the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Riders]

I experienced the Yogananda group as some what of a cult.It goes by a different name too. But when I got on the web sight it'll send you details of how to practice their yoga but they charge a lot to do their program at home and they charge a lot to go to their facility and learn their yoga, so to me it comes of as a scam.

 

[joe1776]

"It's true because I had an experience" is not a scientific argument. It is anecdote.

Of course it is. I covered that when I first mentioned the experiences. I didn't offer my experiences as an argument but as an explanation so that readers understand why I can speak like I'm sure I'm right --because I'm sure I'm right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give me an example of a site that you would consider a reliable source on this topic. I'm guessing this one:

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

They are probably pretty accurate, but in a debate one should try to find a neutral source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My beliefs in telepathy and precognition can't be refuted. I know the truth about both.

For other people, there is no single test that will prove anything. Research will eventually persuade most people that telepathy is real. That's the easiest to prove because it can be reliably replicated.

oh my! You just admitted to an irrational belief and told an apparent lie. But at least you admitted that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[joe1776]

They are probably pretty accurate, but in a debate one should try to find a neutral source.

Of and on, I've been searching this topic of the Net since 1998. I've never found a neutral site.

In my mind, Skeptics.com is more trustworthy than Wikipedia on this topic because readers don't expect them to be impartial.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Of course it is. I covered that when I first mentioned the experiences. I didn't offer my experiences as an argument but as an explanation so that readers understand why I can speak like I'm sure I'm right --because I'm sure I'm right.

The title of this thread is 'The Existence of God is a scientific fact.' How is anecdote relevant to the OP?

 

[joe1776]

oh my! You just admitted to an irrational belief and told an apparent lie. But at least you admitted that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

Explain further please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of and on, I've been searching this topic of the Net since 1998. I've never found a neutral site.

In my mind, Skeptics.com is more trustworthy than Wikipedia on this topic because readers don't expect them to be impartial.

You do not seem to understand. For example if that story about Einstein is true you should be able to find a neutral source that is not debating telepathy that supports it.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Explain further please.

Scientific facts are not established by anecdote. At the very best, an anecdote might qualify as an observation, the first step in the scientific method.

 

[joe1776]

The title of this thread is 'The Existence of God is a scientific fact.' How is anecdote relevant to the OP?

It isn't. Somehow we got sidetracked into a debate on the paranormal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain further please.

Knowledge is demonstrable. As the saying goes "If you can't show it, you don't know it."

As for scientific evidence one cannot claim to have any unless one has at least a scientific hypothesis first. Scientific evidence consists of observations that confirm or refute a scientific hypothesis or theory. And in case you did not know it s scientific hypothesis is a testable model. That means there is a reasonable test that could refute it.

 

[joe1776]

Scientific facts are not established by anecdote. At the very best, an anecdote might qualify as an observation, the first step in the scientific method.

My experience with telepathy convinced ME without a doubt that telepathy is a real phenomenon. My experience with precognition convinced ME that that precognition is a real phenomenon.

Both experiences involved visions. They weren't hunches or guesses which might be explained as rare coincidences. I feel completely competent in being able to analyze my own experiences.

Scientific research would be necessary to convince people who never had such experiences. I'm a proponent of that research which is not being funded by mainstream sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My experience with telepathy convinced ME without a doubt that telepathy is a real phenomenon. My experience with precognition convinced ME that that precognition is a real phenomenon.

Both experiences involved visions. They weren't hunches or guesses which might be explained as rare coincidences. I feel completely competent in being able to analyze my own experiences.

Scientific research would be necessary to convince people who never had such experiences. I'm a proponent of that research which is not being funded by mainstream sources.

when it comes to "visions" they are usually reinterpreted after the fact, and one's memory of them will change. One can take a rational approach, but when one does that they tend to go away.

 

[joe1776]

Knowledge is demonstrable. As the saying goes "If you can't show it, you don't know it."

That saying is cleverly-stated BS. Stuff happens to us everyday when we're alone that we couldn't demonstrate to others if they doubted us.

As for scientific evidence one cannot claim to have any unless one has at least a scientific hypothesis first. Scientific evidence consists of observations that confirm or refute a scientific hypothesis or theory. And in case you did not know it s scientific hypothesis is a testable model. That means there is a reasonable test that could refute it.

You forgot Step One. Before the hypothesis, we must see, hear, smell, taste of feel an effect. We don't have an hypothesis to explain the placebo effect for example. We can guess that it's somehow connected to our expectations but after that we are baffled.

Telepathy falls into the same category. the effect has been tested and replicated by autoganzfeld methods. But we don't yet know how to explain it.

 

[joe1776]

when it comes to "visions" they are usually reinterpreted after the fact, and one's memory of them will change. One can take a rational approach, but when one does that they tend to go away.

Your speculation has no application at all to my experiences

 

[Road Warrior]

Of course it is. I covered that when I first mentioned the experiences. I didn't offer my experiences as an argument but as an explanation so that readers understand why I can speak like I'm sure I'm right --because I'm sure I'm right.

Disagreed since someone having the same experience may have the completely opposite POV. Example: 12 people see a car accident between two cars. Some might thing one person was at fault, some may think the other person was at fault and some may think neither was at fault. So who was a fault? That depends up the facts, not the opinions and “experiences” of those who witnessed the accident.

UFOs. Do you think all of those who experienced abductions or observations of flying saucers are making a scientific argument for the existence of extraterrestrial life?

 

[joe1776]

You do not seem to understand. For example if that story about Einstein is true you should be able to find a neutral source that is not debating telepathy that supports it.

In 20 years of searching the Net, I've never come across a neutral source on this topic.

 

[joe1776]

Disagreed since someone having the same experience may have the completely opposite POV. Example: 12 people see a car accident between two cars. Some might thing one person was at fault, some may think the other person was at fault and some may think neither was at fault. So who was a fault? That depends up the facts, not the opinions and “experiences” of those who witnessed the accident.

I would have to explain both of my experiences to you in detail. You can take my word for it or not, but your observations are not relevant to my one experience with telepathy and another with precognition.

UFOs. Do you think all of those who experienced abductions or observations of flying saucers are making a scientific argument for the existence of extraterrestrial life?

I'm not using my experiences to make an argument. I stated them so that others would understand where I'm coming from on this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That saying is cleverly-stated BS. Stuff happens to us everyday when we're alone that we couldn't demonstrate to others if they doubted us.

No, it is quite accurate. If you actually "knew" you could show how you know. Your story of "visions" falls flat and is hopelessly tainted by confirmation bias. That is why all you have is belief. Now if you said that you believed something no one would doubt you. When you say that you know and cannot support your claim you refute yourself.

You forgot Step One. Before the hypothesis, we must see, hear, smell, taste of feel an effect. We don't have an hypothesis to explain the placebo effect for example. We can guess that it's somehow connected to our expectations but after that we are baffled.

Sorry, you do not know what a hypothesis is because those are not needed.

Telepathy falls into the same category. the effect has been tested and replicated by autoganzfeld methods. But we don't yet know how to explain it.

So no scientific evidence for it by definition. As I said, you would support my claim that there is no evidence for the belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In 20 years of searching the Net, I've never come across a neutral source on this topic.

That is only because you are heavily biased. You probably use poor search techniques. For example on the claim that Einstein wrote the forward for a book on telepathy, he did. All you needed were proper unbiased search terms. I used "einstein forward book telepathy" and found quite a few sources that supported that claim:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ein...ome..69i57.20359j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Unfortunately one finds that the book was not very reliable if one reads some of those articles.

By the way, if a site reports poorly on psi it does not mean that they are biased. That is the sort of mistake that creationists make. If one is terribly biased unbiased sources tend to look biased to you. For the same reason watchers of FOX News and other far right wing sources think that middle of the road news sources, such as CNN, are left wing. Where studies show that CNN is only slightly left of center.