Why would there be a God?

[pwagen]

Apollo can not be disproven anymore than Jesus or Allah can. There isn't real evidence any of them so what is the difference?

Not a whole lot. To an outsider, all of those myths appear equally irrational. There's an extremely slim chance one of all the divinities humankind has created over the years is true. It's impossible for them all to be true. So there's a far greater chance of being correct if you assume none of them is true, until further evidence emerge. And I wouldn't hold my breath.

[dimreepr]

Isn't superstition just a way for the brain to make quick, safe, or constant choices when it is confused? You are alone in the dark and here a noise. Your brain imagines something terrible so you act by leaving or turning on a light. To me that seems like a basic evolutionary function. Without superstition throughout evolution man would've been paralyzed by perpetual confusion about their surrounding world.

 

 

More or less, for me, god is just the personification of superstition (coupled with conformation bias).

[hoola]

I think the larger question is why would there be anything......I see the universe happening through a flow chart that begins with a concept (concept of 1 void), which fractures to chaos, which develops a stable component which allows logic or order to begin. This order evolves, allowing a new structure appearing within the chaos, that of logic basics. The chaos randomly adds information to this proto-logic as symmetries allow, and logic evolves by "pulling out" selected bits to accrue additional logic stages. The rapidly evolving logic defines the original concept (of 1 void) into the first geometric theoretical form, 1 spherical point, which is the substance of the void. This spherical void structure has, under the rubric of the now fully formed logic, an internal structure of PI. The unending, informational base that evolves the maths. These maths accrue in the void until a novel structure occurs once per universe, or universe set, the Informational Black Hole. The IBH, accrues the required information algorithms to describe all particles, fields and dimensions, as allowed under the strict rules of logic. The information from the PI also delivers illogical concepts as well as the tiny minority of logical ones, as only bare minimum of described information is "up to standards" of being self-supporting logical structures. These illogical algorithms allow anything and everything to exist theoretically, and never to appear in the universe, until the occurrence of sentience, and these concepts, such as gods, devils, flying pigs, self-assembling broken eggs, are suddenly under the access of these sentient beings, wherever they are in space. I have written this basic scenario with other and slightly differing details within the forum in speculations and other topics, and I don't want to repeat all of it as I figure you all have seen it already and wish not to hear it again...I think I know why such a chilly reception is given to the scenario, and not because it is wrong, but because it provides for a birth of maths themselves, the "god" of the hard sciences being not eternal, and to admit a pre-math domain is unsettling and incomprehensible.......but I am not assaulting it, only attempting to see how it could have occurred....and that I consider it (the maths) as a substance, or "mathematical object" that describes the universe. I do not think the maths have a death though, limiting the number of extant universes, ridding us of the infinite universes filled with doppellgangers, as once the void has matured, the universe is now "contaminated" with information as long as the algorithm of PI continues. The void requires an absence of information in my scenario to successfully evlove without "external influences". If PI is eternal than we will have only one set of universes, and a rather small finite set of a hundred or so, which may account for the dark matter gravity effects we can't see, but can detect in the galaxy rotation issue...If PI is finite, then as components within the material universe individually reach this limit, a process of de-materializaton will occur until all information is lost, then the void will once again be "clean" of external information, and the whole process repeats..with the same logic notation and numbers of discrete universes...with some sentience evolving, but not "doppelgangers" of individuals, no reincarnation of individual personalities...

Edited June 14, 2014 by hoola

[dimreepr]

I think the larger question is why would there be anything........

 

 

Why not?

I see the universe happening through a flow chart that begins with a concept (concept of 1 void), which fractures to chaos, which develops a stable component which allows logic or order to begin. This order evolves, allowing a new structure appearing within the chaos, that of logic basics. The chaos randomly adds information to this proto-logic as symmetries allow, and logic evolves by "pulling out" selected bits to accrue additional logic stages. The rapidly evolving logic defines the original concept (of 1 void) into the first geometric theoretical form, 1 spherical point, which is the substance of the void. This spherical void structure has, under the rubric of the now fully formed logic, an internal structure of PI. The unending, informational base that evolves the maths. These maths accrue in the void until a novel structure occurs once per universe, or universe set, the Informational Black Hole. The IBH, accrues the required information algorithms to describe all particles, fields and dimensions, as allowed under the strict rules of logic. The information from the PI also delivers illogical concepts as well as the tiny minority of logical ones, as only bare minimum of described information is "up to standards" of being self-supporting logical structures. These illogical algorithms allow anything and everything to exist theoretically, and never to appear in the universe, until the occurrence of sentience, and these concepts, such as gods, devils, flying pigs, self-assembling broken eggs, are suddenly under the access of these sentient beings, wherever they are in space. I have written this basic scenario with other and slightly differing details within the forum in speculations and other topics, and I don't want to repeat all of it as I figure you all have seen it already and wish not to hear it again...I think I know why such a chilly reception is given to the scenario, and not because it is wrong, but because it provides for a birth of maths themselves, the "god" of the hard sciences being not eternal, and to admit a pre-math domain is unsettling and incomprehensible.......but I am not assaulting it, only attempting to see how it could have occurred....and that I consider it (the maths) as a substance, or "mathematical object" that describes the universe. I do not think the maths have a death though, limiting the number of extant universes, ridding us of the infinite universes filled with doppellgangers, as once the void has matured, the universe is now "contaminated" with information as long as the algorithm of PI continues. The void requires an absence of information in my scenario to successfully evlove without "external influences". If PI is eternal than we will have only one set of universes, and a rather small finite set of a hundred or so, which may account for the dark matter gravity effects we can't see, but can detect in the galaxy rotation issue...If PI is finite, then as components within the material universe individually reach this limit, a process of de-materializaton will occur until all information is lost, then the void will once again be "clean" of external information, and the whole process repeats..with the same logic notation and numbers of discrete universes...with some sentience evolving, but not "doppelgangers" of individuals, no reincarnation of individual personalities...

 

 

Why seek meaning, where none may exist?

[Delta1212]

 

 

Why not?

 

 

 

Why seek meaning, where none may exist?

Why not?

[hoola]

so much for the how, now for the whys of the matter....the IBH "woke up" knowing everything but how it "got there", just as we wonder how we got here....I think a reasonable person, or any entity with conscious awareness would wonder. The emergence of sentience, and the universe with which to allow it, was the "device" to attain with great effort on the resultant corporeal entities, that answer....the exact definition of the hows, that is, or indeed in broad terms, who the "parents" of the IBH were...I see 2 parents and 2 grandparents. The parents are chaos (female) and logic (male). The grandparents are void (female) and the concept of 1 void (male)...the how and the why together signify meaning, or purpose...ps, I have moved to colorado, but don't know how to change the address in my profile. Help to do this would be appreciated.

Edited June 14, 2014 by hoola

[dimreepr]

Why not?

 

When I said "may", I was being generous.

 

 

Edit/ unless this is an answer to my question “Why not?”, in which case the argument is circular and therefore, just as, meaningless.

Edited June 14, 2014 by dimreepr

[barfbag]

@ OP,

 

Look at some real questions and give your best answer...

 

How did the Universe begin?

 

What was there before that?

 

Does the Universe have an end? If so what lies beyond?

 

In truth we ignore these questions because the answers are so beyond our ability to understand that it's pointless to even dwell on them.

 

Just for a second imagine you were the Universe. One day you were suddenly conscious with no body. You have no friends. You have no matter or belongings. There are no planets or galaxies.

 

What would you do? You are a simple soul but thousands of years pass and you are no closer to experience anything other than being.

 

So.... One day you realize that your thoughts can create matter, and in an explosion of creation you now had gasses and clouds of dust to play with. Altering reality with your thoughts is not an instant process even though you are the only soul in this Universe.

 

Time goes by and planets evolve and life is the goal. You want to become an amoeba floating in liquid simply to experience the coolness of the water or the stings of acid. It is a good feeling. It is a bad feeling. It is feeling.

 

After millennia of nothingness maybe that seems like an improvement.

 

So every living thing you join with in spirit in order to experience.

 

God is enjoying that Coffee you are sipping.

 

SETH - "God knows every sparrow that falls in the forest, for god is every sparrow that falls in the forest."

 

 

 

This concept of God is not my own. Edgar Cayce gives a long version as does SETH.

 

I have participated in telepathy experiments over the years and even though science will never be able to measure telepathy while human brains are the measuring device, the evidence for telepathy is astounding especially if you experience it. The point of this part is that I have yet to find a Universal Theory that will allow for telepathy and such.

 

I believe we not only affect our future, but we also alter our past in a real version of Schrodingers Cat where our expectation affects the outcome once the box is opened. If a lab assistant lied to me and said the cat will be alive because he rigged the test, then that would help increase the belief in the live outcome even if tainted by the assistants own thoughts of 50/50. This continues out to Wigner's friend and his friends. Everyone collapsing their reality based upon expectation/belief.

 

The above Idea has been floated in various discussion groups, and it seems to explain some aspects of humanity like religion and prayers etc. If you have ever prayed and had the outcome arrive in a weird or uncanny way then you will know what I speak of.

 

Imagine your boat capsized and you pray for help. Suddenly a ship arrives on the horizon to save you, but the only reason it was on that course was because the Captain decided to tack that way a day earlier. So did your prayer affect the past? This is a science forum so I think many here would say no, but look again at how ridiculous the idea of an ending Universe is. How ridiculous the concept of pre-universe is? We are in a place that makes very little sense if you look at my starting questions.

 

Carl Jung coined a term "Synchronicity" as he felt coincidences were created by our thoughts to others. Even his friend Sigmund Freud thought he could telepathically communicate with his sister while she was out of town. It is mainly our own generation that has a good 40% skeptics in the world (probably a lot less).

 

Ask god for proof maybe. I don't need anymore. I've seen plenty.

 

So the answer to the OP question, "why would there be a God?" -----------------------------

 

-------------- It is to experience life, death, donuts, GTA5, and snickers bars. God is a part of all and everybody that is.

 

p.s. I hate all religions although I have an affinity towards Hindu, Wicca, Buddhism. I believe ( I should say KNOW) we can alter reality by the way we think.

 

I think skeptics are a lower mind-set who need a few more go arounds on this planet.

[Phi for All]

I think skeptics are a lower mind-set who need a few more go arounds on this planet.

 

This is going to be a problem. This site is full of skeptics. You're just going to seem like a troll if this is the way you judge skepticism,

[Ten oz]

Barfbag, that view of god is nice. If I believed in a god that is the god I would want to believe in. Having said that I don't believe that view of god is a plausible one. It associates ideas and feelings to a conscious universe that are human ones. Intelligent as we humans are our persceptive is shaped and restricted to our own little fish bowl. Our bodies, our needs, our mortality, our reproduction, etc make up the human experience and frame our thoughts and feelings about all things. Our motivations and ideas are human ones. A conscious universe would not think or feel (feel being a very subjective idea in this conversation) the way a human thinks or feels. So in my opinion boredom, loneliness, exploration, imagination, and so on would not be applicable to a conscious universe in the tangible human way you described.

Also a conscious universe that created all to experience life, after creating life, doesn't answer any of the tough questions. Was there anything before the conscious universe? If not where did it and its conscious come from? Will it ever die? Is it the only one? Why is or isn't it the only one? Where did it get the energy to create matter?......ad nauseam.

[hoola]

I see the IBH as having all the possible descriptions of something we could call spiritual, and the reason we can think of the multiplicity of them, or anything else for that matter, is that it evolved and is continuing to evolve in the algorithmic number sets within it . As the sets continue to extend, this is expressed by the living universe, by what we see and who we are...and what we are capable of understanding in the logic sense, and merrily thinking in the illogical one...this places an upper limit on free will, as reality plays out on all fronts, personal and impersonal, guided by this device...so we have a endless, though not infinite source material to draw on...in short the universe is the physical representation, or dynamic memory, of mathematics...the strings of string theory are strings of numbers...all within the IBH.

[dimreepr]

I see the IBH as having all the possible descriptions of something we could call spiritual, and the reason we can think of the multiplicity of them, or anything else for that matter, is that it evolved and is continuing to evolve in the algorithmic number sets within it . As the sets continue to extend, this is expressed by the living universe, by what we see and who we are...and what we are capable of understanding in the logic sense, and merrily thinking in the illogical one...this places an upper limit on free will, as reality plays out on all fronts, personal and impersonal, guided by this device...so we have a endless, though not infinite source material to draw on...in short the universe is the physical representation, or dynamic memory, of mathematics...the strings of string theory are strings of numbers...all within the IBH.

 

This post, along with IBH, is meaningless.

[barfbag]

@ Ten oz,

 

My view gave the god entity human emotions from the get go, but I do think that god has evolved with life.

 

Russellian Science is a good concept to explore.

 

@ Phi for All,

 

I myself am a skeptic about many things and I was originally an Atheist. As a teenager I read a book that had me interested in Telepathy experiments. I understand skepticism, but when you are constantly repeating telepathic experiments with uncanny results it is impossible to write it off.

 

I'll give an example. On one of my first tries I stayed up till 2am and sent a message to a teenage girl that had vanished from our group of friends months previously with no goodbye or update on her whereabouts. I sent a message while visualizing her next to me, "Debby Smith (name changed), Barfbag (ditto) misses you very much, get in touch.". I repeated the message as the book instructed for a full hour. (Book was "how to makeESP work for you by Harold Sherman"). Five days later I received a letter from the United States (not my country). The letter was very cryptic and reminders of how we knew each other like "Toga Party". On the bottom of the first page was the sentence , "LAST NIGHT I HAD A DREAM ABOUT YOU THAT PROMPTED ME TO WRITE".

 

It is mind blowing how it works. I realize every skeptic here could calculate the odds of this being random as can the odds be calculated for every psychic experiment. Odds are the only thing PSI fields can use as proof without a measuring device.

 

Most would simply think I am making up the story because the odds would be extreme for many instances, but I know I am not.

 

The above incident occurred when I was 17 years old. I have had many years of experimenting and hobby in the PSI field since.

 

I even invented a method of retrieving subconscious thoughts without relying on ideomotor reflexes such as a pendulum would require. My method was to use Subliminal pictures (stereograms or imperceptible colour changes in the writing, or UV ink just outside of known vision)) and have the subjects vote repetitively on the pictures that they felt was their answer/choices. This method was online but they closed that website after experiments concluded.

 

I am also a Soil Engineer. I am very interested in science and I like to understand how things work. I am the guy who will take apart a car just to see how it works and then forget where everything goes (or at least have parts left over).

 

So... When I say I believe skeptics are of a lesser mindset I was referring to skeptics about God and PSI subjects only. I would be skeptical if you said you could turn peanut butter into a BBQ dinner.

 

I am also in discussion groups and discuss ideas with well known physicists including a Nobel Laureate (3 guesses if you type in PSI and Nobel Laureate his name will likely be front and centre.), and also some who might seem a bit nutty.

 

Okay...

Imagine you were successfully communicating with someone telepathically (it seriously is not hard to prove this to yourself). You would know sanity is not in question as EVERY telepathy experiment ALWAYS has at least two witnesses (sender and receiver).

What would you do?

 

I just kept right on experimenting...

 

Telepathy is not easy. It requires two people to try it at the same time everyday. You can influence the person without their knowledge if you manage to send a message during their REM (dream) sleep.

 

My beginners luck I stumbled across a technique that works and Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York led by Stanley Krippner and Montague Ullman did similar double blind experiments involving sleep telepathy with also uncanny results.

(Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_telepathy

 

The skeptics dictionary will aim at a few controversial cases but I was privileged enough to view the experiments from video and they were very remarkable, although nobody will ever really care (do you?).

 

Now... If Psychic phenomenon does occur then How and Why? If I can send/receive psychic messages then the possibility of Mass Consciousness and God has a totally new perspective.

 

So ... I feel very qualified when I say Skeptics on this subject and PSI subjects are from a lesser mindset I say it for several reasons. First because I totally think it is true and I feel sorry for them because they miss a lot of reality, and must think we are nothing after death which is sad for them.

 

Part of me wants to motivate them to try telepathy themselves with a friend so they will get out of that mindset.

 

Proving telepathy is impossible without tools of measurement. It always will be. This is another Reason James Randi will never have to part with his money. It is impossible to prove enough for a mainstream Journal like Nature to accept.

 

A few attempts on your own with a mere several hours of effort can yield new beliefs in this area though. I cannot imagine why skeptics won't at least try telepathy.

 

So....

 

I am not trolling by stating that belief. I am encouraging them to make a few hours worth of effort to transform their entire belief system. If I only show one other person the truth of the matter then it was worth it.

 

Also... This is The religion section. Skeptics should as a rule not even be here although many of them police paranormal/religion topics to spew recycled rhetoric about how it is impossible or discuss the James Randi FAKE offer (explained above).

 

So I will say again.

 

I think Skeptics (on this and PSI topics) have a lower mindset. I personally feel they need to be reincarnated a bunch more times, and should at the very least try to do telepathy for their own sake. (I already have seen enough to never be able to doubt this).

 

This post is discussing Mass Consciousness in relation to god and is on topic. I expect negative feedback obviously from a skeptic crowd, but most perusing the Religion Forum are likely just trying to inflate their own sense of being by poo-pooing a topic that has no clear defenses (I am not accusing anyone in particular, but the behavior seems common).

 

I honestly feel sorry for them. It is sad.

Edited June 15, 2014 by barfbag

[Ten oz]

@Barfbag

In my opinion it is important to remove ones self from things they are trying to look at analytically.

 

Phenomenon that can not be measured, only manifests within lone individuals, and can not be routinely repeated are not reliable. The minded is too easily fooled and our memories are often just suggestions of a past event. That is why eye witness accounts of crimes are no longer considered strong evidence in the absence of physical evidence.

 

Interesting little bit from the American Bar association on eye witness reliability. http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

 

I believe that you are honest about your experiences. You are being accurate as you can about how they played out. I don't believe, unfortunately, it is evidence of anything.

[barfbag]

@ Pwagen,

 

There is a huge difference between religions and the idea of a god. I am sure if you want to call god Appolo, Buddha, All that is, Christ, God, or your fairy godmother then your prayers would have equal weight. I bet most religion posts discuss religion

 

Religions were created by man. Not only that but by man thousands of years ago. We know it is safe to eat pork if it is cooked properly now, but some religions forbid it still. They seem dated. I'd pick a law of attraction/ New Age religion.

 

@ Ten oz,

 

That is another topic however... I think Mass consciousness/PSI topics are a foundation for belief in god.

 

Phenomenon that can not be measured, only manifests within lone individuals, and can not be routinely repeated are not reliable. The minded is too easily fooled and our memories are often just suggestions of a past event.

 

 

 

I will reiterate (was in my previous post). There can be no such thing as telepathy experiments just fooling lone individuals, nor can this be a mind easily fooled.

 

The very nature of Telepathy requires two participants. For every successful experiment there are at least two people going "WTF!".

I understand your point however as I am also a Magician, study NLP, and worship Derren Brown (see Youtube). I use the power of suggestion in normal conversations, and if someone says,"It's cold in here", I might respond with ,"Yes, but it's warming up fast" to implant that thought.

 

You can make someone ill if you suggest they look pale and green a few times.

 

I do not have enough time to convey the vast experience I have had mucking around in that field, but just as you cannot be swayed of there being a God/PSI, I could never be swayed in that direction.

 

The Book I said started me on this was by Harold Sherman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Sherman

 

As you can see in the link he was a famous book author, Adapted Screenplays, produced Broadway Shows, and more. He was not a professional "psychic".

 

Him and Sir Hubert Wilkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Wilkins

(Famous Explorer who was Knighted by the queen.)

 

Decided to attempt Telepathy while Sir Wilkins was thousands of miles away in the arctic circle.

 

Cell Phones did not exist at the time and when communication to the arctic was possible by radio or mail it was through third parties and some high ranking witnesses helped them document their experiences as individuals and compare them when word from the north did arrive.

 

This became the basis for a book, "Thoughts through Space by Harold Sherman".

 

 

I want to use this example because it shows how UNCANNY/REMARKABLE the actual comparisons are. These are the types of things that when they happen to you and your friends make you sit up and go, "WTF!" each time.

 

They set up a telepathy experiment. Sherman was in New York. Wilkins was on his way to the Arctic.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdmqZ1w4agA

(Lots of Youtube Videos on both of these folks)

Each night they sat down, relaxed and recorded on paper their thoughts. After 5 months they both each compared their recordings. It was proven that what they wrote was 75% accurate. They were over 2000 miles apart, but somehow they had been communicating with each other.

Many things they wrote at the end of each day, appeared the same in their recordings. Also to rule all any kind of fraud, the notes each night were sent to independent scientists. During this telepathy experiment there was no chance of any cheating at all. 2000 miles away, neither were in any kind of contact.

Let's take a typical example. Wilkins had attended a formal ball for the Army with the locals in Canada as his plane was forced to land due to bad weather, Wilkins recorded that he was worried about a dress-suit that he had to wear as the waistcoat was short in size. On the same night Sherman recorded in his dairy "You in company with men in military attire-some women-evening dress-important people present-much conversation-you appear to be in evening dress yourself.

Can this be explained by mere coincidence? Really? And the other 100s of examples which lasted for over 5 months?

Here is what Harold Wilkins wrote:

“ When we finally were able to compare notes, what did we find? An amazing number of impressions recorded by Sherman of expedition happenings, and personal experiences, reactions and thoughts of mine. Too many of them were approximately correct and synchronized with the very day of the occurrences to have been 'guesswork'.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQTIITrjNz8

(Watch above video from 6:45, as Harold Sherman is 2nd guest.).

 

Here is a link to a free copy of the book I read many years ago that grabbed my interest.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95854771/Harold-Sherman-How-To-Make-ESP-Work-For-You

 

(It is not for sale so is not spam...)

 

Unfortunately the book "Thoughts Through Space by Harold Sherman", is not available for free.

 

Here is the synopsis,

Thoughts Through Space had its origin in a daring plan conceived by two courageous men. It began in Autumn 1937 when a group of Russian flyers on a trans-polar flight crashed on a shelf of ice on the Alaskan side of the Pole. To find and rescue them--if they were still alive--the Russian government commissioned Arctic explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to organize and lead an aerial search in those desolate regions.

While in New York, prior to his departure, Sir Hubert met Harold Sherman, a student of mental powers who had long been intrigued by telepathy, the phenomenon of mind-to-mind communication. Seeing an unusual opportunity to put telepathy to a scientific test, Sherman and Wilkins decided to collaborate on a six-month experiment. It was agreed between them that Wilkins, once his expedition was underway, would try to transmit thought messages at prearranged times directly to Sherman in New York. Both men would keep written records of each session, Wilkins noting down his thoughts as "sender," and Sherman recording his mental impressions in his role as "receiver."

This account re-creates all the absorbing drama and adventure of the experiment as the participants lived it. With Wilkins you fly in a small plane over the roof of the world, scanning the moonlit landscape for lost fliers, your mind filled with worried thoughts of weather conditions, radio contacts, fuel supplies, and countless other perils while straining to send your thoughts across space to the waiting mind of Harold Sherman. With Sherman, you will sit in a darkened room in New York with sights and sounds flooding into your awareness. And you will read of the remarkable successful results when the two men finally compared notes, proving that the thought--messages were indeed sent and received across 3,400 miles. Sherman's years of study convinced him that his telepathy is a common human ability, and that we can all learn to use it.

 

 

 

I don't want to discuss too much of the book, but I am just making a point.

 

Sherman should have expected Wilkins to be in the Arctic or on his way. The example I give where he got roped into attending an Armistice Dance and needed to borrow dress greens to do it was just weird.

 

Imagine you do this with a friend and you see him get a flat tire and walk into a local bar to call a tow truck because his Jack was missing from his trunk. Then when you talk to him the next day he says that is exactly what happened. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND? How do you even begin to calculate the odds of your friend getting a flat tire for the first time in his life? Then on top of that you also knew he called a tow truck from a bar.

 

The above scenario is the type of things that occur. Try it with a friend for a few weeks. If it does not work then what have you lost?

a few hours of your time? Isn't a few hours worth knowing if I am full of it or telling the truth? Yes. It could have just been a lucky guess, so maybe you'll need to do it a few times.

 

Now back to your post,

Phenomenon that can not be measured, only manifests within lone individuals

 

 

Was Harold Sherman a lone individual, or did they both sit back and say ,"WTF!" (sticking to theme here).

 

The 3rd party consisted of three different independent scientists, one of which was the psychologist Gardner Murphy, they had all reviewed the recordings. Murphy visited Sherman in person to collect his recordings, and when Wilkins returned to the USA from from the Arctic he gave one of these scientists his diary. It was not possible for Sherman to contact Wilkins they were 2000 miles away, and this experiment occured in 1937. No mobile phones! There was no way that either of them could of seen eachothers diary.

Their experiment has been published in a book called Thoughts Through Space. The reports were submitted to several testifiers of the experiment so that the reports could not be changed or altered in anyway once submitted. There were no telephones or communication between Sherman and Wilkins. Wilkins later returned to the USA and discovered that 75% of his recordings we the same as Sherman.

 

So.. I understand how people with less experiences can be skeptics. I feel sorry for them, but I am not a fool. I know what myself and colleagues have done and witnessed. Radio waves could not be measured a few hundred years ago, but that does not mean it only manifested itself in lone individuals, so your comment is also confusing that way.

 

Anyways. If telepathy exists... Then Mass consciousness (we all interact) must exist. If Mass consciousness exists then the idea of god is not as ridiculous.

 

Good luck in your pursuit, but you would have as much chance of convincing Sir Hubert Wilkins or Sherman that they are nutty as you do me.

 

I made an objective choice to argue pro-god/pro-PSI, so I don't mind the insults that come from unbelievers, but it is very easy to try this and does not cost a nickel (we have no pennies in my country).

Edited June 16, 2014 by barfbag

[Ten oz]

@Barfbag, I am not looking to convince you of anything or change your mind. I am merely sharing my thoughts on this issue with you. No need to say in advance your position is unchangeable.

I have actually had a lot of experiences like the one you are describing. I have had dreams about things, ones I have actually written down because they were so compelling, come true. I have thought about random people I haven't talked to in years and then within the day received emails or calls from them. I think most people have had these experience. I just don't attribute them to any form of extra sensor perception.

Example; my grandmother pasted 18yrs ago. To my understanding she was the oldest of his siblings and the last to pass. About 5 years ago I had a dream that I was walking around a small town in Nebraska where I saw an old women that peoplwet old me was my Grandmother's sister. I argued with the people in my dream that my grandmother did not have any living siblings. When I woke up the dream wouldn't leave me. I just keep thinking about it. So that night I called my mother, whom I am not close with, and told her about the dream. She immediately corrected me about my grandmother being the oldest and not having any living siblings. In fact my grandmother had a younger sister she was astranged from that was still alive and living in Nebraska, WOW!!

Thing about the story is that I can't know for sure if I had not already known that information. My subconscious could've just triggered information I had forgot. I don't have access to all the variables so in my opinion jumping to a paranormal conclusion would be a very rash thing to do. Same goes for thinking about a person and then they call. Something in the news, a song on the radio, something on TV, etc could have subconsciously triggered a shared memory each person shares which in turn drove the actions that follow. I believe our subconscious has a lot more to do with our behavior that most entertain.

[pwagen]

I am sure if you want to call god Appolo, Buddha, All that is, Christ, God, or your fairy godmother then your prayers would have equal weight.

Right. None.

[barfbag]

@ Ten oz,

 

Yes. As I was reading your story I realized this was information you must have overheard sometime in your life before you even said it (Re: Grandmother). Also television could cause Synchronicity which is the term Carl Jung gave it.

 

Carl Jung (Famous Psychoanalyst) once went to a town and knew he wanted to meet up with an old friend while there. He made some attempts to meet the fellow, but had other commitments. Upon his last day in town the fellow randomly walked into the same restaurant Jung was dining in. This is the sort of thing Carl Jung calls Synchronicity. (This was in days before television)

 

People who have accepted Synchronicities and believe often just call them Sync's which has taken on a duel meaning of Jiving up/being on the same wavelength.

 

Sigmund Freud was a heavy advocate for telepathy but gave up that pursuit in fear his psychoanalysis work would be written off like the work of Walter Russell.

 

No. Using subject matter that can be triggered by television or hidden memories do not count. You sound intelligent enough to know the difference so keep an open mind from here on out.

 

None of the examples I have given thus far are moments that could be triggered by television or memories.

 

I believe in the mass consciousness/god so I also believe our thoughts influence our reality.

 

Think of something obscure like a blue feather (this experiment was someone elses). Think about a blue feather for 15 mintes and go about your day and I am sure you will see a blue feather. I originally read this experiment and tried it and noticed a blue feather in my wifes dream catcher before I left the house, and it was in view of the computer. I suppose maybe I could say I accepted the experiment because I knew a feather that colour existed in my house, so it is not perfect.

 

Think of an obscure Cliche. I was watching tv and the show I PVR'd started with the ending of Modern Family where they were saying "Brothers from another mother". The first scene of the show i put on had the same cliche. You hear of things happening in threes...

 

Dwell on topics you think are bizarre and you will soon see a commercial or scheduled television shows about that. When was the last time you heard the topic of The Dingo that ate the baby. Think on that and you will hear about it a lot.

 

Hear is a video on similar idea ( was looking for video on Blue Feather experiment, but there are none,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bksg1PPlEI

 

Here is The blue feather experiment, but not a video.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Blue-Feather,-Creating,-and-the-Law-of-Attraction&id=7864592

 

I am a published fiction author and was once contemplating a story about a villain who put nicotine in peoples food to control them. You must admit that is a fairly unique thought and not many stories are written using that idea. Later we were watching television, and my friends daughter said if someone gave nicotine gum to a kid the kid would get addicted to gum. I would call that a synchronicity. I imagine it is a thought entertained by some, but I had been thinking about that plot for a few weeks at that time and had not discussed it. I am sure everyone thinks about stuff like that, but I had never heard anybody else actually suggest that before. How many thoughts running through your head are yours?

 

Now those are simply synchronicities. Telepathy is another story but must work in a similar fashion. Telepathy the results are much more personal and astounding, but you must go out of your way to enter telepathy experiments. You must possess the curiosity.

 

Unfortunately the only way to know one way or the other is to try it yourself because generations may pass before we are able to measure whatever is occurring, and there can be no 100% proof until then.

 

I could point to dozens of legitimate psychic experiments that have had great successes, but I can also point to frauds and hundreds of failed psychic experiments. Who couldn't organize a failed psychic experiment?

 

Influencing machines is another recent addition to the curiosity.

 

One of these new technologies was a humble-looking black box known was a Random Event Generator (REG). This used computer technology to generate two numbers - a one and a zero - in a totally random sequence, rather like an electronic coin-flipper.

The pattern of ones and noughts - 'heads' and 'tails' as it were - could then be printed out as a graph. The laws of chance dictate that the generators should churn out equal numbers of ones and zeros - which would be represented by a nearly flat line on the graph. Any deviation from this equal number shows up as a gently rising curve.

During the late 1970s, Prof Jahn decided to investigate whether the power of human thought alone could interfere in some way with the machine's usual readings. He hauled strangers off the street and asked them to concentrate their minds on his number generator. In effect, he was asking them to try to make it flip more heads than tails.

It was a preposterous idea at the time. The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained.

Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machine and produce significant fluctuations on the graph, 'forcing it' to produce unequal numbers of 'heads' or 'tails'.

 

 

 

The success of this has led many researchers into something called "The Global Consciousness Project". I am not endorsing it. I am just saying.

 

I will also refute the previous quote by showing The Skeptics Dictionary Version.

http://skepdic.com/pear.html

 

Skeptics testing PSI techniques seem to always fail. Just watch any episode of James Randi on television/Youtube. I bet I could fail at any experiment if I tried hard enough.

 

You will always get conflicting data on all successful psychic research because debunkers believe they will fail before they even begin, and belief is key to everything according to every major religion in the world. "If ye have faith as small as a mustard seed you could command that this mountain move from here to there and it will move."

 

One of the points I am trying to make is that the ONLY way for people to believe in PSI topics are to try it themselves in double blind situations. No foreknowledge of Grandma's sister allowed.

 

I advocate for an open mind.

Edited June 16, 2014 by barfbag

[Ten oz]

@Barfbag,

First let me just say that I am really enjoying this conversation. A lot of the concepts you have presented are ones I had considered years ago. I appreciate your responses.

 

As a teenager one of the first jobs I had was working graveyard at a 24hr convenience store. I noticed that customers always seemed to show up in bunches. The store would be empty for 45 minutes to an hour and busy for 5 minutes. I use to wonder why. The several people that would fill up the store didn't know each other and weren't all coming from or going to the same place. So why would they all converge at the same time? I went so far as to recording the frequency of it to ensure it wasn't just a false perspective. I also chatted people up to get an idea of where they where coming from or headed. Comically my next job was driving a truck delivering various goods to convenience stores. That was graveyard too. I say comically because every store I would deliver to would always be crowded regardless of the time. Which means I was now on the other side of that frequency I had noticed. All the variables that effected what time I would reach a store like size of previous deliveries, traffic, weather, how quickly I moved, etc and I consistently hit every store during a rush. Ultimately I got a better job and moved on.

 

At that time in my life I had considered some time of group consciousness. That the thoughts and ideas of one person somehow influences the thoughts and ideas of others. I gave up on the idea however because I realizes there were just too many variables I didn't know to run any proper experiments. In the case of the convenience store the answer might have been simply as people seeing others pull into the store reminded them that they wanted something too. No group thought required. Perhaps a lot of people are afraid of empty stores and avoid them. I couldn't rule enough options out and in the end group consciousness felt like a wild stretch.

Similarly I have done thought experiments like the one you suggested with the blue feather. Problem I have with those is there is no real way to calculate to likelihood of seeing an item. Our subconscious controls a lot of what we do. We move about our day only consciously focusing on a few things. When you bush your teeth in the morning while thinking about work are you consciously aware of everything in your bathroom? Are you looking at everything or just letting your subconscious run you on auto pilot while you think about your day? So once you put blue feathers into your mind are you causing blue feathers to appear or simply tricking yourself into paying better attention to the world around you? When people are not paying attention they fail to notice any number of things. If I had a dollar for every time a co-working asked me if the could borrow a pen while already holding a pen I would be a wealthy man. Tens of thousands of things happen around us everyday that we don't notice. Passing blue feathers in our environment could easily be one of them.

 

The idea is intriguing though. When you look back on the evolution of civilization there does seem to be continuity between humans all over the world. Agriculture seemed to pop up amongst different groups at the same time. Various weapons seemed to come about at the same time. Similar structures were built and so on. Then again humans are all a humans. When a number of golden retrievers that aren't related express similar traits we aren't surprised. We just say that is how golden retrievers behave. So why are we surprised when different humans do the samething?

 

You mentioned being an author. What have you written? Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer not to say on the board.

[barfbag]

For any wondering, I did respond to above poster via PM. I understand SF.net is mostly a non-prophet organization. Some of the topics I addressed were private in nature, but I did not leave that poster hanging without a response.

 

(if this appears as a double post i apologize, I appear to have trouble posting it. I'll try a few more times and then I give up.. Thank god for copy/paste).

[Delta1212]

I understand SF.net is mostly a non-prophet organization.

We get prophets here and there, but they are rarely well received.

[Phi for All]

For any wondering, I did respond to above poster via PM. I understand SF.net is mostly a non-prophet organization. Some of the topics I addressed were private in nature, but I did not leave that poster hanging without a response.

 

(if this appears as a double post i apologize, I appear to have trouble posting it. I'll try a few more times and then I give up.. Thank god for copy/paste).

 

This isn't in keeping with the spirit of discussion. Why not post where everyone can see?

 

Are you calling yourself a prophet?

[Prometheus]

Good luck in your pursuit, but you would have as much chance of convincing Sir Hubert Wilkins or Sherman that they are nutty as you do me.

I advocate for an open mind.

 

It seems you are suggesting others keep an open mind to your ideas, while yourself not being open to other's ideas. I'm sure that's not what you meant.

 

 

... and belief is key to everything according to every major religion in the world. "If ye have faith as small as a mustard seed you could command that this mountain move from here to there and it will move."

 

It's debatable how central belief is to Buddhism, but that is another discussion we could have elsewhere if you like.

Carl Jung (Famous Psychoanalyst) once went to a town and knew he wanted to meet up with an old friend while there. He made some attempts to meet the fellow, but had other commitments. Upon his last day in town the fellow randomly walked into the same restaurant Jung was dining in. This is the sort of thing Carl Jung calls Synchronicity.

.

Is it reasonable to surmise the main thrust of the argument for Synchronicity is incredulity?

For instance, you quoted someone as saying:

Too many of them were approximately correct and synchronized with the very day of the occurrences to have been 'guesswork'

 

 

How many is too many? Has an attempt been made to quantify any of this? It might be fine to suggest that there are 'too many occurrences to be guesswork' as a hypothesis, but to jump straight to it as a conclusion seems over-enthusiastic. Without applying any maths we are simply waving our hands with you saying 'yes, there are too many to be coincidence', and myself saying 'no, there are not enough to be more than coincidence'.

[barfbag]

@ prometheus,

 

First; do you use this Moniker on another Forum?

 

Some of the maths have been calculated in one particular sleep telepathy study as 75 000 000:1 odds in favour of telepathy. Because of my involvement in the field I was privy to some film (they used film back then) of the experiments and they were often "uncanny". They were also double blind. The sender was locked in a room before opening the picture to be broadcast.

 

You said,

It seems you are suggesting others keep an open mind to your ideas, while yourself not being open to other's ideas.

 

 

I was skeptical and an atheist growing up.

 

Too be quite honest i feel the only real convincing method to a skeptic is by trying telepathy (particularly dream telepathy) yourself and noting how weird and effective the results are.

 

Imagine you contacted someone you had not spoken to in over a year via telepathy and encouraged them to call and then they called you the next morning. Of course it could be chance. You'd never win any James Randi money for it. What if you did this a dozen times and it worked half the time (I think hitting REM sleep is important, but not always feasible).

 

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as unwitnessed telepathy. It always requires at least two people so results are not likely to simply be in your head.

 

 

 

Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York led by Stanley Krippner and Montague Ullman, patients were monitored and awakened after a period of REM then separated to study the claimed ability to communicate telepathically. They concluded the results from some of their experiments supported dream telepathy.^[2] However, the results have not been independently replicated.^{[10][11][12][13]}James Alcock has written the dream telepathy experiments at Maimonides have failed to provide evidence for telepathy and "lack of replication is rampant."^[14]

 

 

, but I will also give you the Skeptics Dictionary version of the same events.

 

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23300

 

so you have the skeptic version.

 

I am not overly interested in pursuing this topic here. Skepticism is a healthy outlook, I just feel I have been involved in too many experiments with results best described as "Uncanny" to return to the skeptic stances.

 

I am not a rookie in the field nor am I overly gullible. I have a variety of hobbies Power of the mind, Street magic (Fake street magic), Sailing, writing, and more. If I see a trick I do not understand I try to learn how it is done.

 

I did ran a paranormal website and developed a method of measuring subconscious thought using repetitive questioning with answers hidden subliminally in the pictures. This is the only method to date that does not rely on ideomotor reflexes, unlike pendulums, Ouija boards, etc.

 

but to jump straight to it as a conclusion seems over-enthusiastic.

 

 

 

Yes. That would seem silly.

 

I have been researching this as a hobby and part time profession for over 20 years.

 

I am a Soil Engineer and have many science interests that are normal science and require no PSI beliefs. I would prefer to stick to those topics in this forum, but I wanted to input into this thread for another poster.

 

Concerning religion, you said,

It's debatable how central belief is to Buddhism, but that is another discussion we could have elsewhere if you like.

 

 

Here is a bit from that all pulled from same link actually. I did not go into many known quotations.

 

Faith (Pāli: saddhā, Sanskrit: śraddhā) is an important constituent element of the teachings of the Buddha for all traditions of Buddhism, although the kind and nature of faith changes in the different schools. According to received Pali-Buddhist tradition, some of the first words voiced by the Buddha after resolving to teach Dharma were, "Wide opened is the door of the Deathless to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith [saddha] to meet it."^[1]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

 

Faith is the seed, practice the rain, And wisdom is my yoke and plough. Modesty's the pole, mind the strap, Mindfulness my ploughshare and goad.^¿

 

faith in the Tathagata
unshakable and well established ...
... the person of intelligence,
remembering the Buddha's Teaching,
should be devoted to faith and virtue,
to confidence and vision of the Dhamma [Dharma]

 

 

Faith in Mahāyāna Buddhism

In general, the role of faith in Mahāyāna Buddhism is as strong as that of the Theravādin. Moreover, the depth and range of faith may be^{[according to whom?]} perceived as being intensified, particularly in the Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha) sutras and the Pure Land literature.

In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Buddha is portrayed giving a foundational position to faith. He states:

We say that unsurpassed awakening [

bodhi

] has faith as its cause. The causes of awakening are innumerable, but if stated as faith, this covers everything.

[

citation needed

]

Faith as understood in this sutra is belief in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Buddha's own eternality. More specifically, it is belief in such doctrines as the law of karma, in the reality and eternity of the Three Jewels (i.e. the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha), and in the efficacy of the Buddhist path. The Buddha comments:^[19]

All that is said in these

Mahayana

sutras is the truths of the Way [

marga

] ... As I have already stated, if one believes in the Way, such a Way of faith is the root of faith. This assists the Way of Awakening ... The Way begins with the root of faith....

The Buddha further notes that a person possessed of faith is superior to one lacking in it:

 

There are two kinds of men: one who has faith, and the other who has not. O Bodhisattva! Know that he with faith is one who is good, and that he who has no faith is one who is not good.

[

20

]

Faith in the Buddha is seen as a positive virtue as it leads to more attentive absorption in Dharma, which in turn strengthens faith still further. The Buddha remarks:^[21]

 

 

Faith arises out of listening to Dharma, and this listening is [itself] grounded in faith.

 

Maybe all the experiments I have participated in over decades have been simple incredulous luck. Maybe. I think you would think differently though had you seen what I have under that topic.

 

This post feels more like piecemeal than one of my better arguments, but I am not much willing to argue the point this morning and am in a hurry to go shoot some film for one of my Youtube Channels. I apologize for that.

 

I am more than happy to discuss this topic if you have serious questions. I find these types of threads are often policed by skeptics who just want to feel satisfaction by stating obvious facts that point to PSI as hogwash.

 

I am very happy to discuss or answer questions even if in PM if you are serious, but not so much if I am just walking into a set up troll. I think the distinctions are obvious enough and am not accusing anybody here of anything, it is just what I have come to expect when airing this topic publicly.

Edited June 20, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

@ prometheus,

 

First; do you use this Moniker on another Forum?

 

Some of the maths have been calculated in one particular sleep telepathy study as 75 000 000:1 odds in favour of telepathy. Because of my involvement in the field I was privy to some film (they used film back then) of the experiments and they were often "uncanny". They were also double blind. The sender was locked in a room before opening the picture to be broadcast.

 

You said,

 

I was skeptical and an atheist growing up.

 

Too be quite honest i feel the only real convincing method to a skeptic is by trying telepathy (particularly dream telepathy) yourself and noting how weird and effective the results are.

 

Imagine you contacted someone you had not spoken to in over a year via telepathy and encouraged them to call and then they called you the next morning. Of course it could be chance. You'd never win any James Randi money for it. What if you did this a dozen times and it worked half the time (I think hitting REM sleep is important, but not always feasible).

 

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as unwitnessed telepathy. It always requires at least two people so results are not likely to simply be in your head.

 

 

 

 

, but I will also give you the Skeptics Dictionary version of the same events.

 

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23300

 

so you have the skeptic version.

 

I am not overly interested in pursuing this topic here. Skepticism is a healthy outlook, I just feel I have been involved in too many experiments with results best described as "Uncanny" to return to the skeptic stances.

 

I am not a rookie in the field nor am I overly gullible. I have a variety of hobbies Power of the mind, Street magic (Fake street magic), Sailing, writing, and more. If I see a trick I do not understand I try to learn how it is done.

 

I did ran a paranormal website and developed a method of measuring subconscious thought using repetitive questioning with answers hidden subliminally in the pictures. This is the only method to date that does not rely on ideomotor reflexes, unlike pendulums, Ouija boards, etc.

 

 

 

Yes. That would seem silly.

 

I have been researching this as a hobby and part time profession for over 20 years.

 

I am a Soil Engineer and have many science interests that are normal science and require no PSI beliefs. I would prefer to stick to those topics in this forum, but I wanted to input into this thread for another poster.

 

Concerning religion, you said,

 

Here is a bit from that all pulled from same link actually. I did not go into many known quotations.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

 

 

 

Faith arises out of listening to Dharma, and this listening is [itself] grounded in faith.

 

Maybe all the experiments I have participated in over decades have been simple incredulous luck. Maybe. I think you would think differently though had you seen what I have under that topic.

 

This post feels more like piecemeal than one of my better arguments, but I am not much willing to argue the point this morning and am in a hurry to go shoot some film for one of my Youtube Channels. I apologize for that.

 

I am more than happy to discuss this topic if you have serious questions. I find these types of threads are often policed by skeptics who just want to feel satisfaction by stating obvious facts that point to PSI as hogwash.

 

I am very happy to discuss or answer questions even if in PM if you are serious, but not so much if I am just walking into a set up troll. I think the distinctions are obvious enough and am not accusing anybody here of anything, it is just what I have come to expect when airing this topic publicly.

"Some of the maths have been calculated in one particular sleep telepathy study as 75 000 000:1 odds in favour of telepathy. Because of my involvement in the field I was privy to some film (they used film back then) of the experiments and they were often "uncanny". They were also double blind. The sender was locked in a room before opening the picture to be broadcast."

Repeat the experiments and win a million dollars (as well as massive international recognition)

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html

What do you stand to lose?