Bitcoin Forum
July 02, 2024, 01:17:17 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 [180] 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 ... 257 »
3581  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 12, 2017, 11:15:38 AM

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

You clearly did not understand what I wrote so this is probably as far as this conversation can go. These are complicated concepts and difficult to grasp.

I recommend the following book which I believe would lead to an understanding of what I am talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1851687327/ref=mp_s_a_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510450080&sr=8-1-spell&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=beginners+guide+to+epistomology

Best Wishes

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words to justify your belief but the argument is simple, there is no logical argument to justify belief in your specific god instead of others.
3582  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 11, 2017, 10:54:43 PM

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps. There will ALWAYS be more things that are true than you can ever prove.

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

This does not mean we should reject science. Far from it we should embrace science and the multitude of questions it can answer while acknowledging its inherent limitations. If you trace any scientific fact back far enough, you will find a series of basic assumptions that the "fact" ultimately rests upon. These assumptions are inferred to be true but cannot be proven.

Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.  What it amounts to in an argument that we cannot infer any knowledge when all knowledge ultimately traces back to inferred knowledge. You are indirectly arguing that we can never believe in or know anything.

This is essentially a very roundabout argument for epistemological nihilism.

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Quote from: Wikipedia
Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.


Upthread I highlighted Bruce Charlton's writings on why nihilism is a very bad choice. If you are interested I recommend reading them.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Atheist often grossly over simplify this question and pretend the question is only about whether God exists or not and nothing else.

This is very much the wrong way to look at it. Ultimately this is a question of whether one can build a coherent worldview from first principles and apply that to the world and ones life and then live by it.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that this task is beyond ones ability. Most people even many religious people do this.

However, when one makes the choice to sit on the metaphysical sidelines one is accepting the position of a lemming in society. Lemmings let external forces make the big choices for them. These external forces may be the media or a political party or even a religious authority that is blindly followed. Other lemmings refuse all outside influences and choose to be entirely ruled by their base genetic code their animal passions and desires.

Belief in God is the keystone of a rational and sustainable worldview that elevates and sustains mankind. This worldview is largely responsible for the progress we have made so far.

See Religion and Progress

I choose not to be a lemming and believe this is the most rational and logical choice.

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?
3583  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 11, 2017, 03:59:48 PM

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.

I do not believe in God because I need to Astargath. I believe in God because it is the most rational and logical choice.

You appear to be triggered by this assertion but you should not be. You describe religion as "absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant" so if it gives you satisfaction you can simply categorize me in your worldview as among the most "ignorant" and continue on happy your tranquility undisturbed.

The five different atheist blogs you linked. appear to be a laundry list of every Biblical passage some atheist somewhere has found objectionable. If you are truly interested in going through these versus I am willing to do so but you will have to limit yourself to one verse at a time and clearly write out your objections to each. You should know, however, that I am not priest, rabbi, or imam so I do not claim to be any sort of expertise on spiritual matters.

When I quickly glanced through the 5 blogs. Many of the complaints seemed to center around the harsh punishments (often death) prescribed in the Old Testament for various crimes.

One could respond to these broadly by referencing John 8:7 "7Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone" Christians can draw upon higher authority and conclude that although certain sins deserve extremely harsh punishments Jesus has taught a better way to deal with them.

If we limit ourselves to the Torah/Old Testament we can address these along the lines Rabbi Shurpin does below.

Why Are Torah/Biblical Punishments So Harsh?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269629/jewish/Why-Are-Torah-Punishments-So-Harsh.htm
Quote from: Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin
Question:

I know there is an infinite, loving G‑d. It's just that I can't get my head around a few things in the Torah, like death penalties for gays, wizards, and people who curse their parents. Even if these people have erred, couldn't they just be asked to stop or be punished with exile? That's why it's hard to believe that a G‑d who can make a billion galaxies and stars would want us to kill over different beliefs.

Response:

Before answering your question, it's worthwhile to note just how difficult it actually is to impose the death penalty in Jewish law.

First of all, circumstantial evidence won't cut it. You need two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death. Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew. Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off. The same applies to other forms of punishment.

To meet all of these conditions and incur the death penalty seems more like committing suicide then simply transgressing.

Nevertheless, the questions remains: As long as you are not hurting anyone else, sinning is your own private business. Why should you receive any sort of punishment? To get to the bottom of this, let's fly to the moon.

On December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 made history as the first astronauts to go into orbit around both sides of the moon and beam back pictures of the lunar landscape. The next day, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, discussed a lesson to be learned from the event.1

Central Command trains the astronauts how to eat, sleep, dress, and behave in all areas of their life while on board. Deviations, they are told, can mean the waste of billions of dollars. Hearing that such large sums of government money are at stake, the astronauts take every detail of their instructions very seriously.

Moreover, astronaut compliance has nothing to do with how much, if at all, they understand the benefits of the instructions, or the damage caused by not complying. Only the experts on the ground, who spent years researching the issues, know all the specific details. Therefore, the astronauts follow orders without question, even if they don't know the entire reasoning behind everything, because they understand that there are dire consequences for themselves and their team members.

Neither does an astronaut say, "Look, I'm only one of three—which makes me the minority. So if I don't do everything correctly, it's not going to make such a difference." Rather, he knows that any one miscalculation on his part endangers not only himself, but the other two astronauts as well.

Like a flight manual, the Torah guides and instructs us for a safe mission through life. In it, G‑d warns us of the 365 don'ts (the negative commandments) that can derail us and jeopardize our life mission. We don't always know why certain actions are more damaging and dangerous than others, and therefore carry a more severe punishment. But Mission Control does. So we listen.

Moreover, our decisions impact not only ourselves, but our friends, family, community, and the entire world. Actually, the entire idea can be found in a Midrash, composed long before anyone dreamed of space travel:

Moses exclaimed, "One person sins, and You are angry at the entire community?"2

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai taught a parable for this, of people sitting in a boat. One of them took a drill and began drilling underneath his seat.

"What are you doing?" demanded his friends.

"What concern is it of yours?" he responded. "Am I not drilling under my own seat?"

They said to him: "Yes, but the waters will come up and drown the entire boat."3

The Mishnah states, "Why was the human being created alone? ... To teach you that every person must say: For me the world was created."4 This world, as well as all of the spiritual realms leading to it, was created for each and every person individually. As Maimonides teaches, "A person should always view himself and the entire world as if it is exactly balanced. If he does one mitzvah, he is meritorious, for he has weighed himself and the entire world to the side of merit, and he has caused for himself and for all, salvation and redemption."5

Taking all this into account, let's look back at our situation: We're talking about a very stable, Torah-directed society—evidenced by the fact that there is a Bet Din that has the power to enforce Jewish law. We are talking about a community where people know the difference between right and wrong and only very rarely does someone step out of those boundaries. One person comes along and decides to do something totally outrageous, despite a warning from two witnesses and right in front of them, knowing exactly what he is doing and what will happen to him for doing it. Basically, drilling a hole in a watertight boat for every and any sin to enter.

Truthfully, I doubt that such cases occurred too often. Rabbi Akiva was of the opinion that a court that issues a death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court. But the message is there: Don't imagine you're an island to yourself. Think twice before sinning. The entire world depends on you.


It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.
3584  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 11, 2017, 11:33:25 AM
I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.
If your experts did not address these specific tests then your whole argument about experts is a non-sequitor. The real experts in this instance are those who are fully appraised of the particular evidence at hand.
Nowhere in your post did you address the paper by Radin, et al. Earlier you had cited the paper by Bosch, et al which admits that these particular tests are of high methodological quality, and I see nothing in your post to contradict that earlier citation. So you have made a straw man argument.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.
According to evidence reviewed by Bosch, et al, these tests are of high methodological quality, and the data is heterogeneous; they tried to explain the heterogeneity of the data with a computer simulation. Radin, et al give a better explanation of this data and showed how the "File Drawer" effect alleged by Bosch, et al is not a viable explanation. Since these experts (Bosch, et al) actually took the time to review the evidence, their specific conclusion has more weight than the vague and incorrect claim that the effects of these tests are not repeatable.

The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways — by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design — is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.
You did not provide an ordinary explanation that could be backed up by specific data; you cited Bosch, et al who gave it their best shot with their "File Drawer" explanation, later refuted by Radin, et al. Then you put forth a straw man by citing Wikipedia on PK and avoiding these papers.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.
What is your point in referencing tests with poor methods? Your own source has admitted that the methods used in these tests were of high quality!

virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.
Again you are contradicting the claim of your own source about these methods because you wish to abstract away from the specific evidence at hand. You are building a straw man since neither of the papers in question were mentioned anywhere in your post.

Your "copypasta" and straw man arguments were totally ineffective, you will definitely want to review this paper again:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.
3585  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 11, 2017, 10:40:27 AM

It doesn't matter if it's not a calendar, you can calculate approximately what the age of the earth is, it's called young earth creationism and it's wrong proved by science, so again you can disprove the god from the bible.

''I am religious and I do not believe the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'' Then you are wrong.

You are clearly being desperate to try to defend your beliefs, just like most religious people, you keep coming up with silly excuses.

There are also tons of contradictions, mistakes and just plain retarded laws in the bible:

You argued that belief in God is not logical. I showed you that belief is not only logical it's also unfalsifiable.

You ignored my arguments and changed the topic to biblical creation in seven days and the creation of man from dust.

I thus showed you how these biblical passages can be reconciled with modern science.

You again ignored my arguments and changed the topic to young earth creationism.

When I honestly tell you that I do not believe in young earth creationism you accuse me of desperation and silly excuses.

Are you certain it is not you who are desperately to trying to defend your beliefs?

I am simply sharing with you what I genuinely believe. As I have shown these beliefs are entirely logical and not falsifiable.

You reject my assumptions and my truth. Ok that is your right. Now the onus is on you to build yourself an alternative.

Atheism is the easy part. It is very easy to try and tear something down. Five high school teenagers with a backhoe and sledgehammers could demolish my house. When I ask them to build me a new one I am unlikely to be satisfied with the result.

I wish you well.

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.
3586  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 11, 2017, 12:53:03 AM

I'm sorry but we know more or less how old the bible is. https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-is-the-Bible.html
Every religious person agrees on this that the earth was created around 6k to 10k years ago according to the bible, we can easily prove this wrong with various dating methods that prove the earth is far older than this, humans are far older than this as well. Even if somehow the 7 days mentioned in the bible weren't really days, we can still prove the bible is wrong.

Yes we know approximately how old the Bible is or at least how long ago biblical knowledge was given to mankind.

Your other statement is false and easy to disprove. I am religious and I do not believe the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago. This is very much not a universal view among religious people.

The Bible was never meant to be a calendar and it is in my opinion an error to try and treat it as one.

It doesn't matter if it's not a calendar, you can calculate approximately what the age of the earth is, it's called young earth creationism and it's wrong proved by science, so again you can disprove the god from the bible.

''I am religious and I do not believe the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'' Then you are wrong.

You are clearly being desperate to try to defend your beliefs, just like most religious people, you keep coming up with silly excuses.


There are also tons of contradictions, mistakes and just plain retarded laws in the bible:


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

https://www.ranker.com/list/top-20-bible-passages-to-use-against-fundamentalists/ivana-wynn

https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds_of_bible_verses_christians_love_to_ignore_partner/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions

http://bibviz.com/
3587  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true,
You are using a double standard:
On the one hand, you claim that experts concluded that PK is not real, so you trust the experts...
Yet when I cite experts who concluded that these PK tests are methodologically sound, you reject the opinion of these experts, even though I am pointing to experts on BOTH sides of this debate.
The use of double standards by skeptics is a common practice, but it is fallacious reasoning, just like when you move the goalposts for this thread:

again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?
A scientific test is not a real-life example? What about the Eisenbeiss case; how is that not a real-life example? Consciousness cannot be directly measured, observed nor verified, yet these results show a statistical anomaly that deserves explanation. Just admit that I showed you the evidence and move on; stop trying to argue around it when you obviously did not even read up on it. IF these tests are not methodologically sound, then YOU should have no problem finding an expert who supports your opinion with hard evidence. Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs and also include other fallacious comments that do not address what is in this paper. You simply wish to ignore the reality that is being pointed out by experts because you think you know everything already.

I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis

From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum.[15][27] Because of this, scientists have demanded a high standard of evidence for PK, in line with Marcello Truzzi's dictum "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".[10][28] The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways — by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design — is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.

In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute,[ambiguous] formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence for psychokinesis. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.

3588  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 11, 2017, 12:13:04 AM

Well, you are wrong. We can disprove the god from the Bible with science. For example with evolution or the age of the earth, age of the universe, all of those things disprove your god. You can also disprove your god by simply reading the bible, there are so many contradictions and just plain stupid things that can only have 2 explanations, god is not real or god is stupid. Also, no one has to disprove anything, you have to be able to prove it first, otherwise anything can be real if it's not disproved.

Much of the Bible is parable and metaphor. If you read the Gospels you will find that the teachings of Jesus are almost entirely in the form of parables. Similarly the book of Genesis must also be metaphor and parable from simple logic. Let's look at these issues in turn. First the age of the universe and the topic of creation in seven days. Here is a prior post of mine on this topic.


I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

...

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars...

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Quote
The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:
Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

There is little reason to think that the day's mentioned in the Bible has anything to do with days as we measure time. In fact we know it cannot be the same unit of time as the sun which we use to measure a day was not created until the fourth day.

Next let's look at the Biblical account that man was created from dust. Does this literally mean God grabbed a bunch of dust formed it into a ball and out popped man or is this a metaphor to convey a deeper truth.

Was the Bible RIGHT about the origins of life? Scientists believe that we may have had our beginnings in CLAY

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html
Quote
All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

It is a theory dating back thousands of years in many cultures, though perhaps not using the same scientific explanation.

In religious texts from ancient Egypt to Chinese legends, God moulds clay into the shape of man and then breathes life into him through his nostrils.

Even Genesis talks of man being born from dust and returning to dust when he dies, with scholars translating this from the ancient Hebrew as also meaning clay or the earth itself.

In seawater, clay forms a hydrogel - a mass of tiny spaces which soak up other minerals, chemicals and tiny molecules from its surrounding area.

Professor Dan Luo of Cornell said: 'In early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions.

Genesis 2:7: 'And the Lord God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'

Isaiah 64:8: 'But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.'

'Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.'


The conclusions are based on experiments by the researchers using synthetic hydrogels, adding DNA, amino acids and enzymes and simulating the production of proteins.


You argue that "no one has to disprove anything, that you have to be able to prove it first". In this you error.

When dealing with metaphysics what we must do is show that the premise is not provably false, that it is internally consistent, and that it provides a rational model that holds up when it is applied to the universe.

Belief in God is all of these things. Thus it is rational and logical. If you choose to reject God the onus is on you to attempt to build an alternative rational and logical model for yourself.

Most atheist refuse to do this and get emotional and illogical at this point. Very few follow atheism to its logical conclusion.

Atheism if logically followed and explored takes one inevitably to nihilism as highlighted upthread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21736103#msg21736103

I acknowledge that I cannot disprove nihilism only highlight its consequences and argue that it is a very shaky foundation to build a life around.



I'm sorry but we know more or less how old the bible is. https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-is-the-Bible.html
Every religious person agrees on this that the earth was created around 6k to 10k years ago according to the bible, we can easily prove this wrong with various dating methods that prove the earth is far older than this, humans are far older than this as well. Even if somehow the 7 days mentioned in the bible weren't really days, we can still prove the bible is wrong.
3589  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 10, 2017, 08:43:28 PM
Again you are asking me something that I'm not able to provide. As I said I'm not an expert in any of these fields and I can't evaluate whether the tests are valid or not and you aren't either.
The experts from both sides of the debate did evaluate that, it is right in the abstract of the paper I linked you to.

H. Bo¨sch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller’s (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many
of the authors’ earlier findings. The authors agree with Bo¨sch et al. that existing studies provide statistical
evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodological quality, and that effect
sizes are distributed heterogeneously


If such thing is true, why haven't we heard about it? Why are we not seeing it everyday, where are the applications?



They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true, again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?
3590  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 10, 2017, 08:26:12 PM


Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason,
Exactly. Radin, et al wrote this paper to show that those who claim that PK is "not proven" are wrong. You did not show that the tests are methodologically unsound. You could not discredit these tests and skeptics could not account for the results with their "File Drawer" explanation. I am pretty sure that you never bothered to read this paper.

A scientist claims there is no life after death because the laws of physics make it impossible.

I'd now like to see the "completely understood" scientific explanation of how physical matter creates consciousness.

Any such explanation would be complete bullshit because it's not understood.

It's not understood because the question isn't valid. Consciousness is fundamental NOT an emergent property of matter.

Because consciousness is fundamental the possibility of awareness persisting beyond death cannot scientifically be ruled-out.

Just because there is a debate does not mean your opinion is the right one, it just means there is disagreement. You would need to provide evidence to back up your opinion, otherwise it has no merit. Where is the evidence that backs up your opinion of the paper by Radin, et al and the Eisenbeiss case? Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19336271;topicseen#msg19336271

Again you are asking me something that I'm not able to provide. As I said I'm not an expert in any of these fields and I can't evaluate whether the tests are valid or not and you aren't either. If such thing is true, why haven't we heard about it? Why are we not seeing it everyday, where are the applications?
3591  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 10, 2017, 08:19:28 PM
No is not and you know is not. ''consistent with what we know about God.'' First of all, there is no ''what we know about god'' God is made up, people made up god thousands of years ago so it doesn't follow that it's logical belief. People didn't come up with god following logic, they just invented him like all the other gods because they didn't know better. So don't bullshit me.

Well let's break down your argument a little more systematically.

You (presumably) start with the premise that humans are foolish and make stuff up. We can verify this is true from our observations today.

From here you can infer that it is possible for a god to be made up. We can verify this by looking at the multitude of gods in human history. Their existence and teachings are mutually exclusive. They logically cannot all exist.

So far so good but from here your argument gets very wobbly. You assume that God was therefore made up presumably by a primitive and unsophisticated people because they "didn't know better".

Note that tradition and the written accounts in the Book of Exodus tell us that God was heard and witnessed by the entire nation of Israel.



It would be much much harder to falsify an event that is common history and witnesses by all then an event that was witnessed by a single individual but let's set that aside for now.

You argue that "People didn't come up with God following logic, they just invented him."

If this was true then it should be a trivial and simple matter to fundamentally disprove God's existence with modern science and logic. Our technology, educational achievements and abilities are orders of magnitude beyond what they were 4,000 years ago. We can after all easily disprove the existence of many ancient pagan deities as they were understood by their followers.

Yet interestingly we find that not only is science and logic not able to disprove God but at a fundamental level we see that science and logic will never be able to disprove God. As understood by Ethical Monotheism God is entirely compatible with science and logic.

For those who did not follow the upthread discuss see Perry Marshall essay: The Limits of Science

The way of a person's life IS his religion.    Cool

Indeed a critical point that is often ignored not only by the atheist but many religious people as well.

Well, you are wrong. We can disprove the god from the Bible with science. For example with evolution or the age of the earth, age of the universe, all of those things disprove your god. You can also disprove your god by simply reading the bible, there are so many contradictions and just plain stupid things that can only have 2 explanations, god is not real or god is stupid. Also, no one has to disprove anything, you have to be able to prove it first, otherwise anything can be real if it's not disproved.
3592  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 10, 2017, 04:39:36 PM

No is not and you know is not. ''consistent with what we know about God.'' First of all, there is no ''what we know about god'' God is made up, people made up god thousands of years ago so it doesn't follow that it's logical belief. People didn't come up with god following logic, they just invented him like all the other gods because they didn't know better. So don't bullshit me.

After all the things that Coincube, myself, many others, and nature itself have shown you, you continue to profess your fictional idea that God doesn't exist. Your fiction will never come true, because you can't out-believe God so that God doesn't exist because of your faith. The greatest thing you will prove doing is ousting God from your life. When that happens, you will have nothing to hold you alive any longer.

Cool

No one is talking to you, you never accept evidence that's against your beliefs. I showed you plenty and you can't even argue against it.
3593  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 10, 2017, 02:36:21 PM

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?
I gave you the quora link, it comes from an expert. The paper is one expert responding to another one. The evidence will not be overcome by your appeals to authority. I have to post this evidence because people do not even know it exists, and many refuse to read about it since they call it "woo" to avoid the reality of these tests. You did not post any research, but I was able to find quality papers, anyone who knows how to read a science paper can evaluate the paper for themselves.

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?


I found that these researchers rebutted the claims of skeptics and that the skeptics admitted that these tests were of high methodological quality.

Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason, are you dumb? No one cares, just stop, go make a thread about your magic, there is no such thing as telekinesis. How many people have you seen using it, how dumb can you be?
3594  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Health and Religion on: November 10, 2017, 02:34:55 PM

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe/

''We know that wherever is outside of the universe must logically be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.'' Even if we agree with that and we shouldn't, the argument says nothing against a lot of uncaused causes, if everything that's outside the universe must have no cause then it could easily mean there are a ton of uncaused things outside the universe which doesn't solve any problem.

It does solve a problem. It shows us that what we can logically deduce exists outside the universe is entirely consistent with what we know about God.

As Perry Marshal stated The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in constructing a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical.

This is as far as reason can ever take us for beyond this point we must obtain knowledge in a different way. Here is a nice essay on this final step that I stumbled across today. The author in this case is Jewish but the principles discussed are broad and inclusive.

Lose Your Illusions and Find Infinity: A Jewish Take on Atheism and God
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1603976
Quote from: Etian Press
I don’t believe in Santa Claus. I used to when I was a little kid, then my Mom told me that Santa didn’t come to our house because we were Jewish. Eventually with the help of some Hanukkah presents, I got over this loss and I soon after outgrew believing in Santa. Around that same time, I also believed that God was an old man, with a big white turban, a long white beard and sat on a flying carpet in the sky. I also outgrew believing this fantasy, and for many years afterwards, when it came to God I was an agnostic, meaning I was on the fence. I didn’t know either way whether or not God existed, I didn’t have faith in Gods existence, nor did I deny it, I just didn’t know.

During a visit to Israel in 1998, I discovered a Judaism very different than the one I grew up with. A Judaism that was a wisdom tradition, a spiritual path to awaken people their highest selves.  I also came to have faith in God, but not the childish god-concept I had growing up. In fact, the God atheists don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either. So what do I mean when I say “God”?

I can’t tell you, because its not something I can put into words. The word “water” doesn’t make you wet, but you know what it’s referring to. This is not the case with the word “God.” Rav Abraham Issac Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine, a visionary and philosopher writes:

“All the divine names, whether in Hebrew or any language, give us only a tiny and dull spark of the hidden light to which the soul aspires when it utters the word “God.” Every definition of God brings about heresy, every definition is spiritual idolatry; even attributing to Him intellect and will, even the term divine, the term God, suffers from the limitation of definition.”

God is beyond any concept. God is beyond even the concept of beyond. Both the terms God and Goddess have nothing to do with “God.” Thus, it would be wise to say that anything I write about God will be a metaphor, an approximation of something I can’t actually describe. Having stated that, what I hope to share with you are some of the fundamental Jewish ideas and teachings about God, the most important being that “God is One.”

First, a bit about Rav Kook and atheism. Rav Kook, who lived in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) under the British Mandate, was known for being universal, out of the box, and able to befriend and dialogue with people holding seemingly opposite ideologies from him, including the secular Zionists who were proud atheists. Rav Kook actually believed that the phenomenon of atheism was the hand of God influencing history because religious practice had fallen to a state where too many people had blind faith in a deity that did not exist. He writes:

“Since the thoughts concerning God in their basic elements are unclear, God being, as conceived by the multitude and even by individuals who should be their leaders, is that of a ruthless power from which there is no escape and to whom one must necessarily be subservient. ... No grandeur of God is then manifest in the soul, but only the lowliness of wild imaginings, that conjure up a form of some deceptive, vague angry deity that is dissociated from reality. It confuses everyone who believes in it, depresses his spirit, blunts his feelings, inhibits the assertion of his sensibilities, and uproots the Divine glory in his soul. ... atheism arises as a pained outcry to liberate man from this narrow and alien pit, to raise him from the darkness ... To uproot the dross that separates man from the truly divine light, and in the ruins wrought by atheism will the higher knowledge of God erect her Temple.”

So if atheism came to smash the idols of false conceptions of God, what is this “higher knowledge” of God that Rav Kook is talking about? Rabbi David Aaron, on of my first teachers of Torah and Kabbalah, teaches that Judaism is not a religion that believes in one God, but that God is ONE. What does this mean? When I look around with my physical eyes I don’t see God. I see trees, cars, the sky, shopping malls, but I dont see God. My experience of life is of duality, of separation, a world of contrast, of opposites, good and evil, life and death, us and them, pain and pleasure. I am a self, separate from the world, a small finite time-bound being living out my cycle of birth, life and death, surrounded by a multitude of other beings and things that are not me, and that are also destined to pass away.

Knowledge of God (called the experience of d’vekut, which means “bonding” or “unifying” in Jewish thought) reveals to me that I and everything else in this temporary world of multiplicity and separation is One with God. It is seeing but not with my eyes and knowing but through my mind, that duality is not the fundamental truth of existence. That the Infinite and Eternal One is giving birth to creation every single second, and that the flow of history is Divine intelligence unfolding through time. It’s seeing what the kabbalists teach as “Ain Od Milvado” (אין עוד מלבדו), which translated means, “There is nothing more than Him.”  Judaism teaches that although God transcends creation, everything in creation is sourced in God, is One.



This higher knowledge of God is reflected in the Hebrew names of God. The name of God most used in Hebrew (the Hebrew of Jewish sacred texts is known as Loshon Kodesh, which means the “Holy Speech” because it is a God-centered language) to refer to the Divine is Hashem. Translated, “Hashem” means “The Name” because it refers to one of the most sacred names of God in the Torah. This name is composed of the four letters (read from right to left) ה (Heh) - ו (Vav) - ה (Heh) - י (Yud) and is known in English as the Tetragrammaton, which means the “four-letter name.” This name is not spoken, its pronunciation has been lost to known history. Thousands of years ago, it was pronounced during Yom Kippur by the High Priest when he stood in the Holy of Holies, home of the Ark of the Covenant inside the Holy Temple of  Jerusalem. Hashem is the name God revealed to Moses after Moses asked whom he should tell the Israelites sent him, and Hashem answered tell them “I will be what I will Be.”

This answer, which is a name, implies that God transcends time.  A common question people ask is if God made everything then what made God? Then what made whatever made God? Then what made that, ad infinitum. Inherent in this question is the idea of causality, that A causes B, which causes C, like dominoes falling in a line, like time flowing from the past into the present into future.  God was, God is and God will be.  This concept is contained in the letters of Hashem’s name, which is a composite of the past present and future tenses of the verb “to be”: God was (היה), God is (הווה), and God will be (יהיה).  Everytime the name Hashem is used in the Torah or spoken, it is invoking and evoking that God is infinite, and beyond beginning middle and end.  

God cannot be grasped through our mind because our mind is time-bound. There is a story about a man who is found by his neighbor looking for something under a streetlamp. When his neighbor asks him what he is looking for, the man replies his keys. The neighbor then asks him where he lost them and the man replies in his house. Upon being asked by his neighbor why the man is looking for his keys under a streetlamp outside, if his keys are in his house, the man answers because there is light under the lamp and his house is dark.

This story is a great metaphor to describe the folly of searching for God with our minds. The intellect is an incredibly powerful tool. Through the power of our cerebral cortex humanity has developed the scientific method, discovered the laws of nature, put a man on the moon, ushered in the digital age and given us almost God-like powers. We are so used to using our minds to look for answers, but in searching for God, the “streetlamp” is our intellect, and the “keys” are God. No matter how much we look with our intellect and its tools, God cannot be found, and the fact that God cannot be found with a microscope or telescope does not prove that God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So how does a time-bound being awaken to that which is timeless? The Tikkunei Zohar, a classic of Jewish mysticism, states, “No thought can grasp him.” Higher knowledge of God does not require that a person discard reason, but simply be open to the possibility that there are ways of knowing that are trans-rational. The God atheists deny is a man-made construct whose origin is in the human mind. Hashem, also known in kabbalistic terms as the “Endless Light,” cannot be grasped or conceived of by the human mind but can be apprehended through transcending the mind. Torah is the Jewish spiritual path, a set of practices to awaken to this transcendent knowledge of God. When this awakening happens we behold, that we are not alone, that there is nothing to fear and that our true source is Hashem.

May Hashem bless us with d’vekut, to see through the prison of our finite minds, and to recognize that we are all a spark of the Infinite One.  


No is not and you know is not. ''consistent with what we know about God.'' First of all, there is no ''what we know about god'' God is made up, people made up god thousands of years ago so it doesn't follow that it's logical belief. People didn't come up with god following logic, they just invented him like all the other gods because they didn't know better. So don't bullshit me.
3595  Other / Off-topic / Re: Is Religion slowly dying? on: November 10, 2017, 12:31:07 AM
I think that, as people are faced less with death and illness, they turn away from religion. Today many happily live until a very old age. There is just less need for the kind of comfort that religion provides us with.
Religion is not slowly, but quickly dies. I think that it is for this reason that in recent years more and more we see the hidden advertising of religion. The more educated people are the less they believe in fairy tales.

Religion is not dying. The focus of religion is simply changing.

In the past, religion was focused on God. Now it is focused on the science fiction made up by people. Here is what I mean.

Science theory is theory because it does not have enough evidence to prove that it is fact. Consider Big Bang Theory. It is not known to be fact, and it probably will never be known to be fact. Yet look at how many people around the world talk like they believe it is fact, based on some probability calculations, that are not known to be correct. Looks like science is becoming a religion.

Cool

How is science just a theory. The only reason you are even able to type this is because of science. The only reason you can drive a car is because of science. Nothing else gave you that car other than science. That is proven lol. To say science is a theory means you are basically saying you don't believe in anything in this world other than a "God". I can prove that a ball can and will be slowed down by air resistance in the Earth's atmosphere. You can prove that if you reach terminal velocity you are going 200km/h.

He is badecker, you won't convince him, he is a bit retarded. Don't waste your time, the guy thinks a scientific theory is trash, shows what he knows about science. He can't understand the concept of a scientific theory.
''It is not known to be fact, and it probably will never be known to be fact. Yet look at how many people around the world talk like they believe it is fact'
Says the guy who claims jesus and god are real, the irony is strong.
3596  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 10, 2017, 12:20:44 AM
Look man, if you want to believe in magic for some reason, go ahead, you don't have to convince me in a thread about proving god scientifically. If you are so so convinced, where the fuck are all these people moving stuff with their minds?

I already pointed you to the evidence for PK; there are many tests that show significant results; so why would you ask me for more?
This thread is about science and these tests are interesting. You did not give a valid reason to reject these results (these results are contrary to your beliefs, so you reject them first and try to find reasons to support your beliefs, but the reasons you gave were fallacious and unscientific). I have every expectation that you will irrationally reject other important research on related subjects.
The effect can be measured; the results are mysterious but the tests are methodologically sound. If you are not willing to consider this brief paper, why would you take the effort to study and understand the scientific evidence that points to GOD?
Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?

3597  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 09, 2017, 09:46:17 PM

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.
Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?
You don’t even know how to measure PK, but the experts looked at the data and gave 2 interpretations, one of them is better than the other, so stop distracting from the evidence at hand:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/2r4c4t/study_analyzes_13_psychic_letters_from_brazilian/

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24406

It's annoying to do research for you, don't you have google?
You did not point to any research. Your links cast doubt on the results by using fallacious reasoning such as appeal to authority. The experiments are well designed and this much is admitted. Nowhere in those links is it explained how bias can actually account for the measured outcomes and I did not see any citation of the PDF I linked, so these critics probably never read this paper to begin with, they use the wrong calculations which Radin, et al have pointed out.

Look man, if you want to believe in magic for some reason, go ahead, you don't have to convince me in a thread about proving god scientifically. If you are so so convinced, where the fuck are all these people moving stuff with their minds?
3598  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 09, 2017, 06:36:22 PM

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.
Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?
You don’t even know how to measure PK, but the experts looked at the data and gave 2 interpretations, one of them is better than the other, so stop distracting from the evidence at hand:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/2r4c4t/study_analyzes_13_psychic_letters_from_brazilian/

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24406

It's annoying to do research for you, don't you have google?
3599  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 09, 2017, 05:49:25 PM

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.
Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?
3600  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 09, 2017, 04:16:02 PM

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers,
Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true.
I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience?
I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.
If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.


Yeah well I just like to post the links because I know it makes him mad and can't even respond to them, keep trolling, we wont convince him anyways.
Can I convince you with test results?
I like to post these tests that you refuse to address or even look at.
Scientists discuss evidence to reach a conclusion, ignoring evidence is unscientific. An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
And I pointed out that the scientific community said it's not real, the tests are not repeatable. ''If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science.''
No I don't, I don't have to find anything, you can search for it yourself. Real scientists are not interested in this anymore, there was a huge debate about telekinesis and this stuff long ago, they did experiments and tests and they came to the conclusion that it's not real. Scientists can't be bothered to read and examine all your ridiculous ''tests'' or ''evidence''. You know how many people claim to have discovered something like magic, aliens, ghosts. There is no time to examine all the ridiculous claims.

''yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.''

Quit talking about ''skeptics'' This is the scientific consensus not just some random internet skeptics.

''An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.'' You claim they are but what background do you have to claim that? If you are not a scientist or an expert in any of this then what right do you have to claim the tests are enough or good?

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.
Pages: « 1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 [180] 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 ... 257 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!