|
qwik2learn
|
 |
November 10, 2017, 09:20:26 PM
Last edit: November 10, 2017, 09:41:56 PM by qwik2learn |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
November 10, 2017, 09:39:38 PM |
|
This is bullshit!
Natural selection makes so much sense. If you are fit enough for survival, you can pass on your DNA to the next offspring. It's common sense. If you are not fit, you will die and cannot pass on your DNA... so your whole species dies eventually
One needn’t be a creationist to question Darwin’s theory, for example regarding sexual reproduction. Dawkins finds sex ‘counter-productive, throwing away half one’s genes with every reproduction’. In The Cooperative Gene, evolutionary biologist Mark Ridley writes ‘Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists’. Duh! Sex feels good. The Darwinian/Dawkins idea that behavior promotes survival of ‘uncaring’ genes doesn’t add up. And if genes are ‘programmed’ to survive, programmed by whom? ‘Darwin Versus Deepak’: Which Came First, Feelings, or the Brain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
DroidR17A
|
|
November 10, 2017, 11:01:47 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#msg19336271Actually, matter is an emergent property of consciousness. As in matter has no form until it is observed or brought in contact with other matter. Let's face it, the universe is just f'ing weird, and we're scratching at the surface trying to convince ourselves that we know what it's all about, when we really know jack $#1t. That's why we reinvent our history and world view every few decades. There is no proof either way, but we're too arrogant and insecure to admit what we don't know. The phenomenon attributed to God can also be explained through quantum entanglement, transportation and "spooky action at a distance". |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
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/PsychokinesisFrom 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. |
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
November 11, 2017, 10:13:54 AM |
|
Actually, matter is an emergent property of consciousness. As in matter has no form until it is observed or brought in contact with other matter. Let's face it, the universe is just f'ing weird, and we're scratching at the surface trying to convince ourselves that we know what it's all about, when we really know jack $#1t. That's why we reinvent our history and world view every few decades. There is no proof either way, but we're too arrogant and insecure to admit what we don't know. The phenomenon attributed to God can also be explained through quantum entanglement, transportation and "spooky action at a distance".
I agree with this. I found a detailed explanation of these ideas from the near-death.com webmaster: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/12/22/quantum-theory-wont-save-soul/#comment-1179083570Because NDEs have many common core elements, this suggests that they are spiritual voyages outside of the body. However, a rational atheist will reject the entire line of spiritual thinking, in spite of the evidence. What happens to religion when you mix science and faith?People thought that science would absolutely refute atheism, but once you have domesticated God and reduced God to a mere fact, atheism is only a matter of time. Religious language must always point beyond itself into the silence of transcendence. If it becomes an end in itself, religion becomes idolatry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
November 11, 2017, 10:46:38 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
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.pdfDon'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. |
|
|
|
|
Nikola95
|
|
November 11, 2017, 11:36:12 AM |
|
I do believe in theory of evolution. That mean we don't have 2 ancestors, Adam and Eva, but from one small group which is nothing compared to todays 7-8 billions people. About God. Someone would say there is no proof, someone would say that everything around us is proof. It depends on that what do you think God is.
|
|
|
|
MajinPsycho
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
Join the revolution
|
|
November 11, 2017, 11:39:33 AM |
|
There is none  |
|
|
|
|
JoCrook
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
November 11, 2017, 12:26:20 PM |
|
who believe in god, will cry when their son will find life on other planets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkangelosme
|
|
November 11, 2017, 02:45:15 PM |
|
For me god really exist, no matter what kind of scientific proof you show to me that god are not really exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Neytiri
Member
Offline
Activity: 111
Merit: 10
|
|
November 11, 2017, 02:59:53 PM |
|
God exist whether we acknowledge that or not just imagine you are in a life threatning positon like sinking and then you find your self seking the Almighty i am muslim by the way.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
November 12, 2017, 10:28:37 PM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default.  |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 12, 2017, 10:58:28 PM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
November 12, 2017, 11:22:19 PM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 13, 2017, 12:12:15 AM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
November 13, 2017, 12:18:17 AM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it. It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth. Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual. Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 13, 2017, 12:21:12 AM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it. It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth. Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual. Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God. You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
November 13, 2017, 12:28:10 AM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it. It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth. Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual. Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God. You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not. No. I show how the laws cannot exist together in a universe like ours without God. There is no assumption. The thing you constantly do is assume that I am assuming. You do it because you don't take the time to calculate the proof for God out. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
November 13, 2017, 12:45:26 AM |
|
The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default. Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively. How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it. It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth. Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual. Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God. You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not. No. I show how the laws cannot exist together in a universe like ours without God. There is no assumption. The thing you constantly do is assume that I am assuming. You do it because you don't take the time to calculate the proof for God out. You try to show that but you are wrong as pointed out in my posts that you refute to answer to because, well, because you can't really, you know you can't, that's why you don't. |
|
|
|
|
