Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

It is only scientific proof that requires these claims to be demonstrated under closed conditions. I do not have the ability to levitate, but it is quite possible that closed conditions are not conducive to levitation. There is quite probably a significant requirement for a specific state of mind that would be difficult to acquire in closed conditions. If this cannot be achieved in these circumstances does that mean that it is a false claim? No, merely that it can't be scientifically proven. It does not mean that levitation can only be achieved through fraud and deception, nor does it mean that levitation is not absolutely true.

The funny thing about that scenario is, there WAS a time when such condition WERE allowed. When studies weren't so tightly controlled. "Famous" mystics were flying out of 2cnd floor windows into another. Turned out they were frauds. All of them. Every single case studied under loose conditions were frauds, this is what lead to tighter controlled studies. Scientists didn't want to waste their times studying FRAUDS. You can levitate. I can levitate. We can even walk on water. We can materialize food out of thin air. These are all neat tricks we can both learn. My daughter can make a ball disappear, her grandfather taught her how. Someone gullible could say she's a powerfull sorceress, I say she's just one smart cookie. A scientists would say she's just performing a simple slight of hand trick that fools the brain into thinking the ball disappeared into thin air, study how it's done and then show what's going on step by step demystifying something seemingly mystical.

I agree, conducting experiments without restricting all variables can lend itself to fraudulent or deceptive methods. However it can also impede the chances of success legitimately by omitting the natural environment required to perform such feats. Thus ironically, conducting an experiment in closed conditions in an attempt to scientifically prove "so called paranormal" phenomenon can, and often does, compromise the integrity and objectiveness of the results.

Right ok, for the argument of say, levitation. What "other natural conditions" are needed other then simple "mind powers" alone as per claimed? For example, someone claims they can levitate why would they need to ONLY be able to levitate in conditions where it IS POSSIBLE to commit fraud and deception and NOT ABLE to perform in conditions where it IS NOT POSSIBLE to commit fraud and deception? This make's no sense to me, make's no sense to the scientist's trying to study such claims make's no sense to that little pudgy guy on 45th street.

"I can levitate through the powers of my mind". Then WHY can you only levitate with the "powers of your mind" in ONLY conditions where fraudulent and deceptive activity is a possibility? Why can you only move thing's with your mind ONLY in the same conditions. Why can you perform telepathy ONLY in the same conditions. This makes NO SENSE at all that all of these seemingly amazing feats are possible ONLY in situations where fraudulance is extremely probable.

I can levitate too btw ... so long as your standing roughly between 5-10 feet away from me and I'm positioned at a certain angle and elevation from your perspective. Without ropes too! You can too if you'd like. With nothing but the willingness to learn these simple tricks and the time to put into it, you too can be a great warlock

I'm sure I already explained this. Have you ever felt under pressure and nervous when there are many pairs of eyes watching you and recording your every move? Does it make it difficult for you to carry out your task, regardless of how "paranormal" it may be? Why wouldn't the same apply for those ask to perform these feats on command?

I'm sure there already are many documented examples of all of these feats taking place, with witnesses and no other fraudulence or deception, however none of these instances are accepted because they were not reproduced under closed conditions. Just because conditions are suitable for fraudulence and deception, doesn't automatically mean they were present, as you conclude.

LMAO, that's my new favorite!!! OMFG TY! LMAO.

Noooo, I can't do it cuz your watching me!


Yea, that opens up oneself for credability

My old favorite was the "It's cause you don't believe in it!" excuse lol.


I haven't seen a single case yet that has been accepted at all period. Every case I've seen thus far has been shown to be fraudulent or cause of deception or flat out hoaxed by those who wanted to prove it true. I'm sorry, but such results do waver how I view the whole thing. Add that to how many natural thing's were viewed as mystical by primitive humans, such as dancing to create rain or dispelling "demons" to heal the sick by the witch doctors. It's all been nothing more then mumbo jumbo used to waver the sheep. The gullible folk.

I alone communicate with god and he commands thee to give offerings, be it food. drink, or money (while I store it all in the back and make use of it myself without you being none the wiser).

Your demonstrating my point exactly! You will only be convinced with scientific proof, but I ask why scientific proof is all that you will accept. Why don't we accept other religious forms of proof, rather than just the religion of science? They all have their flaws, but you choose to overlook the flaws of scientific testing.

lmao your too much!

OK, let's use the argument of "because your watching". Why should I believe you can levitate only when no one is watching? It has nothing to do with scientific proof or vailidation. You make a claim, you SHOULD be able to follow through with it. Now if your going to use idiotic excuses such as because your watching or you don't believe, then there is literally no reason for me to accept the claims. Sure, I COULD be gullible and say oh cool that's awsome! And leave it at that, but then I AM the idiot. I'd rather point out a damn fraud then sit there and look like the gullible idiot blindly believing that some guy can only perform when no one is watching or if they believe he can do it. 99% of these quacks are frauds and deceivers. Magicians. They do nothing special that you or I can't learn to do.

Why should I believe you can't levitate when no one is watching simply because you can't reproduce it in an environment which is unsuited to levitating? By that logic I assume you believe the moon doesn't exist because you can't see it through a telescope in a room with no windows?

By your logic, why should you doubt anyone who claims to be god but is unwilling to produce proof for you??? This person might say they need not produce proof for someone as inisgnificant as you and that you should have faith in your god! Hey, let's all just be gullible and just believe ANY wild claim without anything to back it up!

I am god.

You said:

sayswho:
Equating is a poor choice of word. To make my point relevant, there is no need for God and theories to be the same thing, to entertain you,

( I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I am pretty sure that I never equated "god" with theory since the god concept does not qualify)

.isn't God a theory too?

(answer ; NO! god, the existance of god, the misassumption of god, the creation of god by man all fail to qualify as theory for the very good reasons already explained ad infinitum.)

From my understanding a theory is simply an assumption,

(this is where you and many others fail to understand theory. I grant you that theory is used and has been used by many as the equivalent to. 'idea' or 'assumption' or 'concept' and that this misuse is common place. It is, neverhteless...still incorrect.),

used in the absence of fact. Do you think I have the concept right?
( No, I do not. I am pretty sure that you may never...have it correct, as you say!)

Being able to test a theory simply aids it's credibility
(wrong! Testing is a requirement and the test must be passed, otherwise, the theory is out the window.)

and it's acceptance as accurate, it doesn't determine whether a theory exists or not.

(wrong again, passing the predicted tests is a qualification for accepted theory. This is why religion and the god assumption does NOT QUALIFY!)

To entertain your notion once again, let's take the theory that God exists
(yOU SEE? tHERE YOU GO AGAIN...NOT UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT)

as an example. To test this, we can ask to keep us safe for another day. In a days time, if we are safe we can attribute this to God fulfilling our request.
(SUCH ASSUMPTIONS AS THIS ARE NOT ONLY BORDERING UPON DELUSION...THEY ARE DELUSION IF ACCEPTED AS TRUE.) sorry about the caps, I have big fingers.

It was predicted and it occurred, it was tested and it passed.

(Here your assumptions are unfounded. If you were in psychiatric treatment the analyst would be required to pursue this delusion)

It may not be true, but it can be assumed to be true, thus satisfies your requirements.

(wrong agaon...as explained above)

Religions are not all the same, thus there is no need for other religions to satisfy all of the same requirements science does.

(this is correct. science must deal with verifiable information...religion is based upon faith (another way of saying...'made up stuff what ain't facts')

Other religions don't satisfy all of eachothers requirements either. If they did there would be only one. All that is required is that they all satisfy the definition of a religion, which is the point I am making.

Well, at least you realize that religious dogma has one consistent characteristic...they contradictict each other as sure as the nose on your face.
sayswho (skep by any other name)

Prot0n:
When you say proof, you mean scientific proof, so saying that I don't require proof is misleading. Who's to say anyone who claims to be God hasn't already proven themselves to me? They just may not have done it in a scientifically accepted way? Isn't that what this current conversation is all about?

Nice to meet you God.

sayswho:
God is a theory as I already explained to you 5 weeks ago. Didn't I demonstrate how I tested this theory of God? It passed didn't it? It was predicted and fulfilled, wasn't it? I agree, assumptions were used in determining the validity of these tests. In fact this is the point of the whole thread. The religion of science makes these assumptions all the time.

Science is based on faith too. I've already explained this ad nauseam. Don't forget the religion of science, it contradicts other religions too. I guess I'll be hearing from you again in another 5 weeks?

When you say proof, you mean scientific proof,

If I were indeed God, proof wouldn't have to be scientific. The proof you might seek from such a claim could be something as creating a new form of animal out of thin air in front of you or something as more mundane as "Oh yea, what am I thinking right now?!". So no, proof in the context isn't scientific. Don't put words in my mouth.

so saying that I don't require proof is misleading.

Never said that you personally don't require proof, it's only misleading due to your inability to read. To clarify (for the sake of humor), me being the almighty god would not be required to produce proof for you to believe I am the almighty creator. Seriously, who are you? Your insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Me being many levels above a mere mortal doesn't need to prove jack to you. The whole concept is to have faith in me anyways, not for me to prove to you I exist. You don't want to have faith in me being the almighty ... fine, free will after all. Then again, what happens with lack in faith of my divinity determines where you end up.

Who's to say anyone who claims to be God hasn't already proven themselves to me?

Yea, get in line buddy. There's hundreds of other religions out there that claim personal proof for their own different god(s). As I said, it's not about proof, it's about faith. Your choice.

They just may not have done it in a scientifically accepted way?

Umm, obviously.

Isn't that what this current conversation is all about?

Really the conversation is just jumping around from topic to topic, which I'm fine with that. It's easier for me.

God is a theory as I already explained to you 5 weeks ago. Didn't I demonstrate how I tested this theory of God? It passed didn't it? It was predicted and fulfilled, wasn't it? I agree, assumptions were used in determining the validity of these tests. In fact this is the point of the whole thread. The religion of science makes these assumptions all the time.

Show one assumption that is regarded as irrefutable fact by scientists. Or do we need to default to, everything discovered is wrong and I'm the only one who has it right nyah nyah nyah?

Science is based on faith too. I've already explained this ad nauseam.

I've already gone over with you on how science is not based upon faith nor is a faith based religion. Wisdom falls on deaf ears.

You are the one putting words into my mouth. You claim that by my logic I would require no proof in believing someone was God if they said so. I was clarifying the innaccuracy of your assumption here. The proof wouldn't be limited to the examples you provide either, "God".

I have no idea what your point is in regards to lack of faith in your divinity, despite your efforts to clarify. Sounds like you've taken another tangent down your favourite path dictated by your "more than one religion agenda" you continually raise without provocation.

No need to point out the concept of scientific proof to me, I already know it's obvious that you meant "proof" in this fashion. I'm educating you in your incorrect use of the word. I see you're learning.

Again, not sure which topics you thing the conversation is jumping between, I thought scientif proof is a pretty constant theme. Perhaps you find it easier and are trying to change the topic because you make such a poor attempt to disprove the original one?

What has my proof of God example got to do with proving assumptions are taken as fact by scientists? I made an assumption as science does, and came to a conclusion based on this assumption as science does. Pretty simple analogy. How is that website coming along by the way? It still doesn't seem to be working?

Actually rather than explaining how science is based on faith, I believe you couldn't explain it, got annoyed and promised to leave the conversation, twice! Why are you still here then? I just cannot believe anything you say.

You are the one putting words into my mouth. You claim that by my logic I would require no proof in believing someone was God if they said so. I was clarifying the innaccuracy of your assumption here. The proof wouldn't be limited to the examples you provide either, "God".

Incorrect.

"Why should I believe you can't levitate when no one is watching simply because you can't reproduce it in an environment which is unsuited to levitating?"

Why should you not believe that I'm not god if I don't require myself to produce proof of any sort to someone as insignificant as you?

I have no idea what your point is in regards to lack of faith in your divinity, despite your efforts to clarify. Sounds like you've taken another tangent down your favourite path dictated by your "more than one religion agenda" you continually raise without provocation.

If the point has alluded you, there is no hope in furthur explaining. Just a waste of my time and yours. As was the whole science is not a religion issue.

No need to point out the concept of scientific proof to me, I already know it's obvious that you meant "proof" in this fashion. I'm educating you in your incorrect use of the word. I see you're learning.

Appearently, you still have yet to grasp the concept. It's obvious to me that you want my usage of proof to equate with scientific proof, despite my effort to voice otherwise. You haven't educated me in nothing but your own ignorance. If that itself can even be called an education.

Again, not sure which topics you thing the conversation is jumping between, I thought scientif proof is a pretty constant theme. Perhaps you find it easier and are trying to change the topic because you make such a poor attempt to disprove the original one?

The "attempt" itself wasn't poor at all. It's the person himself, in this case ... You.

What has my proof of God example got to do with proving assumptions are taken as fact by scientists? I made an assumption as science does, and came to a conclusion based on this assumption as science does. Pretty simple analogy. How is that website coming along by the way? It still doesn't seem to be working?

The website was a joke, obviously. Your assumption of god used previously and supposedly "proved predictions" is erroneous. Not even a good analogy at all. If anything, a desperate attempt to equate science with religion.

Actually rather than explaining how science is based on faith, I believe you couldn't explain it, got annoyed and promised to leave the conversation, twice! Why are you still here then? I just cannot believe anything you say.

I have explained, more then once. In more then one thread. As have other's. Again, it's not the explanation, it's the person and again in this case, You. I didn't promise, I stated. Different thing's. Had I actually promised to stay out of the thread, then I could see a potential issue with me coming back in for another attempt to right wrong's, as this isn't the case there should be no issues with it.

The levitating example I used makes no mention of proof, it alludes to making assumptions that invalid tests can provide conclusive answers.

I agree, there is no hope that YOU will be able to explain your point further, as you don't possess strong explanatory skills. That is your failing, not mine. Yes, science not being a religion is a non-issue because it is quite aparrent that it is. Case closed.

My desires have nothing to do with you failing to acknowledge that your idea of proof only encompasses scientific proof. Hence the need to educate you.

I think you need to replace the word desperate with accurate. My God an analogy was an accurate attempt to prove that science IS a religion. Rather than opposing this example baselessly, how about proving that it doesn't satisfy the requirement of passing the test and fulfilling the prediction?

OK you stated, so you were lying. What else are you ling about? Same issue still exists.

The levitating example I used makes no mention of proof, it alludes to making assumptions that invalid tests can provide conclusive answers.

Can or can't? Invalid test's in what way? Hey I can levitate but only when your not watching and only if your 500 feet away from me!

I agree, there is no hope that YOU will be able to explain your point further, as you don't possess strong explanatory skills. That is your failing, not mine. Yes, science not being a religion is a non-issue because it is quite aparrent that it is. Case closed.

Ok, enough from the peanut gallery on science being a religion. It's quite ridiculous for you to continue claiming this when you admit to NOT WANTING to LEARN anything about it due to your own opinionated views. Perhaps I'm not that great at explaining thing's, it's also NOT my job to educate you either, yet I tried my best. If your obviously and addmitinly unwilling to furthur learn, then no, it's not my failing, it IS yours.

My desires have nothing to do with you failing to acknowledge that your idea of proof only encompasses scientific proof. Hence the need to educate you.

Right ok, I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say proof and only the great mytym know's what I'm thinking about

I think you need to replace the word desperate with accurate. My God an analogy was an accurate attempt to prove that science IS a religion. Rather than opposing this example baselessly, how about proving that it doesn't satisfy the requirement of passing the test and fulfilling the prediction?

Repost a few predictions for me, I don't really have the time to go back and look them up.

OK you stated, so you were lying. What else are you ling about? Same issue still exists.

You've lied about alot of thing's as well. You've lied in this thread. You've lied in many thread's. Boohoo.

Invalid tests such as looking for the moon from inside a room with no windows and conlcuding that it doesn't exist because you can't see it. I already explained this didn't I? If you could levitate only under ther circumstances you mention then the scientific method of testing levitation you preach, would be another example of an invalid test, wouldn't it? Destined to lead to the wrong conlcusion that you couldn't levitate, when in fact you could under certain circumstances.

You keep harping on the not wanting to learn angle. Let me clarify this for you one more time. I mentioned how my research in quantum physics had raised the idea of higher dimensions. From this you jumped to the conclusion that I was using the teachings of quantum physics to explain what these higher dimensions entailed, when all quantum physics did was provide a catalyst for me to find out more about these higher dimensions. The role of quantum physics had expired at this point in my quest. You then went on to encourage me to learn more about quantum physics in order to learn more about these other dimensions, to which I replied that quantum physics doesn't know anything about these higher dimensions other than the possibility that they exist, thus I had no desire to learn any more about it. What could it possible teach about something it knows so little about? Since that time you persist in making broad assumptions that I don't wish to learn about anything.

In regards to science being a religion, I provided a definition of what a religion entails, and proceded to demonstrate how science satisfies the prerequisties of this definition.

If you have no idea of what you are talking about when you say proof, then stop trying to explain the concept to me. I don't claim to know what you are thinking, I merely make assessments based on what you post, and my assessment on this matter is that you were incorrectly using the word proof. As a result I provided a more suitable alternative in scientif proof.

Why should I retype a few predictions for you? If you have so little time to look them up, how do I know you will have enough time to read what I retype? You seem to have enough time to continually examine and re-examine every word of every post I write, so I doubt the integrity of this claim of yours.

If mising the point were an olympic sport, you would surely win the gold medal. You disputed promising that you would not be posting any more on this thread, saying that you simply stated you would not be posting on this thread any more. This is what I was referring to. If you made this statement, and now you are posting on this thread, you were lying weren't you? For all I know you may not even be as big a fan of mine as you profess, and there may not even be any website that you have created to honour me. I just cannot trust anything you say.

What have I lied about, and more to the point, what does it have to do with any of this any way?

Comments in this thread are getting dangerously close to personal attacks.

Please let's not allow this to degrade to that.

IMHO... religion can be viewed as a science. It is the organised attempt to understand the human unconscious and relate it to the material plane.

my 2 cents