Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
The psychics that I knew that had a reasonable amount of success, not 100% by any means, told me that they are not allowed (by a Higher Authority) to try to get riches for themselves or others.
This is what is known as special pleading. It's a logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies are a set of rules for debating or arguing. The rules do not prove that a statement is necessary false. When you debate on the basis that only the material world exists, then it could be said that your subsequent logic might rely on a false premise.
When a person wants information on a subject, one goes to those who are qualified in that discipline. I am giving you the opinion of people who are qualified in that area. You can choose to believe, or not believe.
If I tell you that I had histoplasmosis, and my immune system was fully functional, the medical experts will tell you that that is not possible. One or two might admit that it might be possible, but would be extremely rare. So when I say that this happened to me and two others they would be extremely sceptical – but that does not change the truth of what happened.
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
The problem is that people think the rules for psychics and the rules are physics must be the same.
This is also special pleading.
See my answer above.
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
If you believe absolutely that only the material world exists - and insist on the proofs that work only in the material world, then you are totally isolated from any possibility that you are wrong.
This is simply wrong. All you have to do is produce evidence. If you cannot produce evidence, then we are right by definition.
Simply wrong – why is it so simple? Perhaps from a point of view of imposed limitations it might be. You are deciding to restrict yourself to a particular definition which suits your secular humanistic belief. Supernatural events are rare. True psychic ability is rare. And there is a huge amount of noise (fraud, mistake, delusion) of the sort that skeptics correctly identify.
Perhaps one day science will say, there appears to be a non-materialistic influence on living things, rather than discard results that appear to be in error because they do not fit the expected repeatability model. When it comes to science I agree with your model because it works. Your model cannot explain some strange happenings.
Physical evidence or repeatable proof is the mantra of the religion of secular humanists. You believe that you know the answers to what the Ultimate Reality is – and therefore you know what rules to apply to test other theories of the Ultimate Reality. Your absolute belief leaves no room for doubt.
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
When it comes to human behavior, we do not follow a set of rules.
Yes we do.
So sure! I may watch your referenced video on the Higgs Boson some time, but I can predict it will not answer the questions of the Ultimate Reality. Why are we here? What does it all mean?
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how a single cell can develop into an animal that can get up and run away from a predator within minutes of being born. How did that creature get the referential memories for its sight?
It didn't. That response is hardwired into its brain by its DNA. It's encoded in the DNA following a few billion years of evolution.
That is the materialistic assumption. Show me the proof.
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
There is no way that such information is programmed into the DNA. If I am told scientists will find it, then I say do the math. Memory of a tree to avoid, memory of running zigzag, and so on - these require a huge amount of programmed memory brain cells.
Memories aren't encoded in the DNA. Patterns are.
And you know this how? Just how much information can DNA store? And how does such information get translated into growing a brain, and making the brain grow with a bunch of pre-wired patterns. Proof please? Or are you making an argument by extension?
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
Change a gene or two, and something big happens. How do you change a gene or two and the creature runs into the tree instead of a around it?
Change a gene or two, and most of the time there is no noticeable effect whatsoever. All of us are mutants at that level.
Could be those genes affect the patterns you are talking about? Hard to test is it not?
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
The memories are in the (reincarnated) souls that guides how the cells divide and arrange themselves
Nope. That's DNA.
And science of DNA has ended the mind-body debate? It can tell us all which genes give a deer the “pattern” (which some scientists call a referential memory)? You sound like Alan Greenspan when he said the boom-bust cycle is a thing of the past because the economists have it all figured.
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
and ultimately the memories in the brain.
Nope. That doesn't happen at all.
You are 100% certain? How can a subjective person be certain of anything? Humans can only assume that some things are more likely than others on the basis of agreement – and even then they might not know the detail.
Remember the days when science only had a few small unknowns to tie up?
Pixymisa said:
PartSkeptic said:
Sure 99.999% is physics. It is the 0.001 percent that makes the difference. That is why the supernatural is so elusive. Just guessing as to the percentages, except that they are not 100% and 0%.
See the link above. What you are suggesting is simply not possible.
That "simple" word again. Do you use that to infer that I must be dumb not to understand that I am wrong? And are you the authority on what is possible and what is not possible? And you can confidently predict (by extrapolation, I presume) that the situation will not change in the future?