Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.
If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.
You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.
What
is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that
your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.
Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.
This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.
Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.
How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?
The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.
You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?
''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.
The point wasn't to go off topic into electric universe theory. The point was to show that standard scientific theory is an insecure thing, and that the only science that works is that which is engineered, often outside what the theory for the engineering says should happen. Then they change the theory.
So, why accept the ever-fluctuating theory as truth? Accept the science fact... cause and effect, entropy (not the theory of it), and complexity... which, when combined, prove God exists. There is no other way for these scientific laws to exist in a universe like we have.
So, why God? Because God fills all the criteria: intelligent design as shown by complexity, emotion, identity, great power in all of it. These things are all part of the universe. Nothing other than God fulfills these things. God might be very different than we imagine. But He has all these things for them to exist. That's why we call Him God.
)
