Re: Scientific proof that God exists?

Listen up, Astargath!

Quote from: qwik2learn on July 26, 2017, 04:58:09 PM

You are posting but not doing research, that is not how these discussions work! Do your homework before you claim to know something, otherwise you are only promoting an opinion, I will now show you why your opinion is unreasonable by proving that your claims are unreliable.

Most magicians when they do this kind of thing, well you know that its all a show, however in Guy Bavlis case he tells everyone it is real.

You gave me no reference to the specific tests so you did not even bother to do any work to make sure your opinion about these tests was accurate. You did not conduct a scientific criticism so I will naturally reject your unfounded claims about this phenomenon.
How is it that a mentalist can produce such a distinct and obviously mysterious illusion that also has a unique signature on the EEG? You don't have a clue about how your simple explanation applies in practice? How is Occam's Razor supposed to explain a phenomenon like that without TK? Why is it that the "fake/fraud/illusion" explanation quickly falls apart when faced with having to explain the mountains of evidence already posted here?

40 cases: http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
EEG of telekinesis in action: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Find the telekinesis video on your own: http://googl.com/#q=telekinesis+superhumans

I mean we already discussed the 40 cases link and they were all bullshit and debunked so from there on I just didn't really care about what you had to say. I will say it again, where are the applications if all those things you claim are real, where are the applications?

Besides not addressing case #1 at all,
You brought up mostly invalid points for the 40 cases, you obviously failed to consider the totality of the evidence and instead focused on prejudices like "the researcher believes in GOD, so he is not reliable". You still hold to the fallacy that survival has been ruled out, you thereby avoid giving a complete account of the evidence. What good is science if you are expecting an outcome and will ignore the results if they do not meet those expectations?

You never replied to my questions about your burden of proof:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19336271#msg19336271

You think that you have no burden of proof in this discussion, that is why you never make an ADEQUATE rebuttal. All the other atheists who argued with me have stopped responding too.

Because it is a huge problem if the researchers already believe in that. How many times did christians claim to find the noah's ark and it turned out to be false? It is the same with them and since there is no concrete evidence a part from eye witnesses and stories there is no point in believing any of it. There are ton of stories about ton of ''paranormal'' phenomena but there is never concrete evidence, just stories. There is no point in believing any of it and I don't gain anything by believing on it either, I don't know what you are getting from it.

These tests are not stories, they are scientific observations. A measurement of the power of mind.

It is claimed to be a test but if it really was a scientific test, don't you think we would already hear about this all the time? Don't you think scientists would have applied that to something? Why do you think virtually all scientists do not believe in that kind of stuff if it really was proved to be true? You think they purposely say it's false?

A famous paper recently showed that the claimed results of most scientific studies are simply false:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
So why should we BLINDLY trust mainstream opinion of scientists (an opinion based in ignorance)? Stick to hard evidence and you will be fine. I have disclosed the evidence, so anyone who doubts it can debate the facts with me.
In my opinion, the scientists who reject survival are also wrong, but the brightest scientists like Wallace did find evidence and cocncluded that survival is real.

Im not on the subject. What if its real? Is the experiment falsifiable? If not, thats a doubtful science at best.

Are the experiments repeatable? If not, its hard to call it science actually.

And what if you are right. How does that proves God? It proves the existance of spirits not God per se.

See for yourself the numerous experiments and repeated observations I pointed out in my posts.
Then realize that all rational atheists are humanists; humanism is opposed to the survival hypothesis but survival is the most likely answer to the evidence. The conclusion is that atheist humanists are wrong.