Some Christian fundamentalists: no extraterrestrial intelligence

[Learner]

While it is certainly true that we continue to learn more and more, I doubt humanity will ever run out of new things to learn. This belief is well founded by the fact that, when we learn more about some subject, we discover there is more that we don't understand that we had previously had no idea that existed for us not to understand (the unknown unknowns). We now know that there is a hell of a lot that we don't know (our known unknowns) while five hundred years ago humanity thought they knew pretty much everything there was to know. In addition, if the history of life tells us anything then it tells us that humanity only has a finite amount of time left.

Very sensible. We have the gift of imagination. Sorry about previous post for not being clear. The limitations I meant is the physical limitation.

 

[Learner]

Science, as a method, is kinda limited in topics of the supernatural. The question of supernatural beings is beyond science. But there are ways to validate some of the claims that believers in the various creators make.
Or the believers have the opportunity to provide evidence for some of their claims.

For example, many creationists insist that there's an upper limit to how much a species can change, or evolve, thus the limit proves the concept of all life being descended from common ancestry is disproven, and the only remaining possibility for the diversity of life on the planet is a divine creator.

Or, well... It WILL be disproven, once someone provides evidence for this upper limit. Or even a good, scientific reason to think that such a limit exists.

Not sure myself whether or not there is a natural limit to evolution,but there are examples of man trying to alter the process by himself where by later on the altered species (Tiger Ligon or mule) their off spring reverts naturally back to one of the original parent species. Haven't delve into this area. It is interesting, would have been worth looking into if I had the time.

Lacking that, science can just keep on without having to worry about "sensible indications of a creator." As long as the science keeps working without one.

Nothing wrong with that. Each one to his own interest.

Forgive me, but in my experience, there are mighty few actual paradoxes for natural law unless one assumes a divine power in the first place, or assumes the problem in the first place (such as the limit on evolutionary diversity above).
Can you give an eample of a paradox for natural law that's an actual problem for scientists?

One example is the OOBE experiment that proved 100% reliable. Not as woo as this may seem. A non physical experience and an experiment very easy to devise. Nothing to do with the brain playing tricks. It is an indication of possible non phisical existence. It has been a while so maybe now there is an explanation otherwise. Not heard one so far.

Dr. Charles Tart.

 

[Learner]

Yes indeed. Its not easy once reaching a stumbling block.

Kinda pompous, what?
Can we also refer to the assumption that there ARE creator gods as a 'stumbling block?'
A belief that held science back for a long time?

That post of mine was just a tongue in cheek reply. We all come across a stumbling block once in a while.

Not the only one. A belief that epilepsy was demonic possession certainly kept treatments in the dark ages for a long time.
A belief that one caught the Black Plague from the breath, rather than from the bites of fleas, retarded development in that arena, too.
And many people insisted that AIDS was a punishment from God for far too long in an otherwise civilized age.

All in all, we can't really point to anything as 'ignorance' unless and until we find the right answer, which allows us to better frame previous beliefs (or disbeliefs).So once there's some sound reason to think that a creator exists, then we can see which religions were right, which were fools, which evidence was sound and which was inappropriately ignored.

I am with you here. My friend says the only time you know is when we die.

Of course, Self-Mutation used to insist that there was a God, but He didn't want anyone to have evidence for Him, so He had hidden it all. One had to have faith based on the complete lack of evidence. SM didn't consider that, in a universe where an omnipotent being removed all the reasonable evidence for His existence, then atheism was the most reasonable conclusion to come to.

Well I for one would not know what a God is made of. Like your analogy one version ;

There was a Turtle God and this turtle laid thousands of eggs she'll place them on the beach then go off. She has faith to trust them to make their own way. Some make it some don't. But the intent is the species lives on forever maybe.

I just don't know

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not sure myself whether or not there is a natural limit to evolution,but there are examples of man trying to alter the process by himself where by later on the altered species (Tiger Ligon or mule) their off spring reverts naturally back to one of the original parent species.

Yeah, like how professional Chihuahua breeders can only get three generations before they revert back to wolves.
Please....

Tiger/Lion couples produce ligers or tions, depending on whether the father was the tiger or the lion. But they're pretty rare. And not really a species.
I hadn't heard that successive generations of ligers or tions 'reverted.' I really hadn't heard that there had ever been successive generations of ligers or tions, so i suspect the claim is kind bullshit. I'd be interested in seeing some sort of study. But these days, getting funding to mate African lions with Indian tigers would probably be disapproved out of some sort of cultural appropriation objection...

And while some jennys are fertile, most mules are not. So breeding mules to get back to horses seems kind of not something that could ever happen...

Did you do the gene combinations in Biology? Aa breeds with Aa to produce AA, Aa, Aa, and aa?
Now, infertile and fertile breed together to produce, what?

Sounds kinda like more bullshit.

See, it's this sort of claim that gets passed around a lot in some circles of people who really, sincerely think that there are real scientific objections to what science is saying, and exceptions to scientific theory, but it mostly looks like made-up-bullshit.

Can you give an eample of a paradox for natural law that's an actual problem for scientists?

One example is the OOBE experiment that proved 100% reliable.

Um.... Even if we accept this as 100% reliable, how is this a paradox for science? What science?
What scientific principle is it violating?
I mean, even if it is evidence of a nonphysical existence, that's just something NEW, not something that science can never make work.
How is this a paradox?

 

[bilby]

The idea that a creator God is in any way connected to the idea of an afterlife is bizarre, illogical, and entirely based on the presumption that the Abrahamic religions are well-founded - which there is no reason to think is true.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that there was a creator; and that there will be an afterlife, there is no reason (other than unquestioning acceptance of dubious claims) why one would expect to meet the creator in the afterlife. Even if we accept the existence of both afterlife and creator, there is no reason to expect that we will find out about the creator when we are dead. It makes no sense at all.

Of course, both the existence of an afterlife and of a creator God are incompatible with our best tested science, so these are rather less sensible ideas than the green cheese hypothesis of lunar geology; only through ignorance of science is it possible for an intelligent person to entertain the idea that there may be an afterlife, that there was a creator God, or that the Moon is made from Stilton.

Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the apparent unthinking acceptance that so many people have of the idea that the creation myth implies, or relates to, the afterlife myth. This seems to me to be a strong indication that the person making the connection has switched off his brain, and is simply repeating an unreasoning mantra.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That post of mine was just a tongue in cheek reply.

Oh, Tongue-in-Cheek. Here, i thought it was only pointless.

I am with you here. My friend says the only time you know is when we die.

Then there's no point in discussion on this side of the deathbed. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the apparent unthinking acceptance that so many people have of the idea that the creation myth implies, or relates to, the afterlife myth.

It's marketing. They tell you that you NEED God, and one reason is that He decides your afterlife disposition.
It's just like selling computers preloaded with Windows, or (COMPANY) brand washing machines coming with a month's supply of (COMPANY2) brand detergent and (COMPANY3) brand fabric softener. It's best if it all works together, and that's why they're sold together, for YOUR benefit.

This seems to me to be a strong indication that the person making the connection has switched off his brain, and is simply repeating an unreasoning mantra.

Yeah, like any other brand name loyalty.

 

[Learner]

Yeah, like how professional Chihuahua breeders can only get three generations before they revert back to wolves.
Please....

Tiger/Lion couples produce ligers or tions, depending on whether the father was the tiger or the lion. But they're pretty rare. And not really a species.
I hadn't heard that successive generations of ligers or tions 'reverted.' I really hadn't heard that there had ever been successive generations of ligers or tions, so i suspect the claim is kind bullshit. I'd be interested in seeing some sort of study. But these days, getting funding to mate African lions with Indian tigers would probably be disapproved out of some sort of cultural appropriation objection...

And while some jennys are fertile, most mules are not. So breeding mules to get back to horses seems kind of not something that could ever happen...

Did you do the gene combinations in Biology? Aa breeds with Aa to produce AA, Aa, Aa, and aa?
Now, infertile and fertile breed together to produce, what?

Sounds kinda like more bullshit.

Apologies for the BS. I haven't really got into this area. Check the previous post. I believe you. I can see you are passionate here.

See, it's this sort of claim that gets passed around a lot in some circles of people who really, sincerely think that there are real scientific objections to what science is saying, and exceptions to scientific theory, but it mostly looks like made-up-bullshit.

Can you give an eample of a paradox for natural law that's an actual problem for scientists?

One example is the OOBE experiment that proved 100% reliable.

Um.... Even if we accept this as 100% reliable, how is this a paradox for science? What science?
What scientific principle is it violating?

Natural Law. I know not intended but your question sounds like someone trying to win on a technicality in court other than debate.

All that was asked is; for those the doubters to do the tests themselves.

I mean, even if it is evidence of a nonphysical existence, that's just something NEW, not something that science can never make work.
How is this a paradox?

Paradox to me means;semingly impossible or unable to explain.

 

[Learner]

I concede
and going to have some fun in the humour threads

 

[Keith&Co.]

Natural Law. I know not intended but your question sounds like someone trying to win on a technicality in court other than debate.

I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. You were talking about physics, then about scientific paradoxes, then OOBE.
Words have meaning, that's why we use them. If you're just throwing words out there, then there's no point in flabberating the dommpax.

All that was asked is; for those the doubters to do the tests themselves.

Butyou say you have 100% reliable tests, that leads towards evidence of a non-physical existence. How did they achieve that?
How did they, for example, rule out 'Remote Viewing?'
Or maybe 'telepathy?'
What mechanism did they use to determine if this ability persists post mortem?

Before i rise to the level of 'doubter' i would ask if these 100% reliable tests stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. Or did a guy who believes in OOBEs manage to craft an experiment that reinforces his already-held beliefs and call it good? If that's what's going on, i can easily doubt it without having to ask for volunteers.

Paradox to me means;semingly impossible or unable to explain.

Well, no.
The movement of Mars in the sky was inexplicable, or rather, difficult to explain when the assumption was that Mars orbited Earth. No 'paradox,' just facts that didn't easily fit into the dominant theory.
That's nothing like a paradox, where two things appear to be true though they are mutually exclusive.

 

[skepticalbip]

Before i rise to the level of 'doubter' i would ask if these 100% reliable tests stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. Or did a guy who believes in OOBEs manage to craft an experiment that reinforces his already-held beliefs and call it good? If that's what's going on, i can easily doubt it without having to ask for volunteers.

Gotta love the "100% proof" of OBEs. Those I have seen claiming this have a collection of anecdotal stories by people who think they have had them - that is their proof. Meanwhile there was a decades long joint scientific study (I don't know if it is still ongoing) conducted by a group of hospitals (Emory university hospital in Atlanta was one of them) in several countries specifically testing the claims of those who said they had them with video monitoring and other controls to see if the stories matched what was actually there and was happening. I liked the placing of large drawings of purple giraffes, winged elephants, etc. between where the patient would be and the ceilings where the "OBE travellers" generally claim they hovered to see their bodies. The last I checked a few years ago, there has not yet been a single confirmation in any of the several hospitals participating.

I guess it may depend on what is considered an OBE. If it is that someone on the verge of brain death has vivid visions (like a dream) then that is probably true. If it is that their consciousness actually travels out to observe something (which is what is generally claimed) then that doesn't look likely or even possible.

 

[Learner]

I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. You were talking about physics, then about scientific paradoxes, then OOBE.
Words have meaning, that's why we use them. If you're just throwing words out there, then there's no point in flabberating the dommpax.

All that was asked is; for those the doubters to do the tests themselves.

Butyou say you have 100% reliable tests, that leads towards evidence of a non-physical existence. How did they achieve that?
How did they, for example, rule out 'Remote Viewing?'
Or maybe 'telepathy?'
What mechanism did they use to determine if this ability persists post mortem?

You're a clever lad.Quite precise. What is it I am talking about? There has only been the debate between theories (now you've forgotten ).Whether or not it is plausible for a creator or whether everything came by chance. (Don't need to quote the purple writing, I know this was not how it was said we all know what was meant.)
My point is any hint of evidence or not either way, has to come from many sources. Hence throwing in there (throwing words out - if you prefer) other fields and theories.

'Remote viewing' may not be ruled out ..Who knows? The military believed in it and put millions of dollars including top scientists in that field of study. Now of course that doesn't mean anything but they're not stupid in the military as you know and they must of thought there was something in it.But at least they did real testing.

Before i rise to the level of 'doubter' i would ask if these 100% reliable tests stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. Or did a guy who believes in OOBEs manage to craft an experiment that reinforces his already-held beliefs and call it good? If that's what's going on, i can easily doubt it without having to ask for volunteers.

You could read Tarts actual papers on the experiment not wiki if that'll help.

Well, no.
The movement of Mars in the sky was inexplicable, or rather, difficult to explain when the assumption was that Mars orbited Earth. No 'paradox,' just facts that didn't easily fit into the dominant theory.
That's nothing like a paradox, where two things appear to be true though they are mutually exclusive.

Was inexplicable now its not... yes fact, no Paradox,and not unable to explain

 

[Learner]

Before i rise to the level of 'doubter' i would ask if these 100% reliable tests stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. Or did a guy who believes in OOBEs manage to craft an experiment that reinforces his already-held beliefs and call it good? If that's what's going on, i can easily doubt it without having to ask for volunteers.

Gotta love the "100% proof" of OBEs. Those I have seen claiming this have a collection of anecdotal stories by people who think they have had them - that is their proof. Meanwhile there was a decades long joint scientific study (I don't know if it is still ongoing) conducted by a group of hospitals (Emory university hospital in Atlanta was one of them) in several countries specifically testing the claims of those who said they had them with video monitoring and other controls to see if the stories matched what was actually there and was happening. I liked the placing of large drawings of purple giraffes, winged elephants, etc. between where the patient would be and the ceilings where the "OBE travellers" generally claim they hovered to see their bodies. The last I checked a few years ago, there has not yet been a single confirmation in any of the several hospitals participating.

I guess it may depend on what is considered an OBE. If it is that someone on the verge of brain death has vivid visions (like a dream) then that is probably true. If it is that their consciousness actually travels out to observe something (which is what is generally claimed) then that doesn't look likely or even possible.

It was the test that had 100% success rate. It can be off putting to people when C.Tart seemed like he was a new ager so is understandable why he has not been taken serious.The poor sod.

 

[skepticalbip]

Gotta love the "100% proof" of OBEs. Those I have seen claiming this have a collection of anecdotal stories by people who think they have had them - that is their proof. Meanwhile there was a decades long joint scientific study (I don't know if it is still ongoing) conducted by a group of hospitals (Emory university hospital in Atlanta was one of them) in several countries specifically testing the claims of those who said they had them with video monitoring and other controls to see if the stories matched what was actually there and was happening. I liked the placing of large drawings of purple giraffes, winged elephants, etc. between where the patient would be and the ceilings where the "OBE travellers" generally claim they hovered to see their bodies. The last I checked a few years ago, there has not yet been a single confirmation in any of the several hospitals participating.

I guess it may depend on what is considered an OBE. If it is that someone on the verge of brain death has vivid visions (like a dream) then that is probably true. If it is that their consciousness actually travels out to observe something (which is what is generally claimed) then that doesn't look likely or even possible.

It was the test that had 100% success rate. It can be off putting to people when C.Tart seemed like he was a new ager so is understandable why he has not been taken serious.The poor sod.

What test? Did you link to it and I missed it? If not, do you have a link?

ETA:
Never mind. I found a brief description of it on Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart

OBE experiment
In 1968, Tart conducted an OBE experiment with a subject known as Miss Z for four nights in his sleep laboratory.[3] The subject was attached to an EEG machine and a five-digit code was placed on a shelf above her bed. She did not claim to see the number on the first three nights but on fourth gave the number correctly.[4][5]

During the experiment Tart monitored the equipment in the next room, behind an observation window, however, he admitted he had occasionally dozed during the night.[6] The psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones have written that the possibility of the subject having obtained the number through ordinary sensory means was not ruled out during the experiment. For example when light fell on the code it was reflected from the surface of a clock located on the wall above the shelf. The subject was not constantly observed and it was also suggested she may have read the number when she was being attached to the EEG machine.[4] According to the magician Milbourne Christopher "If she had held a mirror with a handle in her right hand, by tilting the mirror and looking up she could have seen a reflection of the paper on the shelf... The woman had not been searched prior to the experiment, nor had an observer been in the sleep chamber with her — precautions that should have been taken."[6]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the experiment for inadequate controls and questioned why the subject was not visually monitored by a video camera.[7] Martin Gardner has written the experiment was not evidence for an OBE and suggested that whilst Tart was "snoring behind the window, Miss Z simply stood up in bed, without detaching the electrodes, and peeked."[8] Susan Blackmore wrote "If Miss Z had tried to climb up, the brain-wave record would have showed a pattern of interference. And that was exactly what it did show."[9]

The experiment was not repeated at the laboratory, Tart wrote this was because Miss Z moved from the area where the laboratory was located.[10]

Apparently there was piss poor control and rejected because of that so the "test" doesn't really tell us anything. The question is why he didn't repeat it with more acceptable controls if it was really that groundbreaking. I would ask why were the numbers in the room with her and she was not constantly watched to be sure she didn't look at them. Why couldn't the numbers be in the control room with the door locked if the controller is going to doze off so he couldn't be sure she didn't stand up and check the numbers?

 

[Learner]

What test? Did you link to it and I missed it? If not, do you have a link?

ETA:
Never mind. I found a brief description of it on Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart

OBE experiment
In 1968, Tart conducted an OBE experiment with a subject known as Miss Z for four nights in his sleep laboratory.[3] The subject was attached to an EEG machine and a five-digit code was placed on a shelf above her bed. She did not claim to see the number on the first three nights but on fourth gave the number correctly.[4][5]

During the experiment Tart monitored the equipment in the next room, behind an observation window, however, he admitted he had occasionally dozed during the night.[6] The psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones have written that the possibility of the subject having obtained the number through ordinary sensory means was not ruled out during the experiment. For example when light fell on the code it was reflected from the surface of a clock located on the wall above the shelf. The subject was not constantly observed and it was also suggested she may have read the number when she was being attached to the EEG machine.[4] According to the magician Milbourne Christopher "If she had held a mirror with a handle in her right hand, by tilting the mirror and looking up she could have seen a reflection of the paper on the shelf... The woman had not been searched prior to the experiment, nor had an observer been in the sleep chamber with her — precautions that should have been taken."[6]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the experiment for inadequate controls and questioned why the subject was not visually monitored by a video camera.[7] Martin Gardner has written the experiment was not evidence for an OBE and suggested that whilst Tart was "snoring behind the window, Miss Z simply stood up in bed, without detaching the electrodes, and peeked."[8] Susan Blackmore wrote "If Miss Z had tried to climb up, the brain-wave record would have showed a pattern of interference. And that was exactly what it did show."[9]

The experiment was not repeated at the laboratory, Tart wrote this was because Miss Z moved from the area where the laboratory was located.[10]

Apparently there was piss poor control and rejected because of that so the "test" doesn't really tell us anything. The question is why he didn't repeat it with more acceptable controls if it was really that groundbreaking. I would ask why were the numbers in the room with her and she was not constantly watched to be sure she didn't look at them. Why couldn't the numbers be in the control room with the door locked if the controller is going to doze off so he couldn't be sure she didn't stand up and check the numbers?

Unfortunately with the wiki's explanation, the author didn't know that the test was demonstrated and performed throughout and Broadcast in the UK in the 90s . The discription you got from wiki is ..yes.... piss poor.

His original link no longer exists. It has been a while but I read the original papers on his site. Now of course that means nothing. I'm not here to win points and I have faith some will believe I am not making this up telling porkies. Other may think Im delusional ..thats ok.

Will have to argue from another angle 'for now!' (Kieth can have his glory)

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're a clever lad.Quite precise.

It's been my experience that one has to be in order to make heads or tails of many conflicting claims.

There has only been the debate between theories (now you've forgotten ).

But then you started making claims about limitations on science being significant in resolving such debates. And offered some studies that don't appear to stand up to scrutiny. And kind of odd, really, bringing up OOBE studies in what you say is a debate about whether or not a god or gods created the world. Proving that we have souls would not be proof of a deity. Or of an afterlife.

My point is any hint of evidence or not either way, has to come from many sources.

Um, no, it doesn't.
As far as 'either way,' the burden is on the people claiming that the divine exists and that they can describe its nature.

'Remote viewing' may not be ruled out ..Who knows?

Well, then the 100% reliable study does not, yet, promote evidence of a non-physical existence. As long as any of the study's results can be explained by the functions of a working brain, then it's not required that we add a 'soul' to the experiment in order to explain it.

The military believed in it and put millions of dollars including top scientists in that field of study. Now of course that doesn't mean anything but they're not stupid in the military as you know and they must of thought there was something in it.But at least they did real testing.

The same military that spent money trying to weaponize Frisbees.
And experimented with cocaine on soldiers.
And marched army units through the blast area of a nuclear bomb.
A lot of military research shows more money than sense. That fact that they looked into it is not compelling. Show some positive results?
But again, if there ARE positive results in Remote Viewing, that's not evidence of a soul. Just something the brain can maybe do that we didn't know about before.

You could read Tarts actual papers on the experiment not wiki if that'll help.

That kinda sets off alarms in my head, Learner.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Apparently there was piss poor control and rejected because of that so the "test" doesn't really tell us anything. The question is why he didn't repeat it with more acceptable controls if it was really that groundbreaking. I would ask why were the numbers in the room with her and she was not constantly watched to be sure she didn't look at them. Why couldn't the numbers be in the control room with the door locked if the controller is going to doze off so he couldn't be sure she didn't stand up and check the numbers?

I'd suggest a box with a 5x5 grid of depressions and 5 bbs. Close the box in an opaque container and seal it, shake the box then let the bbs fall where they will.
Put the box in another room, next to the monitor watching the sleeping test subject.
After the test subject describes the position of the bbs (or draws them), open the box and see if they were right.
This way, there's no peeking, the monitor doesn't know where the bbs fell.
Could even have the monitor sitting ON the box, so it won't matter if he dozes off.
Perhaps magnets could be applied once the box is shaken so the bbs won't move during the experiment?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Unfortunately with the wiki's explanation, the author didn't know that the test was demonstrated and performed throughout and Broadcast in the UK in the 90s .

Oh, why didn't you say, "I saw it on TV." That changes everything.

His original link no longer exists. It has been a while but I read the original papers on his site. Now of course that means nothing. I'm not here to win points and I have faith some will believe I am not making this up telling porkies. Other may think Im delusional ..thats ok.

I honestly do not think you're making things up, nor that you're delusional.
I fear that you've accepted some things without any sort of critical analysis because it appears to support what you believe. And when faced with skeptics, you retreat.

Will have to argue from another angle 'for now!' (Kieth can have his glory)

Glory?
You think i'm after 'glory?'

I'm after god.

Seriously, atheism is not something i chose. It's something I developed while searching for god. It just is so disappointing when people offer 'evidence' that's nothing like anything actually useful. When the 'reason to believe' is more of a rationalization, or a platitude, or people trying to blame me for not accepting their beliefs at face value.

 

[skepticalbip]

What test? Did you link to it and I missed it? If not, do you have a link?

ETA:
Never mind. I found a brief description of it on Wiki.


Apparently there was piss poor control and rejected because of that so the "test" doesn't really tell us anything. The question is why he didn't repeat it with more acceptable controls if it was really that groundbreaking. I would ask why were the numbers in the room with her and she was not constantly watched to be sure she didn't look at them. Why couldn't the numbers be in the control room with the door locked if the controller is going to doze off so he couldn't be sure she didn't stand up and check the numbers?

Unfortunately with the wiki's explanation, the author didn't know that the test was demonstrated and performed throughout and Broadcast in the UK in the 90s . The discription you got from wiki is ..yes.... piss poor.

His original link no longer exists. It has been a while but I read the original papers on his site. Now of course that means nothing. I'm not here to win points and I have faith some will believe I am not making this up telling porkies. Other may think Im delusional ..thats ok.

Will have to argue from another angle 'for now!' (Kieth can have his glory)

Believe me, if anyone could demonstrate any PSI abilities in controlled experiments the scientific community would be all over it. It would rock several science disciplines and scientists in those disciplines would be be all over it trying to be the first to publish. There is nothing that a scientist wants more than to upset and "correct" the currently accepted understandings of their fields. This is how scientists become famous not by verifying what is already believed. This is one of the reasons that the group of hospitals I mentioned earlier conducted the decades long study into OBE - they wanted to find something that would make a name for themselves but they were/are good enough scientists to insist on valid, controlled testing. Princeton University dropped their EGG project after years of no evidence, however true believers picked up the project and claim that what they named the "Global Consciousness Project" is proving a "global mind" but anyone looking at their analysis sees bias in data selection and an intentional lack of "blinding" of those doing the analysis.

James Randi offered a million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate PSI ability in a controlled experiment up until he retired last year. There were quite a few who apparently really thought they had the ability and accepted the challenge - none of them were able to demonstrate the abilities they believed they had when there were controls in place.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

[Whether or not it is plausible for a creator or whether everything came by chance.

Where does the alleged great cosmic magician come from, if not here by chance?

The old creator canard says you can't have a universe and intelligence and design unless something makes it. And then contradicts itself by saying there was already something here that was infinitely more complex already that made the universe. That argument is less than lame. It's rather amazing an adult human brain could somehow find it satisfying.