Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 104. (Read 845809 times)

Where are the applications.

You chose to ignore the evidence in the links I posted. I cannot help that.

Eminent and capable scientists have really been conducting successful experiments from the 19th century til now. I sourced my claim by pointing to many important tests. What have you done about it? You just literally said "I don't care about the evidence, I will not believe any of it until there are widespread applications". That is not how science works.

Another good link : https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

There is no evidence, get over it, if scientists have really been conducting successful experiments til now then we wouldn't need to believe in it or not, it would be proven and it would be used, telekinesis would have enormous applications that I have yet not seen and you neither.

The experiment I just mentioned is about ingesting ORMEs, you can try it on yourself and repeat it on a daily basis until you are convinced that there is something inside the sea salt which affects the mind.

Regarding TK, the evidence goes back to the 19th century, many eminent researchers have conducted their own tests:
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933
Another good link mentioned in another answer to that question:
http://www.thiaoouba.com/kir.htm

Which one is repeatable? You posted a bunch of personal experiences of some people that you can't even know if they are actually true or not, that's not repeatable. If telekinesis was real, for example, it would be so easy to prove, everyone would know by know it exists, you would see people do it all the time in real life, you wouldn't even need to really prove it.

''As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without.'' Prove it, you haven't proved that god is from outside the unvierse.
''Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him.'' Why not
''a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact'' A true scientist knows that nothing is 100% a fact but a theory gets really damn close to it, you are not a real scientist, you are a buffoon who doesn't even understand his own arguments.

What does extinct have to do with making more babies who grow up to have more babies?

God designed cause and effect to act this way.

Unlikely facts. If we are all descendants from some men and women, then why are we not extinct ?

I am not going to take the time to run down your links. Why not? Because anybody who is a true scientist knows that science theory is not fact, and that much of what you link to is science theory at best.

As I have told you, cause and effect are for this universe. God is from without. Things like cause and effect don't necessarily act on Him. But, even if C&E was a part of God, there is no way of knowing anything about it. After all, we can't even track an atom or molecule of the wind as it travels around the globe, or wherever. Since we are so remote, why would you even think that we can track even a little of the nature of God?

Except for you, that is. You understand that God exists, but you continue to deny Him. Kinda ignorant of you. I can understand how your lack of intelligence must continually ask questions about a God we will scientifically never know anything about.

So, it would only be by the sheerest C&E "accidents" if you happened to become the one who turned out to be the scientist who could track a specific molecule of the wind. LOL.

I sure have, first of all by proving that you don't even know the laws you are trying to use to prove god existence.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19455088

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19357376

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19355289

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19666684

Links that you haven't been able to respond to a part from your simplistic ''circular argument'' bullshit because saying everything has a cause but god doesn't isn't stupid, right badecker?

Don't be upset with protokol's responses. The point he'll always get to is that nothing can be proven. What he really means is that he can't even prove to himself that he is posting anything at all.

You mean the experiments are not repeatable? You should try one and see for yourself, this experiment I posted is about as easy as it gets.

OK, I should have made this more clear: Since the ORMEs have quantum properties and ingesting them effects the mind, this implies that the ORMEs are interacting with the qubit state of tubulin.

 Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

I believe that the knowledge in the Phoenix Journals makes the presence of GOD clear.

According to research by Cunningham, The communication of anomalous information is verifiable by anyone willing to consider the evidence. A truth-seeker or researcher must decide if the anomalous information is coming from a discarnate being or if another explanation is a better fit (this is called the "Content-Source Problem").

Some day the Phoenix Journals, CONTACT and The Word meeting tapes will be more widely recognized for what they are, direct communications from our Heavenly Father, providing His guidance, as promised.

There is no evidence that ORMEs works as a placebo, that is just your assumption.
There IS evidence for wide-ranging application of ORMEs in their many forms.
The effects are fairly consistent, just like with any other substance.
I did my own experiments to come to my conclusions, you should do the same.

There is abundant evidence and you simply do not wish to discuss it with me.
Look through my posts and read the sources, then you can truly critique the evidence.
What is lacking is an adequate rebuttal to the ideas of Hameroff and Chopra.

If that were true then why exactly is Hameroff agreeing with Chopra? The explanatory power of Orch-OR is greater than any other theory of consciousness. Evidence is in favor of Orch-OR, and evidence is in favor of consciousness as a primary force in the world. You can read about the relationship between consciousness and the quantum world in "Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics" by Higgo.

You claimed that I was wrong to believe Hameroff's Orch-OR, then you stopped posting.
It is true that you did not address the evidence I presented.
If you commit to a discussion and then stay silent then you are consenting to what is said by others.

My character is not being debated, only the evidence is in question. I would like you to compose a rebuttal to my claims, so I am simply asking you to finish the debate.

I saw that you wrote replies to others. Please don't be facetious, let's just get on with evaluating the evidence.

What evidence did you post? Which evidence did I fail to recognize?

You did not make a claim on the basis of science, but I did, then when you refused to address my evidence, I told you that I am right and that you should prove me wrong. I am totally open to being proven wrong but the proof must be based either upon hard evidence or an adequate rebuttal of my claims.

I have identified your fallacious argument:

There is evidence to support Orch-OR and survival; whether you think it is "enough" evidence or not is just a matter of subjective opinion.
You never gave an objective scientific reason to doubt any of my claims.
You used a double standard explained here:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

Also don't get passive-aggressive with me, if I don't reply to you, you think that means I agree with you? Such an assumption is a sign of huge arrogance. Perhaps I just didn't log in for a few days, or maybe I just couldn't be fucked to talk to someone who doesn't recognise actual scientific evidence.

That's not how science works, sonny jim.

I don't know why 'we' need to come out with any proof that god exists. An ommipotent and all knowing entity could have done a better job at spreading its knowledge and making its presence clear.
If you think its presence is already clear, well, say that to all the people killed in religious wars, past and present. If it was that clear there won't be this mess religions and cults accross the planet, would it?
All the magical mysteries that have been found, have been found to be non-magical (Said someone) and resorting to a ''god did it'' or ''god will sort it out'' has not helped anyone ever.
Btw, please  , the bible is as divine or historical as my collection of Stephen King books... They also have historical collections of things that happened, doesn't mean they are divine though...

Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking. Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.

OK I didn't reply, but not because I agree with Chopra. You are jumping to conclusions my friend, something that people like Chopra do... And yourself.

Your link about "ormus water" is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. This leads me to believe it is not a reliable source, and some of the chemistry is sketchy at best. It literally says
So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

Orch-OR is an interesting hypothesis, like I said, but there is not enough evidence for the concept to be taken as fact. This is similar to other hypotheses, such as string theory or the multiverse theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is not enough evidence to say you are right.

That is correct, something must be the first cause since an infinite chain of causation is unthinkable.
The origin will always involve self-existence, but self-existence itself is inconceivable (unthinkable).
Regarding the origin, it is easy to see that ALL explanations are inconceivable and literally unthinkable.
This is all detailed in Herbert Spencer's treatise "First Principles". Spencer was agnostic.

I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".