I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.
You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".
"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.
I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.
In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.
Psychokinesis experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon, and the topic is generally regarded as pseudoscience.
There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.
A panel commissioned in 1988 by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist.
There is no such thing as telekinesis and I don't know why you guys want to believe in magic so badly, you are going to die in 50 years and you will realize that magic did not affect your life whatsoever.
There is no "convincing" evidence to those who are prejudiced against the idea and choose to misrepresent the evidence. I post this link a lot in this thread but since "skeptics" are refusing to consider its content I have to paste some key paragraphs and bold font to get them to read even a small fraction of this valuable link:
Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence
Parapsychological Research
A prominent skeptic's FAQ makes this incorrect claim about parapsychology:
"And, there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science."
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.htmlAccording to parapsychologist Dean Radin, the truth is:
A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system.
http://www.deanradin.com/para2.html#nineaThat's 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years demonstrating odds of a trillion to one in favor of psychokinesis being real.
In another case, Chris Carter in "Research of the Skeptics", tells of a skeptic who made entirely unsupportable statements about the supposed lack of evidence for psi phenomena.
Martin Gardner wrote:
How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology’s perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics.
But as Honorton pointed out, “Gardner does not attempt to document this assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics’ experiments and see what you find.”
For the most part, skeptics have simply criticized from the sidelines, and have produced no experimental research of their own.
(From Research of the Skeptics by Chris Carter at skepticalinvestigations.org)
Top
The Double Standard
Skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. They justify this double standard by claiming that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a fallacy which is exposed in the chapter on Skeptical Fallacies. That chapter explains that
when skeptics apply this double standard, they are simply demonstrating they prefer to disbelieve parapsychological research because that research contradicts their strongly held beliefs and not because there is any objective scientific reason to doubt it. Since there is no objective scientific way to identify an extraordinary claim it is based on personal belief rather than scientific facts. Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research in order to maintain his belief that ESP does not exist.
The Wikipedia article for Remote Viewing gives an example of this type of skeptical misdirection.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced
In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.
?