the Dhammapada attract millions to change their lives but not Tolstoy or Dickens?

Can this power and influence be duplicated in a lab environment? If we can duplicate a Jesus or a Buddha including a Holy Book with the exact same results then we could say that These Beings are just ordinary human beings Who’s power and influence we can easily replicate.

But if we cannot do so then it is only fair to consider that perhaps an outward force outside human capabilities was responsible for both the power and influence of Their Lives and Writings.

What makes you think people aren't inspired by Tolstoy's or Dickens' works? How do you know? I'm constantly inspired by novels and music that have nothing to do with god(s) whatsoever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The laws of physics are invisible yet acknowledged by science to exist by their effects.

They are invisible but still measurable, testable and demonstrable.

 

[ecco]

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

That is very true.

GM and quantum theory were questionable and questioned when first proposed. Scientists researched and, within a decade, found both were credible.

ESP, telepathy, et. al. have been around far longer. They have been subjected to research. The research has consistently shown that paranormal effects exist only in the minds of believers (and charlatans).

Thank you for the excellent analogy.

 

[joe1776]

My point was that I do not have time to winnow the grist from the chaff. The very first article that I clicked on appeared to be the latter. Since you are claiming that there is valid research and papers on this topic the burden of proof is upon you. Your link has too much chaff to be called supporting your claim.

In my posts on RF, my aim is to provide arguments that intelligent, unbiased minds who read my posts would find persuasive. I don't concern myself with changing the minds of opponents in debate. I think the link I provided is enough to persuade unbiased readers that those claiming there is no supporting evidence and comparing psi research to Bigfoot are biased, uninformed or both.

 

[Audie]

Nice to see you again Audie.

Spent a few days in HK but now I am back.

 

[ecco]

True but there are plenty of proofs and signs to easily distinguish the true ones from the scams.

Give us some examples.

 

[ecco]

well then....

did God make Man in His image?
or did Man make God is his image?

The latter, obviously.

 

[exchemist]

if your results cannot be associated to your experiment

you failed

Whut?

Your experiment is how you get your results.

 

[ecco]

Spent a few days in HK but now I am back.

YAY!

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my posts on RF, my aim is to provide arguments that intelligent, unbiased minds who read my posts would find persuasive. I don't concern myself with changing the minds of opponents in debate. I think the link I provided is enough to persuade unbiased readers that those claiming there is no supporting evidence and comparing psi research to Bigfoot are biased, uninformed or both.

You failed in your goal. I explained to you why.

 

[exchemist]

Proponents of the Ganzfeld tests claimed positive results for telepathy using ordinary people selected at random. The results were challenged on the grounds that there might have been a transference of data in some way. So, the auto-ganzfeld tests were devised which involved no staff at all. They also showed positive results which were challenged on the math... and so it goes.

Proponent's of psi research claim that if the standard of proof for telepathy was no higher than say for getting drugs approved by the FDA, telepathy would have been accepted by mainstream science back in 1950 when the Rhine tests were done at Duke University. The Rhine tests were positive for ESP but brought the university under controversy so they dropped the research. They now do research on drugs for Big Pharma.

Thanks. Which of the papers in that list relates to these Ganzfeld or Rhine tests?

 

[sealchan]

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?

Its called poetic license, faith, inference, educated guessing, confidence, all of the above...

It is a natural and oft appreciated experience of most human beings in my experience.

 

[joe1776]

Thanks. Which of the papers in that list relates to these Ganzfeld or Rhine tests?

I'm not sure but here's a link that presents the pro side and another that offers the con on ganzfeld

.Ganzfeld | Psi Encyclopedia

ganzfeld - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Audie]

In my posts on RF, my aim is to provide arguments that intelligent, unbiased minds who read my posts would find persuasive. I don't concern myself with changing the minds of opponents in debate. I think the link I provided is enough to persuade unbiased readers that those claiming there is no supporting evidence and comparing psi research to Bigfoot are biased, uninformed or both.

Right. The unbiased and intelligent will agree with you.
That is how you can tell they are smart.

As for persuading people that there is evidence?
No prob! You is playing strawman to pretend
anyone would disagree, say there is no evidence.

As for the bigfoot comparison, it is entirely apt.
There is supporting evidence for bigfoot.
Same for flying saucers, same for "psi".

You want evidence that I am Supergirl?
I can do that.

The evidence for "psi" is the same as
for those others listed. Crappy, sans
value.

 

[joe1776]

You failed in your goal. I explained to you why.

No, you explained why my evidence would not persuade you. And I explained why persuading you isn't my goal.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure but here's a link that presents the pro side and another that offers the con on ganzfeld

.Ganzfeld | Psi Encyclopedia

ganzfeld - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

OK thanks for these. It's a test of telepathy. It looks as if there have been studies showing a degree of correlation better than random: 38% vs an expected random rate of 25%. However it seems there is some dispute as a to whether these results can be relied on. It seems the effect, if it is real, is fairly weak.

Now I know what "ganzfeld" means in context, at least.

 

[joe1776]

...No prob! You is playing strawman to pretend anyone would disagree, say there is no evidence.

You haven't been keeping up. Two or three of my opponents have made that very claim. And we're talking about scientific research not Bigfoot caliber evidence.

 

[joe1776]

OK thanks for these. It's a test of telepathy. It looks as if there have been studies showing a degree of correlation better than random: 38% vs an expected random rate of 25%. However it seems there is some dispute as a to whether these results can be relied on. It seems the effect, if it is real, is fairly weak.

Now I know what "ganzfeld" means in context, at least.

As to the "weak" results, bear in mind that the subjects were ordinary people and not a group selected for their ability. Taken individually, participants in the group would range from zero to 100%..If the high scorers were isolated and tested, we would expect results better than 38%

 

[charlie sc]

OK thanks for these. It's a test of telepathy. It looks as if there have been studies showing a degree of correlation better than random: 38% vs an expected random rate of 25%. However it seems there is some dispute as a to whether these results can be relied on. It seems the effect, if it is real, is fairly weak.

Now I know what "ganzfeld" means in context, at least.

The later experiments, that tried to remove confounding variables, found even less effect sizes and continual non-significance. The only reason their most praised meta analysis shows significance is because they included all the horribly designed ganzfield experiment. This topic is a joke among academia, so scientists don’t want to use up resources pandering to hopeful parapsychologists who are trying to prove their theories. However, this not how science works. It’s always the data that leads them. It’s such a wasteful topic.