[Bored chemist]

2. Ace of cups down - This is saying that the virus will be beaten and die down.

That's not a prediction; it's an observation.
The mortality rate is estimated as about 2%  which means about 98% survive.
If nearly everybody survives then it's obviously going to be beaten back- by people's immune systems.

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.

What is it with you and logical fallacies?

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

[Kryptid]

Could you accurately predict the sequence of ten die rolls?

[CliveG]

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)

I have made it quite clear that the supernatural and God have set of rules and these rules are applied by entities with intelligence and are not mechanical. A key rule is that there will be no proof of the existence. Only hints and only revelations to various individuals. The spiritual entities that assist people (the "gift" is not a super-power but assistance from the spirit-world) will not let their assistance be abused by greed and material values. This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.

Those in search of absolute proof are going to be disappointed and subjected to having to deal with people like me who offer personal experience.

[CliveG]

(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)

You are partly correct. My late wife tried the cards many times. Not only did she get the wrong cards but when I asked her to interpret my layouts before I did she also got it wrong.

Very occasionally I get a set of random cards. I recognize that I am not meant to do a reading for whatever reason.

There is little doubt the my prediction on the corona virus is also backed by a knowledge of past pandemics (the Spanish flu mutated and went round the world 3 times). But that would also be spirit in that I could have read an article which influences my thought pattern. Those past influences are no coincidence.

Interesting aside. I had just about finished my reply when I hit a wrong button and it disappeared. Darn. But I find this has happened a few times before and it was because my answer was not on target. I reread your response and am more accurate and concise. Spirit intervention to correct my lack of attention in misreading your response?

One has to get the correct cards in the correct sequence. This is just not physically possible given the laws of probability. The number gets astronomical when one considers that I do reading after reading for myself and for my later wife and current wife who trusts me because I get it right. There are 78 cards and each one can be up or down. To get the first card correct is then 1 in 156. The next card is 1 in 155 and the next is 1 in 154. The combination is 156 x 155 x 154 = 1 in 3 723 729. About 3 million to 1.

Each card has multiple meanings and the way they lay out invokes different interpretations. This is again where the person needs subtle hints and whispers and intuition from spirit.

One has to ask how can the shuffling can order the cars in just the right way. It is one I have pondered hard on. The only logical answer is that spirit "swops" out the cards which would have fallen to the cards that need to fall. How is this possible? The answer is that our universe is a virtual reality. It is in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence. Everything and anything is possible if spirits intervene. But they do so subtly. Even the person doing the reading is not aware of any break to the laws of physics.

You can claim that this is so absurd as to be instantly dismissible. I would refer you to the seemingly impossibilities of quantum physics. Schrodingers cat - an animal both alive and dead at the same time in the box and only achieves a certain state once the box is opened as a measurement. Quantum entanglement also. Then there is dark energy and dark matter. These are supported by logic and observation. The same principles of science apply to discovering the rules of the spirit world.

[CliveG]

(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.

You have had the same experience I did when I was just 14. The lesson was that the supernatural can permit such things but only as a one time demonstration. My brother's friend was just 13 but was six foot three inches and had a rough skin that aged him. He was a superb conman and I have a few tales there. He made money by going to the horse races and asking the stable boys to give him tips. They knew he was betting very small amounts. I went with him. We got in under the fence. Each race he would go to the stables and each race I would make a prediction. I got eight out of eight.

The first race was remarkable. The horse was "Island Runner". One remembers certain facts about strange and amazing happenings. The start happened. No gates in 1962. Island Runner turned around and ran the other way, jumped over the inner fence, then back again and crossed the starting line well behind the pack. Loser I thought. The speed at which he overtook the others was so remarkable that I knew the fix was in. They were all holding their horses back.

Okay. Wow. I can predict races. So let me test it. Total failure every time. This is how experiences have taught me the rules.

So you know how I felt when I said that as a teenager I abandoned hypnotizing people to see the future accurately. It was way too spooky. Now that I am more comfortable I would love to do such tests. The problem is that the volunteers would have to be seven to ten years old. And if set up as a test, it would probably fail anyway because of the no-testing rule.

An uncle could dowse water and gold in various ways. He made money and lived comfortably. I was still a teenager when I asked him why he was not rich. He said he could not abuse his gift and he could feel it waning if he started to charge too much. He had some remarkable success with the relatives such as divining a strong stream deep on a hill when the geologists ruled it out. It was not just deep groundwater either and he got the depth just right. He failed when the family tried to test him using sixteen holes dug and filled and only one had gold jewelry in it. He did not try to guess. He just said he got no indication inside.

I have tried divining. The rods move because one slightly tilts them. The brain is interpreting subtle hints and is able to move the muscles in a subconscious way. Information is rarely given as strong voices or as solid images. I know of one woman who visited Israel to get her grandmother into heaven and was told clearly that not all religions have all the answers and that her grandmother was okay. Another random woman I met during a airline transit stop was on her way back from India. She went there to do conversions and was told loudly (by a statue) she was being arrogant to think that that her religion was the only valid one. See how I get information that supports my hypothesis - indirectly and seemingly by chance.

Why did my prediction about Trump and the Coronavirus not break the rule? Because one is allowed some hints, and because most people do not believe it happened the way I said it did. They think there is trickery or some other coincidence.

[CliveG]

Could you accurately predict the sequence of ten die rolls?

A guaranteed no. By the rules of spirit. They will not cooperate with test. Total bummer and cop-out, eh?

[alancalverd]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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)"?

[alancalverd]

By 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.

[CliveG]

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)"?

And what is the difference between applying those principles to spirit and to the physical world?

Prayer works as long as it is not provable. It has huge numbers of anecdotal evidence (what is the scientific name for masses of such evidence such as sicknesses around towers?)

And science says there must be a formula to tie the formulae of the very small to the very big but it seems beyond proof at this stage. Or that dark matter and dark energy MUST exist even though it seems unprovable because of lack of detection.

Not to mention string theory trying to show that multiple universes are possible but unprovable - which still begs the question of what caused it all. My hypothesis of an Ultimate Intelligence not only allows for multiple universes but also travel between them as well as time travel.

Why would you not excitedly embrace such a hypothesis. It has more "proof" than the others because it has personal observation. No formula and no mechanical means of detection but does that invalidate it? No. And it will permit you the luxury of prayer and religion without delusion. Yes. All you have to do is recognize the deficiencies of formal religion but accept that there elements of truth in each one.

It will require you to admit you have been wrong for a long time, so most atheists will resist. But resistance is futile against the mass, but subtle, anecdotal proof around you. And with the coming die-off, being an atheist is not a good quality for survival as the believing population looks for scrape-goats.

[CliveG]

By 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.

[CliveG]

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.

\

Okay. Let us start with Occam. The easy one. Wiki says:

Ernst Mach formulated the stronger version of Occam's razor into physics, which he called the Principle of Economy stating: "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." The idea of parsimony or simplicity in deciding between theories, though not the intent of the original expression of Occam's razor, has been assimilated into our culture as the widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

So what is the scientific hypothesis for the Prime Cause? There is none despite accepting that there MUST be one. The old and now discredited one that the Universe was always in existence took a knock with the Big Bang. The old principle has morphed into something similar that the laws of physics have always been in existence. But what caused the laws of physics.

So apply the Occam and I win. I have a perfectly simple, logical and observed hypothesis.

"They" have no fear of being exposed. The Game Rules for the Virtual Reality is that one is not supposed to prove one is in a virtual world. One may suspect it, and one may get unprovable hints, and somelike me may actually see the Virtual Reality end experience the Ultimate Intelligence which is also the Ultimate Reality. Occam tells us we have no need to complicate things by asking if the Ultimate Intelligence is also a Virtual Reality of yet other Ultimate Intelligences. Occam rejects turtles all the way down.

I have given you the attributes of my hypothesis. Virtual reality which permits breaking of the laws of physics. Miracles and psychic events are examples. So one has to examine examples. I have a bunch. I also am not suggestible and I have an excellent memory. I am an engineer. Cross examine each example and try to offer RATIONAL and logical explanations to each one. Some may be brain malfunctions although I have an argument against that.

There are two of the most notable predictions that people overlook. One was Joan of Arcs prediction that convinced people that she has spiritual insight and the other was the prediction of Muhammad and the camels which also was convincing. These were clear historical prophecies that stood out for being properly recorded and noted at the time.

You put too much faith in mathematics to rule out mystic events. Once more - please link the mathatics of large and small and the existence of dark matter and energy.

[Hayseed]

Man has progressed a lot.  A switch of a transmitter can build the largest and longest lasting structures in the universe.  Pretty cool. 

But when you understand the structure of matter and glue that binds it, and once you understand how light really flies thru space..........it will be hard to deny Design.

It's simple, it's neat and it's elegant.    If we just had the math to match it.   The math we use has an incorrect angular to linear V transform.  And therefore an incorrect momentum transform.  And on top of that.......pi is not pi with 3D rotations.  pi is larger and variable.   The arc remains at 360 degrees, but the diameter(or radius) to circumference ratio is not pi.  I wish people would remember this, when they use math to disprove something.  Realizing this would also account for a lot of anomalies.

I have had several posts moved and a few deleted for having new theories.  I don't have any new theories, I ain't that smart.  My theories are classical and started over one hundred years ago.   And I am not complaining about site policy.

When I discovered that Weber showed relativity 40 years before Einstein, I looked a lot closer.  His equations don't change time or length.

To make a long story short, there are perfectly good classical physical explanations for our experimental results.

Even better reasons.   For if you have two competing theories, and one explains the constants of the other......it is considered the superior theory.

When I find a model that can explain the periodic table with physical structural explanations that show the physical cause of constants........I use it.

My contributions are small.  Being a mechanic, I saw the purpose and correct placement of the neutron in the nucleus, but any mechanic would have spotted it.   And I immediately saw the answer for anti-matter.   But again, any mechanic would catch that too.

My only discernment was EM(light).  And that happened while trying to pin down antenna current.

When I realized what was happening.....I realized that emission happens at 2 times the V of light.

It's a snap.

As far as we are concerned, emission is instant.  That instant emission, makes it appear as a true point source.  It's also discreet.    Not continuous.    If you put those two facts together, and think about what that means...........you understand light.  And you can see that a change in phase.......is proof that light does have relative V.   Knowing that light is discreet, means that you have to change the way you measure it.

If you know the emitting period, then the change in absorption period can tell you the relative V.

And a dipole changing oscillation F while riding a G gradient(atomic clock), or under acceleration, doesn't mean time is changing,   It means the dipole is in a G gradient or under acceleration.

I feel no need for burden of proof.   For we all get the same math results.   And I seek no fame or fortune, my time is short.

But space-time is a mockery of adult intellect.

And it will be dis-proven.  I wish I could see it.

[Bored chemist]

You 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.

[Bored chemist]

To make a long story short, there are perfectly good classical physical explanations for our experimental results.

OK, show me the classical explanation of this (and the more recent, better precision versions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

But to avoid incurring thew wrath of the mods do it in a different thread.
This thread has quite enough nonsense in it already.

[CliveG]

You 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.

The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals. Yours may be a higher bar and more rigorous but it does not negate my evidence.

Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence. I am talking about spirit and about human interaction with spirit. You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality. If you want mathematical proof that we do live in a virtual reality there was one given that "proved" that the odds of us being a virtual reality as greater than not.

You are so locked into seeing yourself and pinching yourself and talking to same minded people that your imagination and conceptualization has limited your ability to grasp such concepts. Have you ever had an hallucination where you think what you are experiencing is real and then realize it could not be? Or could be if we are in a virtual world?

Have you ever experienced lucid dreaming where one thinks it might be a dream but one has to struggle to find proof? Those experiences can make one seriously think about reality.

[hamdani yusuf]

This "rule" is not mine. It has been known for centuries.

Somebody made up that rule to take advantage from the gullibles.

[hamdani yusuf]

By 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.

By admitting that it is unprovable,  you have admitted that you don't know if it really works. Not knowing how it works does not invalidate it, but knowing that it doesn't make a difference is an evidence that it's useless.

[Bored chemist]

The difference between your evidence and my evidence is that yours is mechanical and limited and mine is personal and experienced by individuals.

Do you understand what
Anecdote  <>  evidence
means?

Your state as a confirmed absolute that I have no evidence simply because you reject my evidence.

You have not put forward any evidence for me to reject.
You have told me stories.

Do you understand the difference?

You insist that the physical universe IS absolutely physical and that there is not possibility of it being a virtual reality.

If you think that's true then show me where I said it.
(spoiler alert; I didn't)

[alancalverd]

I do recall one anecdote of prayer working. A visiting preacher told the congregation (I  used to sing in church choirs!) how he had prayed that his sick daughter could die in peace. His prayer was answered and just for one night no bombs fell on north London - the Luftwaffe destroyed Coventry Cathedral instead.