You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist?
Neither you nor I nor Randi are scientists, but after reading Sheldrake's papers about mind interacting with matter one gets the sense that this is an important discovery. The bottom line is that you refuse to read the papers relating these scientific experiments, but you still act like you know what is going on with those tests, you think that maybe by reading a tangential explanation from a skeptic you can validate your ideas without having to examine the evidence. Sorry, that is not how this works at all. I am not going to entertain ignorance, you need to step up and read these papers to see that mind does effect matter and that this testable phenomena is related to quantum processes. How many experimental findings are you willing to read about? That is the bottom line since scientific knowledge will not come to you by not-reading. By the way, your own link showed that the theorists Hameroff and Penrose have thoroughly responded to skeptics, contrary to the claims of those who use Wikipedia as a source: https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousnessSo that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers, 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. 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ. If someone has found that Orch-OR is implausible and unscientific then why have they not mentioned this to Penrose and Hameroff for their evaluation? I am sure that this is how science actually works. Hameroff is capable of defending his theory, and has done so numerous times. How is it stupid? You do not offer an explanation for how all these concepts are connected and neither does materialist science. All closed systems depend on something outside the system. All logical systems depend on something outside the system. Materialism assumes the universe is a closed, logical system. Oh really? Where in those links do you actually refute any of the tests I presented? What tests, I already debunked your whole thing, what more do you want lol. ''Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ'' And sorry but Orch OR theory is not a scientific theory http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272175http://ursa.browntth.com/the-blog/psa-theres-no-such-thing-as-quantum-consciousnessThey are scamming you and you are falling for it. ''How is it stupid?'' If you don't see how that's stupid no wonder you believe all this crap. http://www.skepdic.com/randi.htmlI'm not an expert in bullshit and I can't go and look at all your retarded links one by one, bottom line is, science does not recognize telekinesis as real and there is a reason for that. You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist? |
|
|
|
There are a ton of ''viable'' hypothesis, so what? Why would you chose some hypothesis when there are already scientific theories that just work better. You are not proving anything here. Prove it. Prove that parapsychological research is explained better by theories not involving Orch OR and survival. Since the tests can be replicated it should be easy to prove that the mind cannot influence matter, as you claim. ''Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival.'' Orch OR is not a theory, is a hypothesis and I don't see how it directly supports magic but whatever, again and you know this, there is no scientific theory about any of what you mention.
Not true, you are making shit up again. Orch OR is a theory, it makes testable predictions, thus it is a theory. While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules. Survival is a hypothesis, it is useful in explaining the evidence of parapsychology, the two are related and have strong explanatory power. The same cannot be said for mainstream materialist theories. I posted my evidence, so where is yours? You cannot claim that your preferred theory is better without citing evidence for it. A review of Orch OR theory: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188Connecting QM to the survival of the personality and other parapsychological research: http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a14http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a23Tests that you refuse to address or even look at, yet you claim to have a better theory? Prove it! https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove. https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousnesshttps://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least. http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem)'' How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage? https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-GodIn the last link you have a ton of other answers https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true |
|
|
|
Or is simply not true, who knows  This kind of talk won't have an agreement between the talkers. Same as sports talk. You have your opinion (saying it was fault, per example), and i have mine (saying it wasn't).. Science doesn't care about opinions, what's real is real, magic is for kids. |
|
|
|
The irony here if there is such a thing, is that even if the magical force of gravity was real the atmosphere would still get sucked off by a hard vacuum.  Thank you for your insights mr scientist. |
|
|
|
Or is simply not true, who knows |
|
|
|
even if big bang was true, where did it happen? you dont get an answer, you just postpone it. its a religion
The fuck are you even talking about, not having an answer for something makes it a religion? How stupid are you, really? It's the best we have, the big bang theory, thanks to a lot of evidence that indicates it did happen. Scientists don't know for sure and they don't know many things but it definitely doesn't make it a religion. What religions do is: I don't know something, instead of admitting it, I will make something up to explain it. |
|
|
|
Even if I would agree with everything, the argument says nothing about the possibility of more causes not just one, why does it necessarily have to be only one uncaused cause and not many uncaused causes, we also don't know what that uncaused cause or causes are, you are just assuming it's god because you are religious.
We know that wherever is outside of the universe must logically be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. This is not an assumption but a logical necessity if the universe is finite and rational. Is it rational to infer that this uncaused cause is God? Well let compare what we derive by logical and mathematical necessity above to what Ethical Monotheism tells us about the nature of God. The Nature of Godhttp://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htmGod is One
God is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to God is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
...
God is Incorporeal
God has no body. Any reference to God's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making God's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world.
...
God is Omnipresent
God is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope.
...
God is Eternal
God transcends time. He has no beginning and no end.
Note the symmetry between what logically must exist beyond the bounds of the universe and what religious tradition teaches. ''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. |
|
|
|
Gravity is a theory, a shitty one that's wrong.
Wrong yet, planes, rockets, buildings, bridges work? ''Gravity is a theory'' Is that supposed to be bad? Or are you one of those guys who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is? |
|
|
|
BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG LOL. That's a whole "new level". So dishonest/liar people will go to hell and not heaven? Like SERIOUSLY? First of all it's not clear the existance of a "God", second it's much less clear the existance of after-death life. Also who started that idea of heaven and hell were the religions. Christians and bible or whatever say that God forgives. If it forgives, he "will send you to hell" if you are dishonest? Like wtf? And what kind of sick game is that? So "God" is sitting on his big chair, drinking a beer while playing with our lives? You did a good job, when you die you desearve clean clothes, a lot of food, 100 virgins, etc? Bro.. we are in 21th century, not in the middle age. Wake up please. Witches don't exist lol You guys need to start thinking a bit outside the box. Think for yourself and not for others. Next time read, otherwise you are going to look stupid. I'm not the believer, badecker is, the ''you are going to hell'' thing is a joke, next time please, take the time to actually read. |
|
|
|
Eventually all the globalists will get rounded up and tossed in a big hole IMO.
And I thought trolling was not allowed in this forum, maybe we should start reporting you to get banned. |
|
|
|
^^^ clown has no arguments, can't prove shit. only has jewpedia links with trashy theories.
Two lead balls in a 17th century shed, it's all you got.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? You are just a troll, just be quiet already, no one cares about your retarded opinions anyways |
|
|
|
The problem is that you cannot use theorem for theology, that's the consensus. The ''proof'' used here is nothing but the same old proof, just using Kurt Godel as an authority but it's the same thing. The same old assumptions without any bases like ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause'' or ''then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.''
NO WE DON'T. That's the whole fucking point, we don't know what's outside the circle and even if you know it's not matter, energy or space or time you still don't know that it's ''immaterial'' You are just assuming that, what is ''immaterial'' anyways?
There are many ways to challenge Perry Marshall's argument. You can as aesma does challenge the claim that the universe is finite. It seems logical that the universe is finite but no one has proven this yet. You can also argue the the universe is not rational. Just because it is rational and ordered in our section of the universe is not definitive proof. A similar argument could be made that the sun may rise in the west tomorrow. Perry Marshall argues that if the universe is both rational and finite then it logically and mathematically follows that there is something outside of the universe. That something must logically be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. Immaterial means it is not composed of any form of matter, energy, time, or space as we understand it. Religion ultimately is a choice of primary intrinsic assumptions. These are the fundamental truths an individual builds ones worldview and life around. Every human being is religious even if that religion is some variation of nihilism or hardcore atheism. Even if I would agree with everything, the argument says nothing about the possibility of more causes not just one, why does it necessarily have to be only one uncaused cause and not many uncaused causes, we also don't know what that uncaused cause or causes are, you are just assuming it's god because you are religious. |
|
|
|
The flat earth society has members all around the globe
Yes, I agree but Flat Earth is one of craziest conspiracy theories I came across. There was some news about Realit Show that will prove once for good but not much info about it I can find on the Internet. I am a firm believer of the round earth theory, but one cannot say that the believers of the flat earth theory have some really good points though until a flat earth supporter goes out into space and take a pic of the earth i will still continue to believe that the Earth is indeed round. There is no outer space. Prove it The vacuum would suck away all of the atmosphere. https://i.imgur.com/85uSGPi.jpgExcept for one minor detail. Gravity holds the little atmosphere we have, and everything else in place on the globe.  Gravity eh, now it's your turn to prove it. I'll give you a running start too, the best proof available is two lead balls in a 17th century shed viewed through a hole drilled in the wall.  For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment''was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory'' It says it was the first experiment, not the only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityOur turn to prove gravity haha, learn to read idiot |
|
|
|
Been a few days how do we tell if we are in?
He would tell you. |
|
|
|
The flat earth society has members all around the globe
Yes, I agree but Flat Earth is one of craziest conspiracy theories I came across. There was some news about Realit Show that will prove once for good but not much info about it I can find on the Internet. I am a firm believer of the round earth theory, but one cannot say that the believers of the flat earth theory have some really good points though until a flat earth supporter goes out into space and take a pic of the earth i will still continue to believe that the Earth is indeed round. There is no outer space. Prove it |
|
|
|
Wasn't there a more pointless article? It literally has no proof of anything really. Evolution and Faith Evolution is a contentious subject in American public life. According to Pew, 98 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science “believe humans evolved over time” Isn't this article supposed to be for god not against it? |
|
|
|
We believe in God because God has revealed himself to us. How has God revealed himself? He has revealed himself in creation In the original creation, before the fall of man, Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect communion with God and with each other. As a part of this perfect communion with God, they saw him clearly as he had revealed himself in creation. But because of their wicked desires and actions, they “did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom. 1:21). In other words, when Adam and Eve fell, their fall involved more than the loss of original righteousness; it also involved the corruption of their whole nature, including their understanding. Because this is my Fathers world, and continues to be after the Fall, the objective validity of Gods witness to himself in creation remains, but unregenerate man cannot and will not recognize it.
So he has revealed to us but not really because none of us were there when he ''revealed'' to us. A lot of people believe in a lot of different gods which all claim the same thing, I don't see any reason to believe in yours more than allah or zeus. You are also taking for granted that what a book says it's absolutely true, why? Its all about faith and since no one has ever seen God or whatever name the other religions choose to call him, Its a matter of accepting and believing in something we have never seen but we chose to believe because we definitely know that GOD is indeed in the world. If you know god is indeed in the world you don't need faith. How is faith a good way to determine the truth? Muslims also have faith in their god and so do all the other religious people, someone has to be wrong but they all have faith, faith is meaningless. |
|
|
|
The flat earth society has members all around the globe
The Flat Earth Society is and always has been a controlled opposition operation. Prove it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
