who created god

I'm just going to add my 2cents here. I kinda see where you are coming from and I'm kinda on the fence with proof of paranormal. I just find it highly unlikely that every every paranormal claim or experiment is rubbish. Clearly some people are frauds some people are deluded and some people are inept, but to say that for all the cases, don't sound right to me.

Mr Terrific has met the wrath of God and thinks hes some sort of holographic projection thingy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should we spend time looking for unicorns?

Guess not, guess we shouldn't spend time finding proof of an afterlife or psi either

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should we spend time looking for unicorns?

maybe we can rename them bicorns...

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm just going to add my 2cents here. I kinda see where you are coming from and I'm kinda on the fence with proof of paranormal. I just find it highly unlikely that every every paranormal claim or experiment is rubbish. Clearly some people are frauds some people are deluded and some people are inept, but to say that for all the cases, don't sound right to me.

Mr Terrific has met the wrath of God and thinks hes some sort of holographic projection thingy.

Guess not, guess we shouldn't spend time finding proof of an afterlife or psi either

In the 1900 there was a lot of work done on afterlife. Should we spend grant money redoing their work? Maybe, but it would still have to be falsifiable and repeatable. The problem with most after life ideas, are they cannot be falsified or repeated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the 1900 there was a lot of work done on afterlife. Should we spend grant money redoing their work? Maybe, but it would still have to be falsifiable and repeatable. The problem with most after life ideas, are they cannot be falsified or repeated.

Juries still out on (in terms of credibility) that I have to respond to inis post.

but, the point is, there is analog for this "holographic wrath of god". you have experiments that, to 99.9% of scientists, are entirely unconvincing and have clear violations of methodological controls and statistical analysis and a series of convoluted subjective experiences with little in common at anything but a thematic level.

it's fine that, to you, this is a significant and convincing body of evidence. however, there are no theories in science accepted with such flimsy data. even the big bang has support in robust mathematical models and observations in astronomy, specifically the movement of stellar bodies and EMB radiation. there are no relevant equivalent theories of models for the supernatural

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why not? Taking away the magical attributes, giraffes are stranger creatures.

maybe we can rename them bicorns...

Sure, do you have the money to sponsor this kind of research? Anyone can research anything, but it all comes down to money and resources.

Originally posted by Deadline
Juries still out on (in terms of credibility) that I have to respond to inis post.

What do you mean? 😕

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm just going to add my 2cents here. I kinda see where you are coming from and I'm kinda on the fence with proof of paranormal. I just find it highly unlikely that every every paranormal claim or experiment is rubbish. Clearly some people are frauds some people are deluded and some people are inept, but to say that for all the cases, don't sound right to me.

But when aspects of the paranormal are proven they cease to be paranormal. If they don't stand up they stay paranormal. Look at Newton. He had lots of ideas but let's look at two of them. First that light had the nature of a particle and second that alchemy could turn base metals into higher ones. Neither seemed very likely. But the particle nature of light was eventually proven and ceased to be paranormal, on the other hand alchemy was never proven and is still a paranormal claim.

As time goes on and more and more things are put through the scientific wringer the proportion of paranormal claims that are bullshit increases. Science has been going on with some consistency for ~500 years now and in the last 100 years has refined its techniques to test any testable claim a person without a PhD can imagine.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the 1900 there was a lot of work done on afterlife. Should we spend grant money redoing their work? Maybe, but it would still have to be falsifiable and repeatable. The problem with most after life ideas, are they cannot be falsified or repeated.

Originally posted by inimalist
but, the point is, there is analog for this "holographic wrath of god". you have experiments that, to 99.9% of scientists, are entirely unconvincing and have clear violations of methodological controls and statistical analysis and a series of convoluted subjective experiences with little in common at anything but a thematic level.

How is that the point? In DC comics Spectre isn't a hologram hes a magical being. Spectre is the wrath of God thats a fact. So I don't know how you deduced that from the encounter. The point was eventhough hes got blatant proof in front of him hes still arguing. Also I think a possible interpretation is that Mr T wasn't wrong it was just his spin on things, but considering he doesn't understand magic I doubt it. Which is one of my points, always having an answer does not always disprove something because you can always have one.

Originally posted by inimalist

it's fine that, to you, this is a significant and convincing body of evidence.

My point is its a double standard, not that I personally feel that clincal death is conclusive proof for life after death. If we were talking about something else this conversation would have ended ages ago.

Originally posted by inimalist

however, there are no theories in science accepted with such flimsy data. even the big bang has support in robust mathematical models and observations in astronomy, specifically the movement of stellar bodies and EMB radiation. there are no relevant equivalent theories of models for the supernatural

Which doesn't refute my point that theres a double standard. However I haven't gone into detail yet about the points.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But when aspects of the paranormal are proven they cease to be paranormal. If they don't stand up they stay paranormal. Look at Newton. He had lots of ideas but let's look at two of them. First that light had the nature of a particle and second that alchemy could turn base metals into higher ones. Neither seemed very likely. But the particle nature of light was eventually proven and ceased to be paranormal, on the other hand alchemy was never proven and is still a paranormal claim.

It may not considered to be paranormal but that doesn't mean if you prove its existance that it didn't exist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

As time goes on and more and more things are put through the scientific wringer the proportion of paranormal claims that are bullshit increases. Science has been going on with some consistency for ~500 years now and in the last 100 years has refined its techniques to test any testable claim a person without a PhD can imagine.

If you say so.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Understandably so. Here is a cheaper experiment though. Pray and see if you're answered personally. Nobody can tell you that your own personal experiences are fake. If your prayers are not answered however you may not believe that there is any other reason than there is nobody there to answer you when there could be some other reason realistically. If your prayers are answered, best believe that many would tell you that it was coincidence no matter what the odds against your prayer being answered were. Reality is not our creation so physical science will not support you in ventures of this sort. The spirit world is not part of what man can claim ownership of. Much unlike the moons and stars. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by Deadline
How is that the point? In DC comics Spectre isn't a hologram hes a magical being. Spectre is the wrath of God thats a fact. So I don't know how you deduced that from the encounter. The point was eventhough hes got blatant proof in front of him hes still arguing. Also I think a possible interpretation is that Mr T wasn't wrong it was just his spin on things, but considering he doesn't understand magic I doubt it. Which is one of my points, always having an answer does not always disprove something because you can always have one.

thats my point. In the DC universe, where supernatural things happen all the time, it would be foolish to deny them

there is no equivalent in our world. We don't have obvious examples to argue about. We have results that are no different than chance.

Originally posted by Deadline
My point is its a double standard, not that I personally feel that clincal death is conclusive proof for life after death. If we were talking about something else this conversation would have ended ages ago.

give me a single irrefutable instance of this double standard

Originally posted by Deadline
Which doesn't refute my point that theres a double standard. However I haven't gone into detail yet about the points.

what theory do you think scientists accept with equal evidence that can be shown for the supernatural?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Understandably so. Here is a cheaper experiment though. Pray and see if you're answered personally. Nobody can tell you that your own personal experiences are fake. If your prayers are not answered however you may not believe that there is any other reason than there is nobody there to answer you when there could be some other reason realistically. If your prayers are answered, best believe that many would tell you that it was coincidence no matter what the odds against your prayer being answered were. Reality is not our creation so physical science will not support you in ventures of this sort. The spirit world is not part of what man can claim ownership of. Much unlike the moons and stars. 😮‍💨

Your assertion that you should always trust your personal experiences is false. You can be fooled very easily. That is how magicians are able to do slight of hand. The human experience is very fallible.

BTW I pray twice every day, but I do not pray to something outside of myself. If I want something, I go get it. If it is out of my reach, I work for it. If it is impossible, I find a way. If I am praying for the wrong thing, I look for wisdom to see the poison.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So that experiment is completely worthless. If your prayers are answered, you'll say its proof of god. If they aren't answered, you'll just say that it didn't work in that case. There is no falsifiability here so in no way is that an "experiment".

Originally posted by inimalist
thats my point. In the DC universe, where supernatural things happen all the time, it would be foolish to deny them

there is no equivalent in our world. We don't have obvious examples to argue about. We have results that are no different than chance.

Ok but my point still stands. Sure it's fiction but people use fiction to make points about reality eg Animal Farm

Originally posted by inimalist

give me a single irrefutable instance of this double standard

If I said to you I used instruments to search for alien life in our solar system and wasn't able find any and therefore concluded that there was no life in the solar system we wouldn't be having a long debate it about. You would have to find alien life you wouldn't be telling me that I still had to prove it.

Originally posted by inimalist

what theory do you think scientists accept with equal evidence that can be shown for the supernatural?

Well they don't believe theres life on Mars.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Worthless to a group yes, to an individual no. The belief that the majority of the world has, that there is a spirit, is worthless to you isn't it? You obviously don't just base what you do on what others consider is of worth. A personal experiment like this is worthless to everyone who isn't you. Who else would be responsible for your spirit? More people would say that finding out more about your personal spirit is a high priority once they have found out more about theirs. 😮‍💨

You can believe that there is an invisible green dragon floating over your head all you wish, but the fact that no one can prove that it is not there, does not prove that it is there.

Originally posted by Deadline
If I said to you I used instruments to search for alien life in our solar system and wasn't able find any and therefore concluded that there was no life in the solar system we wouldn't be having a long debate it about. You would have to find alien life you wouldn't be telling me that I still had to prove it.

yes, exactly, you have to find evidence of the supernatural, the same way I would have to find life on Mars...

how is this a double standard?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Worthless to a group yes, to an individual no. The belief that the majority of the world has, that there is a spirit, is worthless to you isn't it? You obviously don't just base what you do on what others consider is of worth. A personal experiment like this is worthless to everyone who isn't you. Who else would be responsible for your spirit? More people would say that finding out more about your personal spirit is a high priority once they have found out more about theirs. 😮‍💨

look at this visual illusion:

http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item64

unless you have problems with your vision, you will see the circles rotating. Now, the circles are actually stationary.

Does the fact you see them move and you think they are moving mean they are really moving?

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, exactly, you have to find evidence of the supernatural, the same way I would have to find life on Mars...

how is this a double standard?

The double standard is that you need to use instruments to find life on Mars. If the instruments find nothing you assume there is no life. In order to prove that there is life after death you need to use instruments that indicate that the person is dead. The double standard is that in the case of the dead person you are assuming that the person is still alive eventhough you're equipment tells you otherwise.

edit: This will probably lead onto other points I haven't addresed yet.

Originally posted by Deadline
The double standard is that you need to use instruments to find life on Mars. If the instruments find nothing you assume there is no life. In order to prove that there is life after death you need to use instruments that indicate that the person is dead. The double standard is that in the case of the dead person you are assuming that the person is still alive eventhough you're equipment tells you otherwise.

no....

we are assuming that what they experience is not the soul leaving the body, because there is no evidence for the soul or a transcendant plane

science, as a body of knowledge, if perfectly content with an ambiguity in classifying people as living or dead, and it is insignificant really.

Your theory, that they are dead and a soul leaves their body, has no proof. Even if we assume they are dead in some absolute sense, there is still no evidence to support the theory you are putting forward.

you have to understand, I have proposed no theories about what NDEs are, aside from saying "I don't think your theory explains it" or "I don't think they are supernatural", neither of which are theories in a scientific sense.