0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
2. Ace of cups down - This is saying that the virus will be beaten and die down.
The claim of psychic gifts can only get great financial benefit to fraudsters and charlatans. Those who truly have a gift cannot and do not except to a modest income for support.
In other words, you can't provide numerical evidence in support of a "gift", and the only people who can make money out of it are those who don't actually possess it. (snip)
(snip)Furthermore you are claiming that Tarot cards shuffled at random have the capacity to predict. If the prediction depends on your interpretation, any set of random numbers would do because it is actually your gift that is doing the job, since the person who shuffles them (the "mug") clearly doesn't have the gift, or he wouldn't be as asking for your help. I think you are skating on logically thin ice here.(snip)
(snip)I have no interest in horse racing but once visited Epsom out of curiosity. I had no money with which to bet, but I predicted the winner of 7 successive races. Scary. I've never been back.
Could you accurately predict the sequence of ten die rolls?
By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.
What, if anything, is the difference between"Any attempt to prove that I can do this will fail"and" I can't do this (but suffer from the delusion that I can)"?
Quote from: CliveG on 01/02/2020 06:19:12By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.
But you said "they" never reveal the rules, for fear of their existence being proven - or was it disproven?Anyway, to return the the question. Science is about investigating the disprovable. So if you want science to test the existence of something, you have to state a testable quality of that something, and how you would know if it had failed that test.So the simple answer is no, science isn't about proof, only disproof. And the other simple answer is yes, if you write down all the testable properties of your god, we can test them until you are satisfied that there is a single entity that possesses them - but it will take a very long time to do so!On the other hand we can turn to pure mathematical logic to demonstrate that there cannot be a functional omnipotent and omniscient deity that created the universe. There being no other reason to suspect the existence of a god, Occam says we should dismiss the possibility.
You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works.
To make a long story short, there are perfectly good classical physical explanations for our experimental results.
Quote from: CliveG on 02/02/2020 05:47:17You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works.And you have missed the premise that that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.The difference is that the premise about dismissal of unevenced stuff is actually true.
This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/02/2020 15:04:36Quote from: CliveG on 01/02/2020 06:19:12By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test.So we agree that prayer is a waste of time. Almost a denial of your fundamental belief of non-cooperation.You miss entirely the premise that unprovable prayer works. Just because one does not know how it works does not invalidate it. A hundred years ago many things were mysterious because one did not know how they worked. They still worked.
The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals.
Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence.
You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality.