Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining 2 the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22
Men is a fool, I dont listen to men. God is all-knowing cause he made us. And I believe my creator and not fools :) In 20 years we sinned 21900 times(3 a day maybe more).
People repent you are evil, your thoughts are evil. Jesus lives and has won death, go to him and accept Him! Dont go to hell! REPENT!
@yahavx I think it could be better explained by as God being the explanation for existence itself. Since God is being itself, not a being within space/time. We must be careful to use faith and reason in conjunction with faith. Faith without reason can go down a dark road. Looking at the intellectual giants in those that argue for atheism and those for theism; the intellectuals for theism appear to much more consistent throughout their reasoning and logic.
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, The Mind-Particle Relationship, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
i rather belive in the teapot between erth and mars. the teapot isn't more or less usefull than god. but the teapot doesn't want my money or political power..
@tatripp True they don't always conflict. The problem that I have with theistic evolution, when did humans get a soul. Did a soul evolve as well. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a soul.
@connerjd Now that is a great point and i don't have any proof for a soul. My older brother who has a masters in philosophy told me that aristotle believed every living thing (including plants) have souls. Souls are what animate the living. Animal souls are different from people souls. I don't have any proof that any of this is true but i find it possible. I believe in the soul but there is no purely logical proof that shows the existence of the soul.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this video proves god's existence.
If it is possible that a necessary being exists, then it is impossible to exist without the necessary being. unicorns, teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters aren't necessary but the creator of the universe is. The creator of the universe is who i call God.
In my life I've been in many tough situations when there seemed to be no way to overcome them. But I sincerely called out my God, He removed my hardships in such a way I could never think. I was a dejected miserable wretch, my God provided me serenity and honor. Yes God exists.
@tatripp In case you wanted to know, God, or whoever, did not create time. "Time" is a human concept, something to help us keep track of our daily lives. And yes, the universe, not time has a starting point, but something must have created God. I mean what was it doing before the universe was created; nothing? "God" is a crutch, a way for us to keep us from going insane. A way to explain the unanswered question, "Why are we here?" A question no one, not even the pope, has been able to answer.
@jbruno1991 I definitely disagree with you. seconds, minutes, and hours...etc are all human concepts. Time is a human concept but it humans did not create time just as humans did not create squares. Squares are also human concepts but they still exist. Language is a human concept, but it still exists. If you argue that time does not really exist then movement cannot exist and nothing can exist. Something immune to infinite regression must have been started time or all existence is impossible.
@tatripp YES, you have therefore proven my point, hours minutes, languages all exist because of whom? Not plants, chmpanzees, or dinosours all of which were created before humans, but humans themselves created these things, thus they exist BECAUSE OF HUMANS. Simple. SO you didn't answer my question, who created god? Because as you state "something cannot come from nothing", thus god must have had a starting point to exist. Agree?
@jbruno1991 Time existed before language or else we wouldn't be able to move to write our language down. (time is required for movement). The understanding of something doesn't create it. for example circles existed before we had a name for them.
@jbruno1991 You are right. I am not being very clear. People created seconds and minutes which isn't the same thing as time. When i am talking about time i am talking about the essence of time and not the human concept of time.
I disagree with your last statement though because God didn't come into existence.
1) we exist
2) infinite regression is not possible
3) Therefore something must exist that exists outside of time that started everything else, namely God.
@tatripp 1) how is time evidence for god? 2) yep, and you are wasting it
3) energy cannot be created or destroyed (elementary science, ever take it?)
4) Can you prove it wasn't the spaghetti monster?
5) refer back to 4.
Do you realize that this "god" of yours is the EXCEPTION to everything you have claimed to be true? It is not reasonable to believe in something which contradicts everything we know to be real. Bottom line: Faith followers = irrational morons full of wishful thinking.
@plod78 Time is evidence for God because time must have a starting point or it is impossible for us to exist in the current moment (logic). Something must have created time or time just created itself. Time creating itself or starting on it's own is unreasonable. The only capable thing of creating time is God. something that is Necessary must have created everything. I assume a spaghetti monster would be contingent because it could be destroyed therefore it couldn't be a spaghetti monster.
Part 1 of your model is flawed. No body ever said that time "began", not even the Big Bang says that.
We don't know what happened before the big bang, because our mathematics fail the closer we get to that point in time. The answer is "We Don't Know" NOT "Time started at one point"
Part 5 is also flawed, because you have no evidence for this "god" person. Argue all day long if you like... but Argument Alone will not prove your god
@BlankPicketSign actually time must have a starting point. How can you say you accept science and math but you can't except this. It is impossible for there to be infinite moments before this current one or else we couldn't be in our current moment.
Maybe part 5 is flawed, but st. thomas aquinas cosmological arguments aren't.
We must keep science and philosophy separate because science can only measure secondary causes.
I suppose you also don't think that miracles are possible. Do you?
Did I ever say anything about time being Infinite? NO I didn't
I said "WE DON'T KNOW" How is this a hard concept to understand? Just because you don't know the answer Doesn't mean you are justified in Making Stuff Up
"miracles" by definition are impossible, because a "miracle" is an event that defies all natural laws.
"Anyways logic is real and demonstrable" So what?
I have a Challenge for you =^_^= Demonstrate God exists.... Right Now =^_^= Not using arguments
@tatripp Actually, what we call time, is not necessarily anything. All it is, is a way of measuring events in the order that we perceive them. Therefore, you are wrong.
@lucasc666 So you are saying that "a way of measuring events in the order that we perceive them" isn't anything? your own sentence contradicts what you said. the phrase "a way" implies that time is something.
@tatripp "A way" does not make time anything. It just means that. It is a means, method, style, or manner, of us declaring an order of events. Methods are not created by anything other than what creates said method. In example, from the webster's dictionary: "worry was their way of showing how much they cared." In this example, it shows that the method was created by 'them', and that no other being forced them to do it. Therefore, you are wrong.
@lucasc666 By saying that it is a "method, style, or manner" you acknowledge that it exists and is therefore something. We use time to measure stuff in physics. Distance is also a human concept but it must exist. I don't think that you will argue that distance doesn't exist. Also words are just a way of organizing a sentence so that we may perceive meaning. Are words not real too?
@tatripp Methods are artificial, they have no true existence outside the mind of an organism. Distance is also artificial and does not exist outside the mind of an organism. All words are is a collection of sounds that humans are capable creating using their body. They only have perceived meaning, and truly are just sounds. Therefore, none of these thing actually exist.
@lucasc666 The essence of distance must exist or else movement is impossible. The essence of time must exist or else there cannot be a before or an after. time and distance are not physical but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have one quick question for you. Does the mind exist?
@tatripp There may not be any time, as it may just be how we perceive events and must give them an order. And who says distance exists, who says movement is possible. We may all be insane, believing in things that aren't real. The mind can make you believe what you want, and you can't stop that. If the mind wants you to see a magical flying unicorn swimming in an ocean of strawberries, you will see a magical flying unicorn swimming in an ocean of strawberries. And yes, the brain exists (cont)
@tatripp (cont) but the mind does not. What wee see as the mind is merely the conscious part of the brain. We do not have free will, our choices are made for us, we do not have thoughts, those are created for us, we do not have understanding, just a broad knowledge of a subject. How we feel, see things, and what we do and think is based on past experiences, genetics, and a small amount of randomization, effectively making all existence a somewhat miserable existence, but it's all we know.
@lucasc666 If our thoughts are created for us, then that implies that there is a creator. If we don't have free will then i can't be guilty if i were to punch someone in the face. Surly most of us have understanding; you use understanding to respond to my comment. Rene Descartes proved that you can't believe in anything 100% except the mind. Even if this world isn't real there is at least a consciousness because you are thinking. "I think; therefore I am"
@tatripp The creator of thoughts is people, things, and organisms. And, you are not guilty if you punch someone in the face, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences. Without those consequences, you will have no experiences to stop you from doing it affair. Also, I never said consciousness doesn't exist. I said that mind doesn't. The figurative version, not the literal one.
@tatripp By figurative, do not mean brain, knowledge, etc. I mean mind as in choices, free will, etc. And I mean that choices are not choices. Sorry this is so short and unproof-read and likely difficult to understand, as it is currently 1:50 in the morning, so I am a little tired and lack the proper cognitive function required to create an actual argument against what you are saying. That is all.
@edmacdaddy Give us some proof against one then. Actually the proof of a God is much more convincing than the absence of one. If you read any books on the Saints or holy places you would not be so easily lead down the empty black hole of Atheism. Educate yourself on something other than Atheism and Richard Dawkins writings for a broader spectrum. Read Scott Hahns book "Answering the new Atheism" along with the God delusion.
@greenleaf4958 First of all you believe in the theory of the big bang. It is only a theory. There is no proof but it still seems likely to me that the big bang existed. What came before the big bang and created that? it didn't come from nothing. St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments from contingency and motion explain why the big bang isn't a reasonable solution for existence.
I don't necessarily disagree with big bang or evolution but i still believe in God. THey are not incompatible beliefs
@greenleaf4958 Sorry i wrote two replies but the first wasn't long enough.
Do you believe that all life came from amino acid proteins randomly forming life in perfect conditions on the one tiny spot in the universe where life is possible?
"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." GK Chesterton
yeah, everything just went right. lol. thats it. thats why every planet is flourishing with life. and the rest of the universe is such a welcoming, hospitable environment.
I think the main point of disagreement in our outstretched discussion, boils down to the fact that rigid science demands rigid controls. This is necessary to reach conclusive results. However, in my case, I am not trying to rigidly prove anything. I am only strictly asking for people to remain open-minded about religion, the paranormal, etc. and not try to classify them as "Dangerous" and crusading to have them eliminated from society.
No, but you are using tests that have been shown to lack rigorous controls to make arguments about scientific topics. You are free to ask whatever you like, but you cannot expect me to accept evidence from an experiment with as many flaws as that one, and which could not be reproduced.
I am sure that since the time of the Tart experiment, there have been many more (i.e. remote viewing) with more rigid controls. There is also a difference between evidence and proof. I believe that the evidence is overwhelming, though there is no conclusive proof.
I imagine that the experiments carried out by the CIA (project Stargate-remote viewing) and reviewed by Dr. Jessica Utts, are better evidence, but her conclusions have not been accepted.
Specifically on her involvement in "Stargate", she was brought in long after the CIA had passed the program over to the defense department because the results were, according to spokesman Mark Mansfield, unpromising. Congress was jumping on Defense to somehow justify all the money that had been wasted, so they hired her because they knew she would write positively. She wasn't able to make any testable conclusions, and that's the best you can say about the results.
Of course, Victor Stenger, being a skeptic, commented as follows:
'Tart could not demonstrate that the controls were sufficient to have prevented the woman from obtaining the numbers by normal sensory means. In particular, it is suggested that she 'COULD' have read the numbers reflected in the shiny surface of a wall clock (Zusne and Jones 1982).' Stenger also comments that after 20 years this result has failed to be replicated. (I wonder about this last statement)
The fact that it hasn't been replicated is further thrown into doubt because the woman stated to Dr. Tart before he conducted his experiment that she had succeeded no less than seven times in executing it on her own. Such reliable results, if they were true, should have been easily demonstrable in the presence of proper controls.
I think I should clear myself on my last statement. It may be impossible to disprove something that is unfalsifiable, but likewise, it may be impossible to prove something that is unverifiable.
Claiming that something is unverifiable is a copout. Can you give me an example of anything that is unverifiable that we have use for? Other than god, I mean, since using him as an example to demonstrate himself would be circular logic.
A good example of something that might be unverifiable, I would say is ESP. There is something called the goat-sheep effect, wherein actual belief may influence the outcome. Skeptics get below average results because they do not believe in esp, while believers (sheep) get above average. There is also the quantum participatory effect, where one often gets what he looks for (particles, waves, etc.) Some of this stuff can be useful, but how it works may be beyond our reach.
No, no no. ESP is easily verifiable. It just hasn't been verified because as far as we know it doesn't exist. The measurement problem in quantum physics (that you get a particle or a wave depending upon whether you are observing) IS verified by experiment. That we don't now understand how it works doesn't mean that we wont, or that it's unknowable.
So do you have an example of something that exists and is unverifiable?
I really did not say that esp was unverifiable, I did say that it is 'possible' that it may be unverifiable, or at least certain aspects of it. Some people may have proof because of personal experience, but as long as others do not have the experience, they will not believe.. Quantum results depends on what and how the equipment is set up. But, what the reality behind it is, may be impossible to prove.
No, there is nothing in quantum physics that may be impossible to prove. There are aspects of it the way the world works at a quantum level that we don't yet understand. There's no reason to believe that it's impossible to understand. People used to say that about everything from electricity to biology to geology and on and on, either because they were incurious or because their agenda was to remain ignorant, so that the facts would not interfere with what they 'knew' (see faith)
Well! As an example in quantum physics, let's take the problem of Schrodinger's cat. There are various explanations for this phenomena , one of which is the many worlds theory. However, from what I understand, if there are many worlds, then it is impossible to reach across to them to actually prove they do exist. Then when you get into string theory, you also have at least 12 or 20 dimensions, but there could thousands of various forms of strings. Many scientists take all this very seriously
Extra dimensions in String Theory (11 is the going number), if they do exist, are testable by experiment. In fact, it's one of the things the Large Hadron Collider plans to attempt in coming years. We may also be able to observe the evidence of the strings themselves by looking back into parts of space that have expanded enough that their tracks can be seen. No one is throwing up their hands and saying they can't prove it. That would be the death of the theory. Care to try again?
They may find evidence of strings, but there are many many varieties of the theory. There may also be something else beyond strings. Who know where it will end?
Given the randomness found in quantum physics, one cannot predict a hundred percent correctly what will happen ( in scientific tests), but generally one can be quite sure of the results. Likewise, if one could possibly predict the future, it would not be with a hundred percent certainty.
Behind an explanation there is often another explanation and another. What I mean is that possibly we will never reach a final explanation for everything. It may be beyond our reach.
I certainly hope that we never reach a final explanation for everything. That would make life terribly boring. But it certainly doesnt make anything 'unverifiable'.
This goes to the fundamentals of what science is. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of scientific inquiry, not the end. Throwing up your hands and saying "I will never know" doesn't get you anywhere. Just like when you say proving something is as impossible as not proving something. Again, this goes to the heart of what science is. If you truly believe this, then you might as well go live in a cave and practice solipsism.
That's fine for science to say "I don't know!, however this seems to contradict the fact that many scientists claim to have dismissed any possibility that there might be something to spirituality, God, paranormal phenomena, etc. It is interesting that you brought up 'solipsism' because apparently that is one of the things that one cannot prove to himself that does not exist. Parallel to this idea one could say that matter is also something that can never be proven to exist.
Waiting for undisputed evidence is fine. I'm doing the same myself, what I am against is ridiculing something before it is proven untrue. Solipsism is the theory that because everything we know is through the senses, then how can anyone prove that the world out there is really what it appears to be. It's like the Buddhist idea of illusion. Actually because of this problem, solipsism really claims that the mind that does the observing is really the only one that one can prove to himself exists.
Again, proving something is untrue is not how science is done. You have to demonstrate that it IS true. I know what solipsism is, Calabyau. You won't get anywhere with it. Certainly not to god.
The Irish philosopher, Berkely came to the conclusion that the world was really mental or spiritual. The only way out for him to avoid solipsism was "God"
Even though his philosophy has not been widely accepted, he forsaw problems that are now observed in physics.
Because of the problems of subjective experience (i.e. the link between oneself and what one experiences), one may possibly retreat into solipsism. However, if one gets positive results from belief in a higher power, whether that be in the form of comfort, healing, happiness, etc., as long as these progress upwards, then go for it! (I'm not talking here about seeing pink elephants after drinking too much), or being fanatical to the point of suicide bombing. or burning people at the stake.
This isn't an example of how god helps you out of solipsism...the first half of your statement has nothing to do with the second half. How do you reach god through logic if you start from a solipsist point of view? How are they related? You aren't making an argument here for what you said before. You're just saying "religion makes you feel good," which isn't the same as saying it solves any of the problems caused by a solipsist view.
I am not saying that solipsism is true, but only that it is almost impossible to prove to oneself that it is untrue. George Berkely, the Irish philosopher, figured that the only way out of the problem was "God"
Solipsism isn't true or untrue. Its just a way of looking at the world. It's an inherently faulty way of looking at the world, because it answers no questions and poses many. The evidence is that we are not living in a solipsist world, that consciousness is a product of the universe, and not the other way round. Occam's Razor would indicate we should therefore choose the simpler answer, that we exist, that the universe exists and is the same for each of us.
I'm not going to say that solipsism is true, but it would greatly simply many things, if it were. It would eliminate the problem of the mind interpreting what is really out there, it would eliminate the Schrodinger's cat paradox. Believing that matter eventually created consciousness, poses many great problems. It makes as much sense to see the mind as primary rather than secondary. Maybe Leibniz was right with his idea of monads.
It doesn't solve the problem of the mind interpreting what is really out there. It avoids it by saying nothing is out there. It doesn't eliminate teh schrodinger's cat paradox because, on top of not explaining why your consciousness creates this universe, you have to explain why it creates a universe that seems to behave in that way. You have gotten nowhere. It does not make as much sense to see the mind as primary.
There is another point here, where Dawkins is off the mark. He claims that scientists do not predend to know everything in the universe, whereas believers in God do. I do not recall any case where a believer in God claims to know everything about the universe. He may avoid any discussion by claiming "God did it", which is not quite the same as claiming 'I know all about how God did it"
The reason Dawkins brings up the teapot analogy is that in countless debates between atheists and theists, the theist will always fall back upon the argument that being an atheist is an impossible position because you can't disprove the existence of god. Dawkins isn't erecting a straw man; he's responding to an argument.
Like I previously mentioned, I doubt very much that theists believe in God solely because it can't be proven that he does not exist. In that case, one could believe in anything, including the teapot. Were there any witnesses to people communicating with the teapot, having visions of the teapot, being cured by faith in the teapot, etc? It sure sounds to me like Dawkins "is" erecting a strawman. I still do not understand the analogy between God and the teapot?
I doubt very much that anyone is stupid enough to believe in God solely on the basis that one cannot disprove that God does exist. As far as I know, no one claims this. So Bertrand Russell and R. Dawkins as indirectly inferring that believers in God are that stupid,
Actually the teapot idea might not be that silly after all. I can show by inference that it may exist. Many people have seen saucers flying around. Now, if there are saucers there are also probably cups. Now, why have cups and saucers if there is no coffee or tea to pour into them. So, if there are cups and saucers, there are probably teapots. Yes Richard! You are right about the teapot, congratulations.
Likewise, one could imagine quite a few things, which does not necessarily mean they are true. For example, I could imagine that God could step down in front of R. Dawkins and say, "Here I am, now do you believe", but that scenario has no true ring to it.
Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Faith = ignorance of reality.
I myself, would not classify faith as emotion. It is more like intuition or subconscious awareness. I might have great faith in a politician who has proven himself, that he will do good, if given the opportunity, even though he is not yet in power. There may be various degrees of faith, however. Some individuals, however, may substitute faith as a reason for other things, such as power, and call it faith, when it has nothing to do with it.
You're completely missing the point. The idea is that the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being. So if you believe in the supreme being, you might AS WELL believe in the orbiting teapot; because it makers just as much sense.
There is no evidence for a flying teapot, but there is evidence for the existence of God: perhaps not scientific evidence the way analytical scientists would like to see, but indirect evidence, nevertheless.
Nobody claims to have seen a flying teapot, but there are claims of contact with God, spirits, visionaires, etc. who testify to God's existence. Even though there is no proof that the contacts are real, they are much more believable than the existence of the teapot.
You're getting yourself very confused. What you call "indirect evidence" is in logician's terms referred to as an unfalsifiable claim (the teapot is an example). If you see a gorgeous woman and say, "she's so beautiful she must be the work of god!" your argument is unfalsifiable; it's not an argument at all; falsifiability is a necessary condition for a logical argument. Ergo, claims of contact with god bear as much scientific plausibility as contact with a flying teapot.
Nobody claims to have contacted a flying teapot, but there are some who claim to have contacted beings who confirm God's existence. Though this cannot be proven, I have reason to believe that they may be true. At least there are claims, even if they cannot be proven to be true. There are no claims for the flying teapot, so you might as well drop off that comparison. A claim, even if not proven, is more believable than no claim at all, especially if the claimant is honest and sober.
You're missing the point. An unfalsifiable claim bears no objective credibility. If it's a matter of honesty and sobriety, the people who at one time believed in Zeus, Amon-Re, etc. really believed in Zeus, Amon-Re, etc.I think Russell himself puts it best: "If the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity..."
Yes! But even if something is unfalsifiable, does not automatically mean it is false. That all trees are made of wood is unfalsifiable, since we would have to check all trees to confirm this. However, we can be quite sure that they are all made of wood. People used to believe in the old gods, but that is a long time ago, and we just do not know what made them believe in the gods and just how much they actually believed. Are there any specific modern cases of people contacting the gods of old?
Your example of trees and woods reveals you still don't understand the idea of falsifiability. Read up on it. Onto the next point, the idea's that it is by the sheerest accident that you believe in whatever god you believe in. If you were born in classical Greece you would believe in Zeus. But why go there, when we have many different religions today. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, etc. Many of the people who ascribe to each of these faiths really believe their god is real.
Just because something is unfalsifiable does not mean it is not true or that it has no practical value. For example, the atomic theory has helped us develop many useful inventions, etc. But it is still just a theory. Anti-solipsism- the position that an external world does exist, is non-falsifiable, just as solipsism is.
The next point, is that Christians, Muslims, Jews and Mormons all believe in the same God (the God of Abraham).
I think the problem here is that I'm arguing under the context of logic and you're not getting that. In logical discourse, falsifiability is a must for an argument of any kind. If you discount falsifiability, then you can, in a logical discourse, argue for the truth of the flying teapot just as well as a supreme god. Read that sentence a couple of times because that's the essence of Dawkin's and Russell's message and it's flying over your head.
You also don't seem to understand what falsifiability is to begin with. The atomic theory IS falsifiable. Anti-solipsism and the claim that trees are made of woods ARE falsifiable (given a definition of exist and of wood). Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. If something (i.e., the atomic theory) CAN be proven false in the face of future observation, then it's falsifiable.
If something is unfalsifiable, it's IMPOSSIBLE, ever, to disprove it by an observation or a physical experiment. The existence of god is unfalsifiable. But no sensible person can deduce from that fact alone that he exists - because then the flying teapot, the unicorn, witches, and Santa Clause also exist (since their existence cannot be disproved).
I agree with you that no sensible person can deduce that God exists, based solely on the fact that one cannot prove that he does not exist. There are other factors, however, that give credibility to the existence of God, besides the fact that his existence is unfalsifiable
The statement "show me!, often used by skeptics (i.e. Randi), really is the same as "prove it to me"!. But, this statement is as erroneous as, "prove to me that I am wrong". For example, "show me that God exists" is as erroneous as the statement, "prove to me that He does not exist". since if God is unfalsifiable, then neither statement makes sense.
Proving that something exists is as simple as presenting evidence, ie I can prove that a rock exists by showing you the rock, the process from which it was made, it's chemical composition, etc. Proving that something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because we don't know everything. However, that doesn't make the prospect equally likely any more than it's equally likely as not that Unicorns exist. (cont)
Proving that something does not exist is nonsensical, if it is something beyond our reach, like the flying teapot. However, we can through inference logically assume that it does not exist.. Likewise, lf one ask for proof on something that does not appear on demand, (i.e. ghosts, etc.), this may be also be erroneous.
Yes, we can logically assume that god does not exist, because there is no evidence for his existence, like the teapot. But you cannot use the difficulty in proving something's existence as some sort of evidence that it does.
I gave my evidence for believing that God may exist. What I considered to be evidence, however, you dismissed all the findings as fraudulent, imaginary, etc., so do not intend to again go through the whole series.
Many skeptical investigators claim to find evidence that something doesn't exist, without really explaining all the factors involved (ie. credibility of those who have had unusual experiences.) These rapid half-hazard explanations, in my opinion, amount to something akin to dismissal, even if it may not be outright dismissal, as such.
Personal credibility for eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. The mind is an amazing thing. For example, people who claim to have been abducted from their bed by angels, and later by aliens, have been demonstrated to be experiencing sleep paralysis in the same way that people who claim to have an out of body experience have been demonstrated to be experiencing interrupted blood flow to the brain. In both cases, the mind tries to fill in blanks in its experience.
Yes! The brain is capable of creating amazing hallucinatory experiences. This may be true for some of the claims of alien abductions and OBEs, however there are others that are not so easy to explain, for example, implants after abductions, witnesses to seeing UFOs come around at the time, as well as doctors testifying that some patients in a deep drug-induced sleep have correctly described specific goings-on in the operation room, while they were under.
There has never been an alien implant that has been demonstrated to be anything but a sliver of metal or a calcium deposit. If you have any evidence of a genuine 'implant' please present it. As for operating room situations, my mother nearly died on the operating table. She could hear the doctors trying to save her, and her brain constructed a scene that might fit what it heard in a desperate attempt to explain why it had lost the body.
This has been repeated in experiments in the lab, whereby people have been subjected to physiological symptoms and in each case have sworn they felt they were floating, or being visited, or saw a light at the end of a tunnel. This is why objective evidence is more important than the claims of one eye witness, no matter how credible.
There are cases, however, where people experiencing OBEs described things away from their bodies. I guess remote viewing includes many of these. One woman undergoing an OBE in a hospital described a shoe on a steep ledge outside the hospital, which was later confirmed (of course the skeptics claim she had previously spotted it).
Also in a controlled experiment, a person undergoing an OBE had to describe what was drawn on a hidden paper too high to reach. He correctly described the contents.
If you are referring to the study about someone trying to identify what was on an unreachable paper, currently I cannot remember who the scientist was. All I can tell you is that it was a scientific test (assuming you are open to the idea that parapsychologist are not necessarily pseudo-scientists, that is).
Skeptics declared that the subject may have seen a reflection of what was on the paper on a clock on the wall. They could have always checked the angle of reflection ( I hope they did).
As far as the OBE experiment, which I mentioned, here it is: The researcher was Dr. Charles Tart, currently professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. After the subject left her body, she correctly read a 5-digit number, which was at a significant distance. (check this out by googling 'Charles Tart' and finding his web site. The experiment is also mentioned in skeptic Victor Stenger's book "Physics and Psychics' on page 111(chapter titled 'Out of Body Experiences'
Ah, Tart. I'm afraid there were a number of problems with his experiment, not the least of which being that he could not repeat the results. The experiment wasn't double blind, and there wasn't proper controls to prevent 'cheating' on the part of either the tester or the testee.
Why would Tart, who was looking for evidence of ESP cheat in his own experiment. How could one carry out such an experiment in a double-blind way? One problem with skeptics is that they do not trust anybody. They think everyone is out there to cheat (talk about seeing the sliver in other people's eye).
The problem with skeptics? Double blind experiments are conducted in every field of science for this specific reason. Conducting a double blind experiment would be as simple as not having chosen the number himself, and setting up monitoring equipment so that the woman could not have checked.
The number was too high for the woman to reach. Since he was the experimenter, then why get someone else to select the number, except only to prove that he could not have cheated. Again, being a researcher, I doubt very much he would have tried to cheat himself. It would have been easier just to concoct the whole thing without any subject being involved.
Why get someone else to select the number? Or monitor the room? Or maybe not sit the number on a shelf in the woman's room and leave her alone all night after she approached you asking to participate in such an experiment? To avoid just this question.
Unless he was in cahoots with his babysitter, I can't see why it would have made any difference. I doubt very much he was naive enough to have the babysitter write the numbers on the paper, then place it out of her reach. He could never have made his Phd this way.
I didn't say she wrote down the number. These were my criticisms of the experiment.
1) it was not double blind, which is standard proceedure.
2) there was no monitoring of the subject to make sure she had not cheated, a concern that must be taken into account when you are testing a subject who has approached you asking if you would conduct the test, and who has made extraordinary claims about her own powers of perception in self testing.
The experiment certainly was not flawless enough to meet the rigid demands of science, but like I mentioned, since that time there have been many more with better controls. As far as the results are concerned, I am sure they also remain controversial.
I do not know whether you want me to cite another specific experiment. I mentioned project Stargate. If that isn't satisfactory, I will have to dig up more notes, but I'm sure there are many more.
In David Marks' book "The psychology of the psychic" he records that the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community (Marks: 75). The CIA report noted that in the case of remote viewing there was a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information that was provided and there was little agreement observed among the reports of the remote viewers (Marks: 77).
Utts and Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the University of Oregon and a skeptic, issued separate reports on the Star Gate studies. ...Utts and Ray Hyman stated that "the research was faulty in some respects. The government often used only one 'judge' to determine how close the psychics had come to the right answer. That should have been duplicated by other judges."
Of course the skeptical dictionary always has a negative approach to the whole field of parapsychology. If I like a piece of music, say, by Mozart and I think it is beautiful, how can I ever convince a rock music fan of this. My personal opinion is that official science may be neglecting something that could change our view about life and how it works. I may be wrong (but of course so could you)..
That the star gate program was unsuccessful was the CIA's position, not the Skeptical Dictionary's. It was the spokesman from the CIA who stated the program was unreliable. It was the CIA report which stated that the program produced erroneous data and little agreement among viewers. You cannot dismiss the people who ran the program simply because you don't like what they had to say.
Of course! If the CIA discovers a secret weapon, they will keep it for themselves and not let it out so everyone can use it. I am not saying that this is what happened, but had they found evidence for something which they can use, why would they admit it, so others might use it against themselves?
You have no reason to assume that there was success. The only evidence you have shows that is did not succeed. It does your case no credit to present a report as evidence that speaks against your point, adding the proviso that it shouldnt be believed. Try again.
I'm not assuming that there was success. I just look upon it as a possibility. The reason for this is because of the contradictions in the results. i.e. Utts versus Hyman, etc.
Besides, I can't really see the CIA giving out the facts, so anything could be possible here. From what I saw on a documentary, however, the conclusion was that remote viewing works about 30% of the time, which is highly significant. Of course, your source of information indicates a much lower success.
The analysis by Jessica Utts was that a small number of subjects scored 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature, according to Time magazine. That was the best that the unskeptical eye could say. Hyman said that even this scant result had yet to be independently replicated. Both reports criticized the level of controls. Is this any evidence at all? No.
Utt's report was very positive regarding the success of the experiment. As far as Time Magazine is concerned, Sheldrake has stated that some of the popular magazines, such as National Geographic, (also Time Magazine, I believe) and some television documentaries, in regards to the paranormal, are reviewed by skeptics (ie. Shermer, Randi, Kurts) for final comments before publication, and their comments are always the same, (i.e.delusion or hoax)., which amounts to nothing but dismissal.
I'm beginning to notice a pattern, Calabyau. Every time someone disagrees with you, you insist they are an untrustwothy source, even if they are the nation's most acclaimed magazine or the organization conducting the study you cite. How do you expect to convince anyone with that attitude?
Each time I give you some source reference for evidence of the paranormal, you always come up with a counter-reference to disagree with my references. We are both doing the same thing, i.e. I'm giving you evidence in support, then you are giving me 'evidence' not in support, then I am giving you evidence against your evidence against my evidence, etc. (of course you disagree wtih me and I disagree with you. You disagree with my disagreeing and I disagree with your disagreeing, etc. etc.
No, Calabyau. I countered your claim about Dr Utt's report by telling you what it said. You countered my claim by saying that Time Magazine is untrustworthy. I countered your claim about the CIA's program by telling you what it's own report said about the uselessness of the program, an you refuted it by simply saying you don't trust the CIA. Can you see the difference?
It was Sheldrake who talked about what he perceived to be bias from magazines, such as Time and National Geographic. I explained to you what he had said about skeptics sort of working with them to edit articles on the paranormal before publication. You can hear it all on his audio lecture, on his website, titled, "how skeptics work". As far as the CIA is concerned, I don't know whether anybody trusts them. ( I'm going to make another related comment in another (window) due to limitations here.
To summarize it all and to be factual about the whole paranormal field, I feel that the pros and cons, disagreement between believers, skeptics, etc. can be so complex, that without thorough checking into the background of those involved, credentials, honesty, etc. it is very difficult to determine just who is right and who is off the track. That's why I would like to have my own personal experiences to give me personal conviction. Of course, where I to succeed, how could I convince anyone else?
Digging up the data can be quite time-consuming, but there is not much else that one can do. I'm still trying to dig up pros and cons on certain beliefs.
hahahaha fail handshake
TheMCBADGER 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining 2 the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22
Men is a fool, I dont listen to men. God is all-knowing cause he made us. And I believe my creator and not fools :) In 20 years we sinned 21900 times(3 a day maybe more).
People repent you are evil, your thoughts are evil. Jesus lives and has won death, go to him and accept Him! Dont go to hell! REPENT!
coolboysoldier1 3 months ago
~Believers logic~
Something cant be explained ---> GOD EXIST!!!
yahavx 5 months ago
@yahavx I think it could be better explained by as God being the explanation for existence itself. Since God is being itself, not a being within space/time. We must be careful to use faith and reason in conjunction with faith. Faith without reason can go down a dark road. Looking at the intellectual giants in those that argue for atheism and those for theism; the intellectuals for theism appear to much more consistent throughout their reasoning and logic.
BeatMasterPhil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, The Mind-Particle Relationship, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
@ tensorbundle, you did this on your own!!
edmacdaddy 7 months ago
I love how when they show that female god, they keep the shot on her tits for a few seconds rather than cutting to the next shot
chocolate632 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alex Jones warns about the a potential false flag attack. Counter-terrorism
expert Dr. Steve Pieczenik concurs with Alex’s outlook, urges the good men and
women inside the system to say no to this shameful and dangerous tactic artice
on InfoWarsDOTCOM
Freedomloveandtruth 8 months ago
The answer is..... There are millions of teapots orbiting around the sun. They just happen to be attached to the earth.
HighPoweredLasers 10 months ago
tea pot was designed.
jhweh2007 1 year ago
i rather belive in the teapot between erth and mars. the teapot isn't more or less usefull than god. but the teapot doesn't want my money or political power..
i worship the teapot now!! ^.^
mindslasher 1 year ago 12
I will take science over religion any day.
connerjd 1 year ago
@connerjd why not take both? they don't conflict unless you pick a stupid religion or if science isn't truly "scientific."
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp True they don't always conflict. The problem that I have with theistic evolution, when did humans get a soul. Did a soul evolve as well. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a soul.
connerjd 1 year ago
@connerjd Now that is a great point and i don't have any proof for a soul. My older brother who has a masters in philosophy told me that aristotle believed every living thing (including plants) have souls. Souls are what animate the living. Animal souls are different from people souls. I don't have any proof that any of this is true but i find it possible. I believe in the soul but there is no purely logical proof that shows the existence of the soul.
tatripp 1 year ago
12 teapot worshippers dont like this video.
Technosauce 1 year ago
Video description: "Dawkins asserts that believing in God is paramount to believing in a tea kettle that orbits the Sun."
My quarrel with this is that "paramount" tends to mean "supreme". I think the better word would be "tantamount" which would mean "equivalent to".
soseg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this video proves god's existence.
If it is possible that a necessary being exists, then it is impossible to exist without the necessary being. unicorns, teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters aren't necessary but the creator of the universe is. The creator of the universe is who i call God.
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp
There's no proof of any creator, much less which one?
edmacdaddy 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@edmacdaddy i disagree. there is proof of a creator. YOU EXIST. Atheism is not possible because of infinite regression. here is proof of a God.
1) time has a starting point
2) Time is something
3) Something cannot come from nothing
4) Therefore something created or started time
5) God must exist as the thing that created or started time.
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp
"Something cannot come from nothing"
Then where did you 'god' come from ?
edmacdaddy 1 year ago 21
@edmacdaddy i think maybe we all Stick in the "Loop"?
Kingdelfrong 11 months ago
@edmacdaddy God is eternal; He exists outside of time.
flameboy1236 8 months ago
@edmacdaddy
In my life I've been in many tough situations when there seemed to be no way to overcome them. But I sincerely called out my God, He removed my hardships in such a way I could never think. I was a dejected miserable wretch, my God provided me serenity and honor. Yes God exists.
tensorbundle 7 months ago
@tatripp In case you wanted to know, God, or whoever, did not create time. "Time" is a human concept, something to help us keep track of our daily lives. And yes, the universe, not time has a starting point, but something must have created God. I mean what was it doing before the universe was created; nothing? "God" is a crutch, a way for us to keep us from going insane. A way to explain the unanswered question, "Why are we here?" A question no one, not even the pope, has been able to answer.
jbruno1991 1 year ago
@jbruno1991 I definitely disagree with you. seconds, minutes, and hours...etc are all human concepts. Time is a human concept but it humans did not create time just as humans did not create squares. Squares are also human concepts but they still exist. Language is a human concept, but it still exists. If you argue that time does not really exist then movement cannot exist and nothing can exist. Something immune to infinite regression must have been started time or all existence is impossible.
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp YES, you have therefore proven my point, hours minutes, languages all exist because of whom? Not plants, chmpanzees, or dinosours all of which were created before humans, but humans themselves created these things, thus they exist BECAUSE OF HUMANS. Simple. SO you didn't answer my question, who created god? Because as you state "something cannot come from nothing", thus god must have had a starting point to exist. Agree?
jbruno1991 1 year ago
Futhermore, time only had a staring point when language was able to be written down, that is when we were able to dicern or "create time"
jbruno1991 1 year ago
@jbruno1991 Time existed before language or else we wouldn't be able to move to write our language down. (time is required for movement). The understanding of something doesn't create it. for example circles existed before we had a name for them.
tatripp 1 year ago
@jbruno1991 You are right. I am not being very clear. People created seconds and minutes which isn't the same thing as time. When i am talking about time i am talking about the essence of time and not the human concept of time.
I disagree with your last statement though because God didn't come into existence.
1) we exist
2) infinite regression is not possible
3) Therefore something must exist that exists outside of time that started everything else, namely God.
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp 1) how is time evidence for god? 2) yep, and you are wasting it
3) energy cannot be created or destroyed (elementary science, ever take it?)
4) Can you prove it wasn't the spaghetti monster?
5) refer back to 4.
Do you realize that this "god" of yours is the EXCEPTION to everything you have claimed to be true? It is not reasonable to believe in something which contradicts everything we know to be real. Bottom line: Faith followers = irrational morons full of wishful thinking.
plod78 1 year ago
@plod78 Time is evidence for God because time must have a starting point or it is impossible for us to exist in the current moment (logic). Something must have created time or time just created itself. Time creating itself or starting on it's own is unreasonable. The only capable thing of creating time is God. something that is Necessary must have created everything. I assume a spaghetti monster would be contingent because it could be destroyed therefore it couldn't be a spaghetti monster.
tatripp 1 year ago
@tatripp
Part 1 of your model is flawed. No body ever said that time "began", not even the Big Bang says that.
We don't know what happened before the big bang, because our mathematics fail the closer we get to that point in time. The answer is "We Don't Know" NOT "Time started at one point"
Part 5 is also flawed, because you have no evidence for this "god" person. Argue all day long if you like... but Argument Alone will not prove your god
You need EVIDENCE. Real, Tangible, & Demonstrable
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
@BlankPicketSign actually time must have a starting point. How can you say you accept science and math but you can't except this. It is impossible for there to be infinite moments before this current one or else we couldn't be in our current moment.
Maybe part 5 is flawed, but st. thomas aquinas cosmological arguments aren't.
We must keep science and philosophy separate because science can only measure secondary causes.
I suppose you also don't think that miracles are possible. Do you?
tatripp 1 year ago
@BlankPicketSign I couldn't fit it all in 500 characters so i am replying to you a second time. sorry.
Anyways logic is real and demonstrable. You can't touch and feel it, but you can't touch or feel your mind or time either and we know these exist.
tatripp 1 year ago
Comment removed
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tatripp
Did I ever say anything about time being Infinite? NO I didn't
I said "WE DON'T KNOW" How is this a hard concept to understand? Just because you don't know the answer Doesn't mean you are justified in Making Stuff Up
"miracles" by definition are impossible, because a "miracle" is an event that defies all natural laws.
"Anyways logic is real and demonstrable" So what?
I have a Challenge for you =^_^= Demonstrate God exists.... Right Now =^_^= Not using arguments
Using Evidence!
GO =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
@tatripp Actually, what we call time, is not necessarily anything. All it is, is a way of measuring events in the order that we perceive them. Therefore, you are wrong.
lucasc666 8 months ago
@lucasc666 So you are saying that "a way of measuring events in the order that we perceive them" isn't anything? your own sentence contradicts what you said. the phrase "a way" implies that time is something.
tatripp 8 months ago
@tatripp "A way" does not make time anything. It just means that. It is a means, method, style, or manner, of us declaring an order of events. Methods are not created by anything other than what creates said method. In example, from the webster's dictionary: "worry was their way of showing how much they cared." In this example, it shows that the method was created by 'them', and that no other being forced them to do it. Therefore, you are wrong.
lucasc666 8 months ago
@lucasc666 By saying that it is a "method, style, or manner" you acknowledge that it exists and is therefore something. We use time to measure stuff in physics. Distance is also a human concept but it must exist. I don't think that you will argue that distance doesn't exist. Also words are just a way of organizing a sentence so that we may perceive meaning. Are words not real too?
tatripp 8 months ago
@tatripp Methods are artificial, they have no true existence outside the mind of an organism. Distance is also artificial and does not exist outside the mind of an organism. All words are is a collection of sounds that humans are capable creating using their body. They only have perceived meaning, and truly are just sounds. Therefore, none of these thing actually exist.
lucasc666 8 months ago
@lucasc666 The essence of distance must exist or else movement is impossible. The essence of time must exist or else there cannot be a before or an after. time and distance are not physical but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have one quick question for you. Does the mind exist?
tatripp 8 months ago
@tatripp There may not be any time, as it may just be how we perceive events and must give them an order. And who says distance exists, who says movement is possible. We may all be insane, believing in things that aren't real. The mind can make you believe what you want, and you can't stop that. If the mind wants you to see a magical flying unicorn swimming in an ocean of strawberries, you will see a magical flying unicorn swimming in an ocean of strawberries. And yes, the brain exists (cont)
lucasc666 8 months ago
@tatripp (cont) but the mind does not. What wee see as the mind is merely the conscious part of the brain. We do not have free will, our choices are made for us, we do not have thoughts, those are created for us, we do not have understanding, just a broad knowledge of a subject. How we feel, see things, and what we do and think is based on past experiences, genetics, and a small amount of randomization, effectively making all existence a somewhat miserable existence, but it's all we know.
lucasc666 8 months ago
@lucasc666 If our thoughts are created for us, then that implies that there is a creator. If we don't have free will then i can't be guilty if i were to punch someone in the face. Surly most of us have understanding; you use understanding to respond to my comment. Rene Descartes proved that you can't believe in anything 100% except the mind. Even if this world isn't real there is at least a consciousness because you are thinking. "I think; therefore I am"
tatripp 8 months ago
@tatripp The creator of thoughts is people, things, and organisms. And, you are not guilty if you punch someone in the face, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences. Without those consequences, you will have no experiences to stop you from doing it affair. Also, I never said consciousness doesn't exist. I said that mind doesn't. The figurative version, not the literal one.
lucasc666 8 months ago
@lucasc666 You say our choices are made for us; then you must agree that they are not choices or that someone else is choosing it.
also, what do you mean by "the figurative version" of the mind. I can't make any sense out of that.
If consciousness exists, then the mind exists as well.
tatripp 8 months ago
@tatripp By figurative, do not mean brain, knowledge, etc. I mean mind as in choices, free will, etc. And I mean that choices are not choices. Sorry this is so short and unproof-read and likely difficult to understand, as it is currently 1:50 in the morning, so I am a little tired and lack the proper cognitive function required to create an actual argument against what you are saying. That is all.
lucasc666 8 months ago
Comment removed
lucasc666 8 months ago
Comment removed
lucasc666 8 months ago
Comment removed
lucasc666 8 months ago
@tatripp lol.
if thats a proof for you, well... thank god im an atheist.
yahavx 5 months ago
@yahavx ha. clever
tatripp 5 months ago
@edmacdaddy Give us some proof against one then. Actually the proof of a God is much more convincing than the absence of one. If you read any books on the Saints or holy places you would not be so easily lead down the empty black hole of Atheism. Educate yourself on something other than Atheism and Richard Dawkins writings for a broader spectrum. Read Scott Hahns book "Answering the new Atheism" along with the God delusion.
777ChiRho 1 year ago 2
@tatripp theres no need for a creator. we've explained the start of the big bang, evolution, what else do you need?
greenleaf4958 1 year ago
@greenleaf4958 First of all you believe in the theory of the big bang. It is only a theory. There is no proof but it still seems likely to me that the big bang existed. What came before the big bang and created that? it didn't come from nothing. St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments from contingency and motion explain why the big bang isn't a reasonable solution for existence.
I don't necessarily disagree with big bang or evolution but i still believe in God. THey are not incompatible beliefs
tatripp 1 year ago
@greenleaf4958 Sorry i wrote two replies but the first wasn't long enough.
Do you believe that all life came from amino acid proteins randomly forming life in perfect conditions on the one tiny spot in the universe where life is possible?
"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." GK Chesterton
tatripp 1 year ago
yeah, everything just went right. lol. thats it. thats why every planet is flourishing with life. and the rest of the universe is such a welcoming, hospitable environment.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tatripp
"but the creator of the universe is"
Prove It =^_^=
PROVE that this "necessary being" exists.
Not with "Argument" or "Logical Models" but Evidence!
Please Provide real, verifiable, demonstrable Evidence of this "god" person.
Until then, I will be eating Soup =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
I think the main point of disagreement in our outstretched discussion, boils down to the fact that rigid science demands rigid controls. This is necessary to reach conclusive results. However, in my case, I am not trying to rigidly prove anything. I am only strictly asking for people to remain open-minded about religion, the paranormal, etc. and not try to classify them as "Dangerous" and crusading to have them eliminated from society.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
No, but you are using tests that have been shown to lack rigorous controls to make arguments about scientific topics. You are free to ask whatever you like, but you cannot expect me to accept evidence from an experiment with as many flaws as that one, and which could not be reproduced.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I am sure that since the time of the Tart experiment, there have been many more (i.e. remote viewing) with more rigid controls. There is also a difference between evidence and proof. I believe that the evidence is overwhelming, though there is no conclusive proof.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
This experiment wasn't any evidence at all. If you have something better, I would be willing to look at it.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I imagine that the experiments carried out by the CIA (project Stargate-remote viewing) and reviewed by Dr. Jessica Utts, are better evidence, but her conclusions have not been accepted.
calabyau 2 years ago
Dr. Utts again?
Specifically on her involvement in "Stargate", she was brought in long after the CIA had passed the program over to the defense department because the results were, according to spokesman Mark Mansfield, unpromising. Congress was jumping on Defense to somehow justify all the money that had been wasted, so they hired her because they knew she would write positively. She wasn't able to make any testable conclusions, and that's the best you can say about the results.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Of course, Victor Stenger, being a skeptic, commented as follows:
'Tart could not demonstrate that the controls were sufficient to have prevented the woman from obtaining the numbers by normal sensory means. In particular, it is suggested that she 'COULD' have read the numbers reflected in the shiny surface of a wall clock (Zusne and Jones 1982).' Stenger also comments that after 20 years this result has failed to be replicated. (I wonder about this last statement)
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
The fact that it hasn't been replicated is further thrown into doubt because the woman stated to Dr. Tart before he conducted his experiment that she had succeeded no less than seven times in executing it on her own. Such reliable results, if they were true, should have been easily demonstrable in the presence of proper controls.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I think I should clear myself on my last statement. It may be impossible to disprove something that is unfalsifiable, but likewise, it may be impossible to prove something that is unverifiable.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Claiming that something is unverifiable is a copout. Can you give me an example of anything that is unverifiable that we have use for? Other than god, I mean, since using him as an example to demonstrate himself would be circular logic.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
A good example of something that might be unverifiable, I would say is ESP. There is something called the goat-sheep effect, wherein actual belief may influence the outcome. Skeptics get below average results because they do not believe in esp, while believers (sheep) get above average. There is also the quantum participatory effect, where one often gets what he looks for (particles, waves, etc.) Some of this stuff can be useful, but how it works may be beyond our reach.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
No, no no. ESP is easily verifiable. It just hasn't been verified because as far as we know it doesn't exist. The measurement problem in quantum physics (that you get a particle or a wave depending upon whether you are observing) IS verified by experiment. That we don't now understand how it works doesn't mean that we wont, or that it's unknowable.
So do you have an example of something that exists and is unverifiable?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I really did not say that esp was unverifiable, I did say that it is 'possible' that it may be unverifiable, or at least certain aspects of it. Some people may have proof because of personal experience, but as long as others do not have the experience, they will not believe.. Quantum results depends on what and how the equipment is set up. But, what the reality behind it is, may be impossible to prove.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
No, there is nothing in quantum physics that may be impossible to prove. There are aspects of it the way the world works at a quantum level that we don't yet understand. There's no reason to believe that it's impossible to understand. People used to say that about everything from electricity to biology to geology and on and on, either because they were incurious or because their agenda was to remain ignorant, so that the facts would not interfere with what they 'knew' (see faith)
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Well! As an example in quantum physics, let's take the problem of Schrodinger's cat. There are various explanations for this phenomena , one of which is the many worlds theory. However, from what I understand, if there are many worlds, then it is impossible to reach across to them to actually prove they do exist. Then when you get into string theory, you also have at least 12 or 20 dimensions, but there could thousands of various forms of strings. Many scientists take all this very seriously
calabyau 2 years ago
calabyau
Extra dimensions in String Theory (11 is the going number), if they do exist, are testable by experiment. In fact, it's one of the things the Large Hadron Collider plans to attempt in coming years. We may also be able to observe the evidence of the strings themselves by looking back into parts of space that have expanded enough that their tracks can be seen. No one is throwing up their hands and saying they can't prove it. That would be the death of the theory. Care to try again?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
They may find evidence of strings, but there are many many varieties of the theory. There may also be something else beyond strings. Who know where it will end?
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
All you've said with this statement is that no one can predict the future, Calabyau.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Given the randomness found in quantum physics, one cannot predict a hundred percent correctly what will happen ( in scientific tests), but generally one can be quite sure of the results. Likewise, if one could possibly predict the future, it would not be with a hundred percent certainty.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
What does that have to do with your pointless statment "who knows where it will end?"
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Behind an explanation there is often another explanation and another. What I mean is that possibly we will never reach a final explanation for everything. It may be beyond our reach.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
I certainly hope that we never reach a final explanation for everything. That would make life terribly boring. But it certainly doesnt make anything 'unverifiable'.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
@calabyau
This goes to the fundamentals of what science is. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of scientific inquiry, not the end. Throwing up your hands and saying "I will never know" doesn't get you anywhere. Just like when you say proving something is as impossible as not proving something. Again, this goes to the heart of what science is. If you truly believe this, then you might as well go live in a cave and practice solipsism.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
That's fine for science to say "I don't know!, however this seems to contradict the fact that many scientists claim to have dismissed any possibility that there might be something to spirituality, God, paranormal phenomena, etc. It is interesting that you brought up 'solipsism' because apparently that is one of the things that one cannot prove to himself that does not exist. Parallel to this idea one could say that matter is also something that can never be proven to exist.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
I'm not dismissing the possibility of the existence of anything. I'm simply waiting for a single undisputed piece of evidence.
Solipsism is a dead end philosophy. It won't get you to god, Calabyau. It won't get you anywhere, because all solipsism is is doubt.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Waiting for undisputed evidence is fine. I'm doing the same myself, what I am against is ridiculing something before it is proven untrue. Solipsism is the theory that because everything we know is through the senses, then how can anyone prove that the world out there is really what it appears to be. It's like the Buddhist idea of illusion. Actually because of this problem, solipsism really claims that the mind that does the observing is really the only one that one can prove to himself exists.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Again, proving something is untrue is not how science is done. You have to demonstrate that it IS true. I know what solipsism is, Calabyau. You won't get anywhere with it. Certainly not to god.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
The Irish philosopher, Berkely came to the conclusion that the world was really mental or spiritual. The only way out for him to avoid solipsism was "God"
Even though his philosophy has not been widely accepted, he forsaw problems that are now observed in physics.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Please explain how god helps you if you are a solipsist.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I didn't say God helps me if I am a solipsist, what I said was that Berkely claimed the belief in God was one way out of solipsism.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
How does belief in god help you out of solipsism?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Because of the problems of subjective experience (i.e. the link between oneself and what one experiences), one may possibly retreat into solipsism. However, if one gets positive results from belief in a higher power, whether that be in the form of comfort, healing, happiness, etc., as long as these progress upwards, then go for it! (I'm not talking here about seeing pink elephants after drinking too much), or being fanatical to the point of suicide bombing. or burning people at the stake.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
This isn't an example of how god helps you out of solipsism...the first half of your statement has nothing to do with the second half. How do you reach god through logic if you start from a solipsist point of view? How are they related? You aren't making an argument here for what you said before. You're just saying "religion makes you feel good," which isn't the same as saying it solves any of the problems caused by a solipsist view.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I am not saying that solipsism is true, but only that it is almost impossible to prove to oneself that it is untrue. George Berkely, the Irish philosopher, figured that the only way out of the problem was "God"
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Solipsism isn't true or untrue. Its just a way of looking at the world. It's an inherently faulty way of looking at the world, because it answers no questions and poses many. The evidence is that we are not living in a solipsist world, that consciousness is a product of the universe, and not the other way round. Occam's Razor would indicate we should therefore choose the simpler answer, that we exist, that the universe exists and is the same for each of us.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I'm not going to say that solipsism is true, but it would greatly simply many things, if it were. It would eliminate the problem of the mind interpreting what is really out there, it would eliminate the Schrodinger's cat paradox. Believing that matter eventually created consciousness, poses many great problems. It makes as much sense to see the mind as primary rather than secondary. Maybe Leibniz was right with his idea of monads.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
It doesn't solve the problem of the mind interpreting what is really out there. It avoids it by saying nothing is out there. It doesn't eliminate teh schrodinger's cat paradox because, on top of not explaining why your consciousness creates this universe, you have to explain why it creates a universe that seems to behave in that way. You have gotten nowhere. It does not make as much sense to see the mind as primary.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
There is another point here, where Dawkins is off the mark. He claims that scientists do not predend to know everything in the universe, whereas believers in God do. I do not recall any case where a believer in God claims to know everything about the universe. He may avoid any discussion by claiming "God did it", which is not quite the same as claiming 'I know all about how God did it"
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
The reason Dawkins brings up the teapot analogy is that in countless debates between atheists and theists, the theist will always fall back upon the argument that being an atheist is an impossible position because you can't disprove the existence of god. Dawkins isn't erecting a straw man; he's responding to an argument.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Like I previously mentioned, I doubt very much that theists believe in God solely because it can't be proven that he does not exist. In that case, one could believe in anything, including the teapot. Were there any witnesses to people communicating with the teapot, having visions of the teapot, being cured by faith in the teapot, etc? It sure sounds to me like Dawkins "is" erecting a strawman. I still do not understand the analogy between God and the teapot?
calabyau 2 years ago
I doubt very much that anyone is stupid enough to believe in God solely on the basis that one cannot disprove that God does exist. As far as I know, no one claims this. So Bertrand Russell and R. Dawkins as indirectly inferring that believers in God are that stupid,
calabyau 2 years ago
Actually the teapot idea might not be that silly after all. I can show by inference that it may exist. Many people have seen saucers flying around. Now, if there are saucers there are also probably cups. Now, why have cups and saucers if there is no coffee or tea to pour into them. So, if there are cups and saucers, there are probably teapots. Yes Richard! You are right about the teapot, congratulations.
calabyau 2 years ago
Let us imagine that everyone has faith in the teapot just does not stand up to the fact that many "actually" do believe in God
calabyau 2 years ago
Likewise, one could imagine quite a few things, which does not necessarily mean they are true. For example, I could imagine that God could step down in front of R. Dawkins and say, "Here I am, now do you believe", but that scenario has no true ring to it.
calabyau 2 years ago
Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Faith = ignorance of reality.
edmacdaddy 2 years ago
I myself, would not classify faith as emotion. It is more like intuition or subconscious awareness. I might have great faith in a politician who has proven himself, that he will do good, if given the opportunity, even though he is not yet in power. There may be various degrees of faith, however. Some individuals, however, may substitute faith as a reason for other things, such as power, and call it faith, when it has nothing to do with it.
calabyau 2 years ago
Faith = ignorance of reality
Its to polite :)
Faith = Lack of logical thinking
Faith = shallow mind
Faith = boundaries in mind which parents and close society put in their child's mind
Faith = lack of knowledge which is made by all that above.
hmm I like this. I'll put this on my profile :)
7BeAsT9 2 years ago
You're completely missing the point. The idea is that the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being. So if you believe in the supreme being, you might AS WELL believe in the orbiting teapot; because it makers just as much sense.
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
There is no evidence for a flying teapot, but there is evidence for the existence of God: perhaps not scientific evidence the way analytical scientists would like to see, but indirect evidence, nevertheless.
Nobody claims to have seen a flying teapot, but there are claims of contact with God, spirits, visionaires, etc. who testify to God's existence. Even though there is no proof that the contacts are real, they are much more believable than the existence of the teapot.
calabyau 2 years ago
You're getting yourself very confused. What you call "indirect evidence" is in logician's terms referred to as an unfalsifiable claim (the teapot is an example). If you see a gorgeous woman and say, "she's so beautiful she must be the work of god!" your argument is unfalsifiable; it's not an argument at all; falsifiability is a necessary condition for a logical argument. Ergo, claims of contact with god bear as much scientific plausibility as contact with a flying teapot.
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
Nobody claims to have contacted a flying teapot, but there are some who claim to have contacted beings who confirm God's existence. Though this cannot be proven, I have reason to believe that they may be true. At least there are claims, even if they cannot be proven to be true. There are no claims for the flying teapot, so you might as well drop off that comparison. A claim, even if not proven, is more believable than no claim at all, especially if the claimant is honest and sober.
calabyau 2 years ago
You're missing the point. An unfalsifiable claim bears no objective credibility. If it's a matter of honesty and sobriety, the people who at one time believed in Zeus, Amon-Re, etc. really believed in Zeus, Amon-Re, etc.I think Russell himself puts it best: "If the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity..."
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
Yes! But even if something is unfalsifiable, does not automatically mean it is false. That all trees are made of wood is unfalsifiable, since we would have to check all trees to confirm this. However, we can be quite sure that they are all made of wood. People used to believe in the old gods, but that is a long time ago, and we just do not know what made them believe in the gods and just how much they actually believed. Are there any specific modern cases of people contacting the gods of old?
calabyau 2 years ago
Your example of trees and woods reveals you still don't understand the idea of falsifiability. Read up on it. Onto the next point, the idea's that it is by the sheerest accident that you believe in whatever god you believe in. If you were born in classical Greece you would believe in Zeus. But why go there, when we have many different religions today. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, etc. Many of the people who ascribe to each of these faiths really believe their god is real.
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
Just because something is unfalsifiable does not mean it is not true or that it has no practical value. For example, the atomic theory has helped us develop many useful inventions, etc. But it is still just a theory. Anti-solipsism- the position that an external world does exist, is non-falsifiable, just as solipsism is.
The next point, is that Christians, Muslims, Jews and Mormons all believe in the same God (the God of Abraham).
calabyau 2 years ago
This reply will take up a bunch of comments:
I think the problem here is that I'm arguing under the context of logic and you're not getting that. In logical discourse, falsifiability is a must for an argument of any kind. If you discount falsifiability, then you can, in a logical discourse, argue for the truth of the flying teapot just as well as a supreme god. Read that sentence a couple of times because that's the essence of Dawkin's and Russell's message and it's flying over your head.
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
You also don't seem to understand what falsifiability is to begin with. The atomic theory IS falsifiable. Anti-solipsism and the claim that trees are made of woods ARE falsifiable (given a definition of exist and of wood). Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. If something (i.e., the atomic theory) CAN be proven false in the face of future observation, then it's falsifiable.
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
If something is unfalsifiable, it's IMPOSSIBLE, ever, to disprove it by an observation or a physical experiment. The existence of god is unfalsifiable. But no sensible person can deduce from that fact alone that he exists - because then the flying teapot, the unicorn, witches, and Santa Clause also exist (since their existence cannot be disproved).
MarsyasX1 2 years ago
I agree with you that no sensible person can deduce that God exists, based solely on the fact that one cannot prove that he does not exist. There are other factors, however, that give credibility to the existence of God, besides the fact that his existence is unfalsifiable
calabyau 2 years ago
The statement "show me!, often used by skeptics (i.e. Randi), really is the same as "prove it to me"!. But, this statement is as erroneous as, "prove to me that I am wrong". For example, "show me that God exists" is as erroneous as the statement, "prove to me that He does not exist". since if God is unfalsifiable, then neither statement makes sense.
calabyau 2 years ago
Proving that something exists is as simple as presenting evidence, ie I can prove that a rock exists by showing you the rock, the process from which it was made, it's chemical composition, etc. Proving that something doesn't exist is nonsensical, because we don't know everything. However, that doesn't make the prospect equally likely any more than it's equally likely as not that Unicorns exist. (cont)
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Proving that something does not exist is nonsensical, if it is something beyond our reach, like the flying teapot. However, we can through inference logically assume that it does not exist.. Likewise, lf one ask for proof on something that does not appear on demand, (i.e. ghosts, etc.), this may be also be erroneous.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Yes, we can logically assume that god does not exist, because there is no evidence for his existence, like the teapot. But you cannot use the difficulty in proving something's existence as some sort of evidence that it does.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I gave my evidence for believing that God may exist. What I considered to be evidence, however, you dismissed all the findings as fraudulent, imaginary, etc., so do not intend to again go through the whole series.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
I didn't dismiss them. I gave evidence as to why most investigators believe them to be false.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Many skeptical investigators claim to find evidence that something doesn't exist, without really explaining all the factors involved (ie. credibility of those who have had unusual experiences.) These rapid half-hazard explanations, in my opinion, amount to something akin to dismissal, even if it may not be outright dismissal, as such.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Personal credibility for eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. The mind is an amazing thing. For example, people who claim to have been abducted from their bed by angels, and later by aliens, have been demonstrated to be experiencing sleep paralysis in the same way that people who claim to have an out of body experience have been demonstrated to be experiencing interrupted blood flow to the brain. In both cases, the mind tries to fill in blanks in its experience.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Yes! The brain is capable of creating amazing hallucinatory experiences. This may be true for some of the claims of alien abductions and OBEs, however there are others that are not so easy to explain, for example, implants after abductions, witnesses to seeing UFOs come around at the time, as well as doctors testifying that some patients in a deep drug-induced sleep have correctly described specific goings-on in the operation room, while they were under.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
There has never been an alien implant that has been demonstrated to be anything but a sliver of metal or a calcium deposit. If you have any evidence of a genuine 'implant' please present it. As for operating room situations, my mother nearly died on the operating table. She could hear the doctors trying to save her, and her brain constructed a scene that might fit what it heard in a desperate attempt to explain why it had lost the body.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
@calabyau
This has been repeated in experiments in the lab, whereby people have been subjected to physiological symptoms and in each case have sworn they felt they were floating, or being visited, or saw a light at the end of a tunnel. This is why objective evidence is more important than the claims of one eye witness, no matter how credible.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
There are cases, however, where people experiencing OBEs described things away from their bodies. I guess remote viewing includes many of these. One woman undergoing an OBE in a hospital described a shoe on a steep ledge outside the hospital, which was later confirmed (of course the skeptics claim she had previously spotted it).
Also in a controlled experiment, a person undergoing an OBE had to describe what was drawn on a hidden paper too high to reach. He correctly described the contents.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Cite the study?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
If you are referring to the study about someone trying to identify what was on an unreachable paper, currently I cannot remember who the scientist was. All I can tell you is that it was a scientific test (assuming you are open to the idea that parapsychologist are not necessarily pseudo-scientists, that is).
Skeptics declared that the subject may have seen a reflection of what was on the paper on a clock on the wall. They could have always checked the angle of reflection ( I hope they did).
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Please cite.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I will cite as soon as I find the information I have somewhere. It may be in a book and it may take me time to find it!
calabyau 2 years ago
As far as the OBE experiment, which I mentioned, here it is: The researcher was Dr. Charles Tart, currently professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. After the subject left her body, she correctly read a 5-digit number, which was at a significant distance. (check this out by googling 'Charles Tart' and finding his web site. The experiment is also mentioned in skeptic Victor Stenger's book "Physics and Psychics' on page 111(chapter titled 'Out of Body Experiences'
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Ah, Tart. I'm afraid there were a number of problems with his experiment, not the least of which being that he could not repeat the results. The experiment wasn't double blind, and there wasn't proper controls to prevent 'cheating' on the part of either the tester or the testee.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Why would Tart, who was looking for evidence of ESP cheat in his own experiment. How could one carry out such an experiment in a double-blind way? One problem with skeptics is that they do not trust anybody. They think everyone is out there to cheat (talk about seeing the sliver in other people's eye).
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
The problem with skeptics? Double blind experiments are conducted in every field of science for this specific reason. Conducting a double blind experiment would be as simple as not having chosen the number himself, and setting up monitoring equipment so that the woman could not have checked.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
The number was too high for the woman to reach. Since he was the experimenter, then why get someone else to select the number, except only to prove that he could not have cheated. Again, being a researcher, I doubt very much he would have tried to cheat himself. It would have been easier just to concoct the whole thing without any subject being involved.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Why get someone else to select the number? Or monitor the room? Or maybe not sit the number on a shelf in the woman's room and leave her alone all night after she approached you asking to participate in such an experiment? To avoid just this question.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
@anthonydavidpirtle
That's why science is conducted in a double blind manner.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
@anthonydavidpirtle
He might also have picked a more objective subject than his babysitter.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Unless he was in cahoots with his babysitter, I can't see why it would have made any difference. I doubt very much he was naive enough to have the babysitter write the numbers on the paper, then place it out of her reach. He could never have made his Phd this way.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
I didn't say she wrote down the number. These were my criticisms of the experiment.
1) it was not double blind, which is standard proceedure.
2) there was no monitoring of the subject to make sure she had not cheated, a concern that must be taken into account when you are testing a subject who has approached you asking if you would conduct the test, and who has made extraordinary claims about her own powers of perception in self testing.
(cont)
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
The experiment certainly was not flawless enough to meet the rigid demands of science, but like I mentioned, since that time there have been many more with better controls. As far as the results are concerned, I am sure they also remain controversial.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Can you cite one?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I do not know whether you want me to cite another specific experiment. I mentioned project Stargate. If that isn't satisfactory, I will have to dig up more notes, but I'm sure there are many more.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
In David Marks' book "The psychology of the psychic" he records that the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community (Marks: 75). The CIA report noted that in the case of remote viewing there was a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information that was provided and there was little agreement observed among the reports of the remote viewers (Marks: 77).
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
From the Skeptical Dictionary -
Utts and Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the University of Oregon and a skeptic, issued separate reports on the Star Gate studies. ...Utts and Ray Hyman stated that "the research was faulty in some respects. The government often used only one 'judge' to determine how close the psychics had come to the right answer. That should have been duplicated by other judges."
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Of course the skeptical dictionary always has a negative approach to the whole field of parapsychology. If I like a piece of music, say, by Mozart and I think it is beautiful, how can I ever convince a rock music fan of this. My personal opinion is that official science may be neglecting something that could change our view about life and how it works. I may be wrong (but of course so could you)..
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
That the star gate program was unsuccessful was the CIA's position, not the Skeptical Dictionary's. It was the spokesman from the CIA who stated the program was unreliable. It was the CIA report which stated that the program produced erroneous data and little agreement among viewers. You cannot dismiss the people who ran the program simply because you don't like what they had to say.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Of course! If the CIA discovers a secret weapon, they will keep it for themselves and not let it out so everyone can use it. I am not saying that this is what happened, but had they found evidence for something which they can use, why would they admit it, so others might use it against themselves?
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
Seems silly to claim the lack of success of a program as evidence of its efficacy. But maybe you have something else you'd like to produce?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
There may not have been a lack of success in the program. We are only told that it was. On that assumption, then the results would be efficacious.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
You have no reason to assume that there was success. The only evidence you have shows that is did not succeed. It does your case no credit to present a report as evidence that speaks against your point, adding the proviso that it shouldnt be believed. Try again.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
I'm not assuming that there was success. I just look upon it as a possibility. The reason for this is because of the contradictions in the results. i.e. Utts versus Hyman, etc.
Besides, I can't really see the CIA giving out the facts, so anything could be possible here. From what I saw on a documentary, however, the conclusion was that remote viewing works about 30% of the time, which is highly significant. Of course, your source of information indicates a much lower success.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
The analysis by Jessica Utts was that a small number of subjects scored 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature, according to Time magazine. That was the best that the unskeptical eye could say. Hyman said that even this scant result had yet to be independently replicated. Both reports criticized the level of controls. Is this any evidence at all? No.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Utt's report was very positive regarding the success of the experiment. As far as Time Magazine is concerned, Sheldrake has stated that some of the popular magazines, such as National Geographic, (also Time Magazine, I believe) and some television documentaries, in regards to the paranormal, are reviewed by skeptics (ie. Shermer, Randi, Kurts) for final comments before publication, and their comments are always the same, (i.e.delusion or hoax)., which amounts to nothing but dismissal.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
I'm beginning to notice a pattern, Calabyau. Every time someone disagrees with you, you insist they are an untrustwothy source, even if they are the nation's most acclaimed magazine or the organization conducting the study you cite. How do you expect to convince anyone with that attitude?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Each time I give you some source reference for evidence of the paranormal, you always come up with a counter-reference to disagree with my references. We are both doing the same thing, i.e. I'm giving you evidence in support, then you are giving me 'evidence' not in support, then I am giving you evidence against your evidence against my evidence, etc. (of course you disagree wtih me and I disagree with you. You disagree with my disagreeing and I disagree with your disagreeing, etc. etc.
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
No, Calabyau. I countered your claim about Dr Utt's report by telling you what it said. You countered my claim by saying that Time Magazine is untrustworthy. I countered your claim about the CIA's program by telling you what it's own report said about the uselessness of the program, an you refuted it by simply saying you don't trust the CIA. Can you see the difference?
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
It was Sheldrake who talked about what he perceived to be bias from magazines, such as Time and National Geographic. I explained to you what he had said about skeptics sort of working with them to edit articles on the paranormal before publication. You can hear it all on his audio lecture, on his website, titled, "how skeptics work". As far as the CIA is concerned, I don't know whether anybody trusts them. ( I'm going to make another related comment in another (window) due to limitations here.
calabyau 2 years ago
To summarize it all and to be factual about the whole paranormal field, I feel that the pros and cons, disagreement between believers, skeptics, etc. can be so complex, that without thorough checking into the background of those involved, credentials, honesty, etc. it is very difficult to determine just who is right and who is off the track. That's why I would like to have my own personal experiences to give me personal conviction. Of course, where I to succeed, how could I convince anyone else?
calabyau 2 years ago
@calabyau
That's why I rely upon data.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago
Digging up the data can be quite time-consuming, but there is not much else that one can do. I'm still trying to dig up pros and cons on certain beliefs.
calabyau 2 years ago
@anthonydavidpirtle
Something cannot come from nothing
LMAO, then where did your 'god' come from?
edmacdaddy 1 year ago