Evidence for God from Science

chance wrote: Also - let's look at other things from a science point of view. We can't see infrared light, but it exists - and with special tools we can see it (which is why special forces use it to mark landing zones and such. You can light up the ground and human eyes cannot see it.). We cannot hear radio signals with our ears - but they exist and we can hear them by using radios.

We can't see infrared, or radio waves - we also can't see the invisible lasers that I can shoot from my eyes (although you can capture them on film if you take a photograph under the right conditions.

There's quite an enormous difference between invisible radio waves (we can demonstrably transfer information via these) and infrared (we can see car thieves hiding inside dustbins), and EVPs. EVPs which are invariably fuzzy, show all the classic signs of pareidolia (can't hear anything the first time, but once someone tells you what they hear your mind zones in on it), and (if you're lucky) might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording.

Gabrielman wrote: They were very into the occult and I was drug into that. Let's just say I have had more than a few face to face encounters with fallen angels and they seemed to take a liking to me over them, not sure why though. That's just a little history right now. Thank you for your concern.

Maybe because, in their eyes, you were the one worth harassing (their enemy).

There's quite an enormous difference between invisible radio waves (we can demonstrably transfer information via these) and infrared (we can see car thieves hiding inside dustbins), and EVPs. EVPs which are invariably fuzzy, show all the classic signs of pareidolia (can't hear anything the first time, but once someone tells you what they hear your mind zones in on it), and (if you're lucky) might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording.

Seems a tad biased to me: "might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording".

One could claim the same with SETI. Have YOU ever tried to capture an EVP and examine it, or are you just going on what others have done?

I chose to examine it all for myself and not rely on others. When you do the same get back with me.

You say there are meaningless phrases after hours of recordings? I caught a clear one after 10 minutes. Some days though I got little after an hour. Should one discard meaningful things they found one day because they got little another day? How scientific is that?

Go out on your own and look and record, then get back with me. I was a skeptic myself which is why I went looking. I found things which don't fit into my own views of things.

It seems like you just want to dismiss things beforehand because you don't like where they might lead. Which to me says you are not serious about finding out what is out there because it might conflict with your personal views/biases.

Try to be more open minded. Unless you think it will cause issues with your notions of how things are and you are afraid of what you may find.

chance wrote:

There's quite an enormous difference between invisible radio waves (we can demonstrably transfer information via these) and infrared (we can see car thieves hiding inside dustbins), and EVPs. EVPs which are invariably fuzzy, show all the classic signs of pareidolia (can't hear anything the first time, but once someone tells you what they hear your mind zones in on it), and (if you're lucky) might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording.

Seems a tad biased to me: "might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording".

One could claim the same with SETI. Have YOU ever tried to capture an EVP and examine it, or are you just going on what others have done?

I chose to examine it all for myself and not rely on others. When you do the same get back with me.

You say there are meaningless phrases after hours of recordings? I caught a clear one after 10 minutes. Some days though I got little after an hour. Should one discard meaningful things they found one day because they got little another day? How scientific is that?

Go out on your own and look and record, then get back with me. I was a skeptic myself which is why I went looking. I found things which don't fit into my own views of things.

It seems like you just want to dismiss things beforehand because you don't like where they might lead. Which to me says you are not serious about finding out what is out there because it might conflict with your personal views/biases.

Try to be more open minded. Unless you think it will cause issues with your notions of how things are and you are afraid of what you may find.

I have to agree. TC is a very naturalistic person from my observation though. I think Christ would literally have to come to him and tell him to touch the holes in his hands like he did with Thomas I believe it was. :p

chance wrote:

There's quite an enormous difference between invisible radio waves (we can demonstrably transfer information via these) and infrared (we can see car thieves hiding inside dustbins), and EVPs. EVPs which are invariably fuzzy, show all the classic signs of pareidolia (can't hear anything the first time, but once someone tells you what they hear your mind zones in on it), and (if you're lucky) might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording.

Seems a tad biased to me: "might be represented by one or 2 brief, vague, pretty meaningless phrases captured from hours of recording".

One could claim the same with SETI. Have YOU ever tried to capture an EVP and examine it, or are you just going on what others have done?

Yeah, you could claim the same for SETI...except they're just looking and don't claim to have found anything. And they employ all sorts of statistical tricks designed to separate signals from noise in order to remove subjective elements.

I've never tried to capture an EVP myself, but what significance does that have? I've never conducted a trial into homeopathic remedies, or even seen a bottle of homeopathic pills, but I know that it's bunk. I've never seen an X-ray or had a chance to examine an X-ray machine, but I'm convinced that X-rays exist.

chance wrote: You say there are meaningless phrases after hours of recordings? I caught a clear one after 10 minutes. Some days though I got little after an hour. Should one discard meaningful things they found one day because they got little another day? How scientific is that?

Go out on your own and look and record, then get back with me. I was a skeptic myself which is why I went looking. I found things which don't fit into my own views of things.

It seems like you just want to dismiss things beforehand because you don't like where they might lead. Which to me says you are not serious about finding out what is out there because it might conflict with your personal views/biases.

Try to be more open minded. Unless you think it will cause issues with your notions of how things are and you are afraid of what you may find.

You accused me of not being open-minded; open-mindedness isn't accepting all conclusions to be true, it's looking at the evidence presented for those conclusions. One thing I'm definitely not doing is dismissing EVP out of hand and a priori. I've listened to EVPs - lots of them - and not one of them was crystal clear, and not one of them conveyed any meaningful information. I've heard plenty along the lines of "go away" or "danger!", but never one along the lines of "hello, my name is Mary and I died in 1900...".

Afraid of what I may find? If ghosts were real and they could communicate with us via ESPs then I can't tell you how excited I'd be about that. If aliens really existed and were visiting earth on a regular basis then I'd love that too. No matter how deeply I desire either of those things to be true, I'm not going to let myself be convinced of their existence by low-grade evidence.

You accused me of not being open-minded; open-mindedness isn't accepting all conclusions to be true, it's looking at the evidence presented for those conclusions. One thing I'm definitely not doing is dismissing EVP out of hand and a priori. I've listened to EVPs - lots of them - and not one of them was crystal clear, and not one of them conveyed any meaningful information.

YOU have listened to some online and they did not fit your personal criteria. And not one was crystal clear to you, and none conveyed meaningful info to you.

But this is not all about you and your experiences, there are many more who have had experiences outside of yours - should you ignore them because they just don't fit into your own experiences?

Should I, or you, just discount what others have seen or heard? I tend to be more open minded and realize the world is not defined by my own experiences.

It is very possible we do not understand how it all works yet, but does that mean we should just ignore all results because they don't fit neatly into our own little box?

Over the entire history of the human race people have seen/heard ghosts. I am not so arrogant to believe they are all wrong and only I am right because I did not have the same exposure they did.

The evidence is there, we just need better tools to explore it. Just like the Hubble telescope has opened up a lot of doors to see into the universe we never had before someday I hope we have something similar to look into the spirit world. We won't ever have such though if we just close our minds and pretend if we don't see it does not exist - much of our current science starts out with people believing something to be true and then working to prove it - which takes investment of time and money.

What harm is it to look into all this? If it were just me and own personal experiences I could see discounting it all and not even trying, but it is not just me.

Some people though, I think, fear what they may find and don't want to look so they ridicule attempts.

TC off topic but I find a lot of your posts on this thread quite offensive and insulting. The way you are putting it you are making people like me, who have had very concrete interaction with the supernatural, out to be loons, and we are not. That is just how your posts sound to me, I do not much care for them.

Gabrielman wrote:The way you are putting it you are making people like me, who have had very concrete interaction with the supernatural, out to be loons, and we are not.

Absolutely not - to characterise everyone who claims to have had supernatural experiences as loons would be to trivialise the matter. Everyone who has contributed to this thread so far is clearly of sound mind, and most people I've ever known to put forward experience of the supernatural have been too.

I find the objective evidence scant at best and, with what we know about psychology, I think there is a good chance that a lot of the subjective accounts from sober minds could be the product of sincere yet mistaken interpretations (pareidolia being just one such mistake).

My intention was not to offend, and I hope on rereading some posts you'll realise that, but I'll make no bones about the fact that the objective evidence is sorely lacking.

Nathaniel,


I haven't read anything offensive. TC also doesn't believe in God. That doesn't offend me, even though I have had personal experiences with the Lord. He has the right to not believe and be a skeptic.
I believe that much of what we see regarding hauntings, ghost, etc. is falsified and exagerated. Just as much of what we see as 'supernatural,' is also falsified and exagerated.

It just seemed that he was talking down to us is all. I didn't mean anything by it, maybe it is just the way I read his posts, I was simply telling him that, nothing more. Like I said it may be how I read his posts.

jlay wrote:I believe that much of what we see regarding hauntings, ghost, etc. is falsified and exagerated. Just as much of what we see as 'supernatural,' is also falsified and exagerated.

"Falsified" implies a certain element of conscious deception on the part of the person claiming to have had the experience I think...
I don't believe falsification (deliberate falsification) accounts for a great deal of claimed encounters, as much as innocent self-deception and/or not knowing all the factors at play (for example - the ideomotor effect with ouija boards, or a lack of knowledge of camera artefacts with ghost photographs). I think the truth of the matter is probably a lot deeper and more fascinating than outright lies and mental illness.

I believe that much of what we see regarding hauntings, ghost, etc. is falsified and exagerated. Just as much of what we see as 'supernatural,' is also falsified and exagerated.

You 'believe'? And it is exaggerated btw, two G's (If you use Firefox it spell checks on the fly for you).

Falsified is a bit extreme IMHO. That implies motive. Over the history of the human race there is a wealth of evidence, cross culture, of contact in some form or other with those who have passed on in physical form.

The more we learn of the universe the more we realize we don't know. Take the whole 'ether' argument early last century. That has now become a discussion of Dark Matter and the like. We still cannot see it, yet we have mathematical models of it (now supported by the Hubble) which point to the existence of such materials existing and having an influence on the physics of space (beyond our current understanding of gravity and how galaxies are formed/speeding away).

Why ignore the direct experiences of so many over time if not to ignore a truth we may not like? We investigate based on evidence we gather (as well as hypothesis developed based on logic/experience). To ignore the evidence is to bury one's head in the sand. And why would one do so?

It reminds me of folks who blast fundies for ditching evidence of an older earth because they don't like what it means to their own personal view. My view is to keep an open mind, look at the evidence, and keep plugging away to learn more.

I don't have all the answers, I don't think the bible can give me all the answers either, nor can science at this point as we keep needing to build better instruments to probe into things (and there is a new telescope that will replace hubble launching soon - will orbit far away from earth and give us a better view of the universe).

So let's just ask it like this: If you could find what you consider proof of people existing beyond this physical form - what would that mean to you and your beliefs? How would it affect how you see things?

An open mind is important, as Einstein once said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge' and I think he hit the nail on the head with that. Our imagination has been one of the things that keep moving us forward. "Such and such is not possible" has been proven wrong time and time again.

Newton would be amazed at Quantum physics and our modern day inventions, etc. It took people making a leap a faith (at times) to help science progress to where it is now.

I think your own biases and ideals are showing through here. If you cannot explain it, it does not exist. If it does not fit into your model of the universe, it does not exist.

Certainly computers and the internet could not exist, because people back in 1200 did not believe they could. Not to mention cell phones, tv, etc.

If you don't look, you will not find.

Even I;m skeptical of the EVP's.

There are plenty of ways to investigate God without sifting through all of this extraneous noise (pardon the pun)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic ... phenomenon

touchingcloth wrote: We can't see infrared, or radio waves - we also can't see the invisible lasers that I can shoot from my eyes (although you can capture them on film if you take a photograph under the right conditions.

RE Nathaniel's post and people's responses. I also thought this made it sound like we were on the schizophrenic side.

There are plenty of ways to investigate God without sifting through all of this extraneous noise (pardon the pun)

I don't see it as investigating God. God left plenty for us to look into (the bible is not filled with a lot of science details for example, and even though there is some about the spiritual world there is even less there than there is about science 'here').

As a person who has loved science and the bible as well since I was 13 I see it more as a mystery worth looking into. God never mentioned computers, tv, etc and so on (no need to really) and yet we have been able to use our God given minds to learn more about the world around us.

Mathematically speaking one could see the spirit world as an extension of our own (See Flatland for a loose example of this).

My own thoughts - just because I don't see it does not mean it does it not exist. From God to ghosts. Our universe is full of wonderful mysteries.

If there is one thing I have learned over the years it is that just because I have not thought of it, just because I don't have proof of it, does not mean it does not exist.

And given that we have centuries of people experiencing ghosts (etc) and for me to just toss that out because it does not fully fit into my ideals is akin to burying my head in the sand.

Investigating it all, is to me anyway, worthwhile. To reject it all out of hand seems to be rather arrogant.

SOME evp's are crap to be sure. I have rejected some I have caught over time. Some were clear as day and interactive. Others were lower class evp's. I looked into them because I did not want to rely on others and what they caught or said they heard. I came to my own conclusions and it made me a believer that there is something to it all.

Of course some science is crap too - look how many times we have changed our findings over years, and how we still have meds recalled, asbestos (science told us it was safe...then it wasn't), etc and so on.