minitrue noram:this time tomorrow, i'll be flipping burgers and trying to marry some dim bulb who'll squeeze out babies.

How do you know that? You psychic?...

/Open minded cynic
//Need proof though

Oh you silly skeptics in this thread don't you all know that all _true_ psychics:
- Are independently wealthy - therefore have no need for the million dollars
- Apparently have solid tax shelters setup and would actually be inconvenienced by the million dollar challenge
- Have capricious powers that vanish under observation and therefore cannot be tested

I my self have the ability to smell 3 seconds into the future. It really isn't really useful but does give me the opportunity to scowl at people entering elevators.

When I was a kid I was into magic and stuff. But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible and practical. They showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual and cynical. Now I think that psychics are radicals, liberals, fanatical and criminals.

RivenSilver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Read 'em over long and hard Abbey and everyone else being delusional in this thread. Psychics are (in their most innocent form) cold readers exploiting confirmation bias, even if they don't realize they're exploiting it themselves--that's why we have delusional people like the girl claiming she's a psychic earlier up the thread. Ignoring the misses, emphasizing the hits. It's a vagary of memory and perception, mixed up with a little dunning-kruger effect / bias blind spot.

If you don't like my impatient sciencey explanation, google Derren Brown and watch all of his stuff. He's a mentalist AND a skeptic, and he'll tell you how it's all done.

Once again, and for the record: psychics do NOT have genuine powers of clairvoyance--even if they think they do.

Watching Derren Brown do cold readings was the nail in the coffin for me as far as belief in psychic abilities. He beats any self-proclaimed psychic I've ever seen (both in terms of hits/misses and showmanship), and he readily admits it's all just observation and deduction.

chu2dogg: Convince Millions of poeple to think of something more in there world!! People are doing it already with great results!

Great results? Everybody is withdrawing from the contest for one reason or another. Nothing ever happened!

FrancoFile: EngineerAtWork: Oznog: It doesn't matter how much better you think the world would be if it were true. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you WANT it to be true. My fundamental personality type has a non-negotiable criteria for purely factual claims: IS it true?

I couldn't have put that more succinctly. You, sir, have join the ranks of my favorites! Bravo!

An excellent restatement of Diax's Rake.

Another observation:

Sure, I like stories of magic. In fact I love Star Wars. I worship Star Wars. There is a Force which surrounds all living things, sure. I try to live my life more like Luke Skywalker every day.

I don't believe I can throw things around with my mind. Because I can't, no one can. I don't believe I can throw Force Lightning, not even if they try hard enough, not even if they are really "powerful" people. I don't believe I can feel a disturbance in the Force and sure as hell don't sell people a promise that I CAN do ANY of that.

Those guys from Arc Attack can throw Tesla Coil lightning which was pretty close to Force Lightning in many ways. And you know how long it took me to believe that? Meh, about 15 seconds for the first video I saw to explain the Tesla Coil setup. Doubt- none at all.

Jim_Callahan: timujin: Just as a note, if as the article claims, there was "overwhelming evidence that she probably did it" it would have been really nice for the prosecution to have presented that during the trial.

Actually, overwhelming evidence is a different standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you are taken to civil court, you'll usually be judged on "clear and convincing evidence". If you're in small claims court or you're being assigned partial liability for something, you'll run into "the preponderance of the evidence" a lot.

It's quite easy to meet the standard of overwhelming/preponderance of evidence in a murder trial while being essentially un-convictable by the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

BlackArt: Using psychics is a great way to launder illegally gathered evidence.

"The psychic told me the drugs would be in the trunk."

More like a good way to get legal evidence tossed by the court over lack of probable cause for the search/warrant. Were I a cop, I doubt I'd risk it.

//Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this counts as basic shiat most everyone knows.

"overwhelming" and "preponderant" are not synonyms.

When A overwhelms B, it outnumbers/outweighs it *greatly*. If A is "evidence" and B is doubt, this is more closely aligned with the criminal standard than the civil ("better than 50/50") standard.

timujin: Just as a note, if as the article claims, there was "overwhelming evidence that she probably did it" it would have been really nice for the prosecution to have presented that during the trial.

I came here to say something like this.

I felt compelled from afar to post this picture. I feel like I may have some sort of psychic link to the universe...

Ed Grubermann: What makes you think suffering needs to be justified in a blind, uncaring, unknowing, Godless universe? Only in a universe governed by an intelligent (and one would assume "moral") being does suffering need to be justified.

Subby made that argument, not me. "If suffering is a moral wrong and God allows suffering then God must be wrong and therefore does not exist." But if God (we would assume "moral") does not exist then how can there be anything that is a moral wrong? The argument (Subby's best) is invalid on its face.

So you're sort-of correct. Suffering only needs to be rationalized if God exists, but if God doesn't exist then it is justified already by the "law" of the jungle (nature, evolution, whathaveyou). This isn't to say that there aren't moral humanists, only that humanists have no philosophical axiom that rationalizes morality, and any standardized moral code is necessarily borrowed from a theist worldview. In other words, your argument against my philosophy presumes the validity of my philosophy. That's a neat trick.

chaddsfarkprefect: mormonapril: chaddsfarkprefect: FTFA: In typical white-person fashion, whoever came up with this myth looked down at his arm and assumed that the little blue lines running up and down his arms must actually be blue, failing to notice that different colors of skin reflect different light waves, making the veins look anywhere from green to pink when viewed through other colors of skin.


Oh those dopey honkies trying to be all science-y, will they never learn? Self-depricating racist idiot

how do you know the author is white?


Only a white person would say that.

littleman77: Ed Grubermann: What makes you think suffering needs to be justified in a blind, uncaring, unknowing, Godless universe? Only in a universe governed by an intelligent (and one would assume "moral") being does suffering need to be justified.

Subby made that argument, not me. "If suffering is a moral wrong and God allows suffering then God must be wrong and therefore does not exist." But if God (we would assume "moral") does not exist then how can there be anything that is a moral wrong? The argument (Subby's best) is invalid on its face.

So you're sort-of correct. Suffering only needs to be rationalized if God exists, but if God doesn't exist then it is justified already by the "law" of the jungle (nature, evolution, whathaveyou). This isn't to say that there aren't moral humanists, only that humanists have no philosophical axiom that rationalizes morality, and any standardized moral code is necessarily borrowed from a theist worldview. In other words, your argument against my philosophy presumes the validity of my philosophy. That's a neat trick.

Funny how your claim is "Well, you can't disprove my God". Well, I guess I can't disprove unicorns, leprechauns, or elves either. Most non-delusional people accept that they don't exist seeing as there is an overwhelming lack of proof. Show me repeatable proof that God exists and I'll consider it. Otherwise, it's a circular logic brought on by "the Bible tells me so".

Oznog: Coelacanth: I used to manage a very busy occult bookstore, I used to attend parapsychology lectures at the USC Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, California, and I have a great many friends who tell me that they are clairvoyant...
I've never met one psychic who could tell me what my Social Security number was, or what city I was born in, or how much change was in my pocket.

We don't waste out talents on such trivial things. The Gods will not be troubled to expose themselves with such nonsubjective matters, as is their choice. That's what makes them friggin' GODS! The voices don't tell me what you WANT to hear- they tell me what you NEED to hear.

Hahahaha... lemme explain this MY way. I'm skeptical, which to me means I'll believe anything you can prove. I actually have no problem believing it if a basic standard of proof were met.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]
Here's the thing: Cup Stacking Record by a child (new window)

How is that relevant in the slightest? It's this- basic fact here, humans have an amazing potential to exploit any small capacity to perform a task to amazing levels, given the chance. Does EVERYONE demonstrate similar capacity? Of course not- but, if the capacity DID exist, someone, somewhere would be unusually, awesomely, observably good at it. Never mind that cup stacking is wholly useless and being able to "see things" or "predict things" is so mind-blowingly useful in real life that it'd change Life As We Know It.

Just expand that thought- look at all the AMAZING skills people have demonstrated. Look at what a lot of ordinary kids do in skating- the balance and dynamics and moves both invented and learned are pretty wild. Ping pong. Piano-playing stunts. A Shaolin monk figured out how to throw a needle through glass. How... what led him to figure out that was even possible?? That's not a skill learned from another. It's not easily inferred from everyday life. It doesn't seem to have come from a scientific review of how things work. No, humans have the remarkable capacity to come up with apparently completely nonintuitive ways to do anything which can physically be done. With or without a point.

The fact is, no savant has shown up with any demonstrable ability to tell you what's in your pocket, your name, the future, or any mystery details from the past in any demonstrable, verifiable way. And that does not require SIGNIFICANCE, by any means. It doesn't have to be finding a kidnapped child. Telling us the color of a rock inside a box is INCREDIBLY significant to me, mind-blowing in fact.

It doesn't matter how much better you think the world would be if it were true. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you WANT it to be true. My fundamental personality type has a non-negotiable criteria for purely factual claims: IS it true?

Too many words.....*brain splode!!!!!*

Ed Grubermann: I think this is also the best argument about god (which ever one you subscribe to) is not real. If God exists and is love, etc, etc. then why wasn't t

Did none of you watch Bruce Almighty? Remember the scene when he's answering prayers on the computer and because it takes so long to answer so many, he just says YES TO ALL of them? One of the consequences was that everyone who had asked God to allow them to win the lottery DID win it. The winners are outraged over thousands winning the lottery- resulting in each person only winning around $17-, and a riot breaks out in the city.

Give people what they want and you are seen as a Merciful and Caring God, but give them what they need and you are seen as a Cruel and Mean God that seemingly delights in the suffering of others? Is it really that black and white to you? Is there no room for other reasons?

shiatty things happen to me all the time... and to those I care about, but I don't blame God for them no more that I blame YOU. I THANK GOD that I am blessed to be in the lives of my friends and family and that I am capable of understanding Love. I pray for understanding of a PLAN that I believe I am part of. I pray that when I suffer, I am given understanding. THAT is the kind of GOD that I need.

Call it delusional if you will, Farkers, but its that faith that everything happens for a reason that gets me through the worst times. I figure I'll never understand all of why things happen, but then again I'm not supposed to.

MajorityWhip: When I was a kid I was into magic and stuff. But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible and practical. They showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual and cynical. Now I think that psychics are radicals, liberals, fanatical and criminals.

Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?

If you claim to be psychic, I feel bad for you.

mantafirefly: Muadib's Spice Rack:Call it delusional if you will, Farkers, but its that faith that everything happens for a reason that gets me through the worst times. I figure I'll never understand all of why things happen, but then again I'm not supposed to.

That just makes you weak in a "It's my fault my husband beats me" kind of way. You need to realise, if there was a god and he wanted everyone not to suffer and be happy then he could do it, and given omnipotence, wouldn't need to counterbalance it with anything. Because that's what omnipotence means.

You watch too much House.

Cracked is hilarious. fark you haters.

Muadib's Spice Rack: Ed Grubermann: I think this is also the best argument about god (which ever one you subscribe to) is not real. If God exists and is love, etc, etc. then why wasn't t

Did none of you watch Bruce Almighty? Remember the scene when he's answering prayers on the computer and because it takes so long to answer so many, he just says YES TO ALL of them? One of the consequences was that everyone who had asked God to allow them to win the lottery DID win it. The winners are outraged over thousands winning the lottery- resulting in each person only winning around $17-, and a riot breaks out in the city.

Give people what they want and you are seen as a Merciful and Caring God, but give them what they need and you are seen as a Cruel and Mean God that seemingly delights in the suffering of others? Is it really that black and white to you? Is there no room for other reasons?

shiatty things happen to me all the time... and to those I care about, but I don't blame God for them no more that I blame YOU. I THANK GOD that I am blessed to be in the lives of my friends and family and that I am capable of understanding Love. I pray for understanding of a PLAN that I believe I am part of. I pray that when I suffer, I am given understanding. THAT is the kind of GOD that I need.

Call it delusional if you will, Farkers, but its that faith that everything happens for a reason that gets me through the worst times. I figure I'll never understand all of why things happen, but then again I'm not supposed to.

Well stated.

I'm also kinda disappointed noone caught my line for line riff on "really getting a kick out of these replies".

Oh, and it wasn't the military, it was the NSA, and they got real creepy real quick, so she ditched that scene. The police detective up in the bay area is the real deal too. As for the million dollar challenge, like I said, she's not into the spectacle of it all. None of those I've known with that level of heightened perception would want to submit themselves to Randi's harassment.

Most of them are frauds though, but there are some things on the edge of our perception that have yet to be quantified, despite how badly all of you want to live in a predictable, reductionist universe.

meh...: littleman77: Ed Grubermann: What makes you think suffering needs to be justified in a blind, uncaring, unknowing, Godless universe? Only in a universe governed by an intelligent (and one would assume "moral") being does suffering need to be justified.

Subby made that argument, not me. "If suffering is a moral wrong and God allows suffering then God must be wrong and therefore does not exist." But if God (we would assume "moral") does not exist then how can there be anything that is a moral wrong? The argument (Subby's best) is invalid on its face.

So you're sort-of correct. Suffering only needs to be rationalized if God exists, but if God doesn't exist then it is justified already by the "law" of the jungle (nature, evolution, whathaveyou). This isn't to say that there aren't moral humanists, only that humanists have no philosophical axiom that rationalizes morality, and any standardized moral code is necessarily borrowed from a theist worldview. In other words, your argument against my philosophy presumes the validity of my philosophy. That's a neat trick.

Funny how your claim is "Well, you can't disprove my God". Well, I guess I can't disprove unicorns, leprechauns, or elves either. Most non-delusional people accept that they don't exist seeing as there is an overwhelming lack of proof. Show me repeatable proof that God exists and I'll consider it. Otherwise, it's a circular logic brought on by "the Bible tells me so".

My claim is that God is self-evident, in the axiomatic way that can't be proved. The universe began to exist therefore it has a cause. We cannot have an infinite regress of causes therefore there must exist an uncaused eternal First Cause. We'll call that God. I choose to believe the Christian version of God because Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Romans and then seen alive after His burial. History corroborates what biology denies, and at this point of conflict is where we dive out of science and into philosophy (or "worldview" if you prefer). Take your pick.

Yes, the Bible's claim of divine authority is circular. That doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it's not useful as proof. That's what I've been saying (it's what the Bible says of itself). But the recorded history within the Bible is not argument at all, it is simply data. The question, then, becomes, "Is it reliable?" I think it is. Where archaeological evidence exists, it corresponds to the biblical text. You demand proof? You'll never get it. Faith requires doubt, and God requires faith.

By faith, I choose to believe that God is who the Bible says He is. By reason, I regard historical interpolation as more reliable than biological extrapolation, and the burden is on you to convince me that the Bible's history is wrong. For you it's reversed and the burden is on me to convince you that the history is right. Since we can prove neither, you make your choices and I'll make mine. I won't disparage your intelligence and I'd appreciate if you'd extend the same courtesy.

God is not Miss Cleo. Lumping all belief together with superstition is simply lazy.

As far as unicorns go here is one that is still alive today. (new window)

Littleman77, blah , blah , I have my faith and here is a picture of a rino to back it up.

Tell you what, read this website Link (new window) in it's entirety and come back with some sound reasoning.

Serious business.

chu2dogg: I predict we will see great logical leaps to convince us that the people who attempt to demonstrate their abilities in the test are frauds, while the people who keep their abilities hidden except for their special "chosen" ones are the real psychics.


inspeyere: As for the million dollar challenge, like I said, she's not into the spectacle of it all. None of those I've known with that level of heightened perception would want to submit themselves to Randi's harassment.

Most of them are frauds though, but there are some things on the edge of our perception that have yet to be quantified, despite how badly all of you want to live in a predictable, reductionist universe.



I HAVE A GIFT!

Yeah, I've been there, too. Some amputees find comfort in eternity future, some don't. But God made us in His image to make both moral and intellectual judgments, not to throw footballs (which I LOVE). He also gave us bodies to interact with the world. Our fallen bodies have frailties that help us understand non-physical aspects of Creation. Do you know how dangerous the world is for someone who can't feel pain? It's the fear (frequently subverted by alcohol) of pain or loss that keeps us from doing dangerous things. If we weren't at risk for loss then we wouldn't be capable of making judgments. From those judgments we learn about good and bad, right and wrong; which tells us something about the nature of God who by definition can only be good and right. The risk of loss is only acknowledged because of actual loss, so perhaps allowing amputees to remain that way keeps us all alive.

God could heal every amputee. He could prevent limbs from being amputated in the first place. How does that serve His purpose? Does that make people love Him more? Would we learn what we're supposed to learn about Him? So if God healed amputees, where would it stop? What would your next call be? whywontgodmakemoneytrees.com whywontgodhealbaconlovers.com whywontgodfixmyairconditioner.com

The simple truth is that God could meet every single one of your demands short of directly showing Himself to you (which would kill you) and you'd still be able to find a way to avoid taking Him seriously. Diax's Rake is also a boomerang. Some people refuse to believe just because they want it to not be true.

/that rhino is called Rhinoceros unicornis and it wasn't offered as proof of anything. I just hoped you'd get a chuckle out of it. I'm not trying to fight with you.

littleman77: Yeah, I've been there, too. Some amputees find comfort in eternity future, some don't. But God made us in His image to make both moral and intellectual judgments, not to throw footballs (which I LOVE). He also gave us bodies to interact with the world. Our fallen bodies have frailties that help us understand non-physical aspects of Creation. Do you know how dangerous the world is for someone who can't feel pain? It's the fear (frequently subverted by alcohol) of pain or loss that keeps us from doing dangerous things. If we weren't at risk for loss then we wouldn't be capable of making judgments. From those judgments we learn about good and bad, right and wrong; which tells us something about the nature of God who by definition can only be good and right. The risk of loss is only acknowledged because of actual loss, so perhaps allowing amputees to remain that way keeps us all alive.

God could heal every amputee. He could prevent limbs from being amputated in the first place. How does that serve His purpose? Does that make people love Him more? Would we learn what we're supposed to learn about Him? So if God healed amputees, where would it stop? What would your next call be? whywontgodmakemoneytrees.com whywontgodhealbaconlovers.com whywontgodfixmyairconditioner.com

The simple truth is that God could meet every single one of your demands short of directly showing Himself to you (which would kill you) and you'd still be able to find a way to avoid taking Him seriously. Diax's Rake is also a boomerang. Some people refuse to believe just because they want it to not be true.

/that rhino is called Rhinoceros unicornis and it wasn't offered as proof of anything. I just hoped you'd get a chuckle out of it. I'm not trying to fight with you.

Fair enough. Peace brother.

Ishkur: The question you should be asking isn't why God chooses to intervene and heal people at all, but why does he only do it in such a way as to leave no physical trace?

Because I'm not convinced that He does. If I suffer an injury or ailment and then recover, I do thank God for healing me; but that doesn't mean I believe He directly intervened and performed a miracle. It's the same as when I thank Him for my dinner. It's not that I believe He directly placed food in front of my face, but that I'm grateful for how He created and sustains the people, places, and processes by which I enjoy my daily meals.

At very rare times in the past I've been destitute, not knowing where my next meal would be. Sometimes I've gone hungry. Other times people and/or events conspired to provide a meal. I don't directly attribute this to a physical intervention by God, but I choose to see His hand in everything. By faith.

If I was hungry and God simply appeared at my table with a tray of steak (wrapped in bacon because God is awesome) then I would be satisfied, but would God really gain anything by it? I already believe in Him and I tell other people so. If meh was similarly situated and God appeared to him, would God gain anything by that? God would be proved and meh could no more choose God than he could choose to say that the sky is blue. He'd be forced to believe, which is immoral (remember, Freedom of Religion is an unalienable right endowed by our Creator). And what of meh being able to tell others? "CSB, God brought me steak wrapped in bacon. I totally saw Him." They'd lock him away.

meh...: Fair enough. Peace brother.



Backatcha

Ishkur: If God did not heal you, why thank Him for healing you? If God did not heal you but did create the conditions that healed you, then He has healed you -- He has intervened. But keep in mind those same conditions that healed you are the same conditions that killed countless other people. Why does God do this?

I thank God for the same reason that I thank Him for feeding me, even though He's not spooning the food directly into my mouth. He's not simply manipulating conditions to be suitable for healing, He also designed and created my body with the ability to heal. That's worthy of my gratitude. I have no right to expect, let alone, demand physical restoration. It's a blessing. And insofar as others may not recover, every condition is ultimately fatal. I will die some day. So will you.

I think what you're really asking is why God appears to favor some while letting others suffer. Firstly, as I said, I take claims of miraculous healing with several grains of salt. We simply don't know enough about biology, and there are plenty of other possible explanations (all of which ultimately regress to "God made it that way") that prevent us from making affirmative statements about precise causes and effects. Secondly, go back to what I said about loss. Without it we could not understand restoration, which is the key component of God's plan for fallen humanity. Finally, it only appears to us that God favors those who are restored because we fear and hate death. It is entirely plausible that some people are better served by death. The Bible says that for believers to die is gain. So in some cases, God may heal suffering by simply taking a person into the next life. That person is unequivocally better off than I, in the temporal sense.

Ishkur: Furthermore, I find the idea of a God that does not intervene to be a pretty useless God. If He does not factor in your life then what's the point of having a God?

I'd say you're looking at it backwards. We didn't make God for us. God made us for Him. But the ultimate plan for fallen humanity is to restore a relationship that was severed when the whole race became sinful. If I want to live forever with God then I first need Him to heal my broken soul. He is the only one who can do that. And that is far more critical than any amputation or illness.

minitrue noram: nothing in the published corpus of scientific consensus which disproves the possibility of overlap between consciousness and the quantum world

And there isn't farking squat that SUPPORTS it either. Observation must come first.

Ishkur: non-sequitur
elephant hurling
unsupported premise

I think we've reached the point of mutual understanding.

Ed Grubermann: You people are insane.

That was well argued and you have shown me the error of my ways. I submit to your awesomeness. M-theory (superstring) is obviously the answer to existence that I've been missing all this time. I'm sorry I was ever so gullible.

/guess I'll go to church and repent
//oh, wait...