Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[chad kincham]

By definition mathematical odds requires information of all possible outcomes.
Our observable universe is surrounded by a particle horizon, anything beyond this horizon is not causally connected to the observer.
For a galaxy beyond the horizon with a superluminal recession velocity u which emits photons at the speed of light c towards the observer, the condition is u - c > c.
In other words the photon never reaches the observer and there is zero information.
The also applies to any universe outside our particle horizon.

This makes the multiverse idea unfalsifiable; we don't even know if it exists as there is no way of making any type of measurement or observation and makes the question of mathematical odds superfluous.

Many scientists scathingly oppose the multiverse idea with its infinite number of possibilities for physical constants as it reduces the understanding of our own universe to being a random chance.
This is not what science is about.

And the bubble multiverse where pockets or bubbles form new big bangs as the uni expands would have the same laws of physics as the one

Given that these universes exist outside our particle horizon we can't even answer the most fundamental question whether these universes exist or not.
Some physicists believe a collision of an external universe with ours should produce a signature on the cosmic radiation background but these ideas are highly speculative.
It boils down to personal faith hence the comparison with religion.

Paul Davies who has been mentioned in this thread gives a good summary.

Where have I seen this before?

The universe generating device to spew out universes, reminds me of the Oort Cloud - one cranks out universes to negate fine tuning, the other spits out new comets to overcome the problem of too many short-lived comets zipping around in a 14 BYO universe - and exists inside a Dyson sphere so big it encloses our entire solar system.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First there is the early chemotherapy that was given as they thought that cancer was rapidly dividing cells. It is not rapidly dividing cells so the drugs had no pharmacological effects on the cancer. I discuss this in this answer on Quora.
https://www.quora.com/If-a-cure-for...isn-t-it-talked-about-more/answer/Kyrani-Eade
Instead of admitting that they were wrong, they changed the way they talked about cancer. So now they are saying uncontrolled cell growth owing to "cancer genes", either through damage or miscopied DNA. And that the immune system normally destroys such cells.
Now, without the full participation of the immune system, there is no cancer. They are influential in the microenvironment.

Roles of the immune system in cancer: from tumor initiation to metastatic progression

Roles of the immune system in cancer: from tumor initiation to metastatic progression (nih.gov)

Next, if there ain't no cancer stem cells , there is no cancer. That was shown back in the early 2000s by Dr. Max Wicha M.D and his then PhD student Dr. Michael Clarke.

Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells - PubMed (nih.gov) this is published in 2001 and still behind a paywall but the abstract is clear enough.

And as you can see they are careful in what they say and all directions are towards treatments. How can we target cancer stem cells. Publications | Wicha Lab (umich.edu)

No one is asking why is the body developing cancer stem cells?

The carcinogen story is what most of the research is about and for that they use transgenic mice. That means that some of their genes have been altered to create so called oncogenes, ie., genes involved in cell proliferation as seen in wound healing and tissue regeneration and so-called tumor suppressor genes again seen in wound healing etc. So the experiments are all about see if we do X, then Y happens, when the experiments are manufactured to produce Y happens.
And again they are careful how they write things otherwise funding can be lost.
Use of rodents as models of human diseases (nih.gov)
The argument that they had to wait two years to see the effects of carcinogens in wild type mice is not true. The way they justify this is by saying that transformed cells are cancer cells, which they are not.

You can find the video I made on my findings of why the body develops cancer in this answer (second video )
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-dist...ess-pejorative-terminology/answer/Kyrani-Eade
The first video in that answer explains the underhanded foul game play by related inhumane people that leads to disease generally. A concealed threat is used and that is why they see a fight or flight response right across the board in all diseases, but they put it down to a dysregulated fight or flight response. The meat robot, in other words, has just malfunctioned! If you want to see the series I made you need to go into my YouTube channel and find the playlist on The Underlying Conditions of Disease. And there are others that are relevant too.

The scientific papers you linked don't support your claims. There is not scientific evidence that cancer is a nocebo effect. The immune system is involved because it will attack typical cancer cells. The cancer cells have two main ways to evade the immune response, firstly, they may mutate and become 'invisible' to the immune system or treated like normal cells by the immune system, in various ways (from the paper you linked, "cancer cells evolve different mechanisms that mimic peripheral immune tolerance in order to avoid tumoricidal attack."), and secondly, they may produce immune suppression factors that reduce the immune attack.

Both the immune system and chemotherapies kill the vulnerable cancer cells, leaving those that are more resistant to continue multiplying and mutating. This selection process is why single-drug chemotherapy tends to have early success, but the cancer may come back resistant to the drug and more aggressive than before. This is why multi-drug chemotherapy has become widely used - the synergistic effects of several different modes of drug action reduce the emergence of resistance cells many-fold - if one drug doesn't get them, another will.

Cancer cells may become like stem cells because mutations activate the same 'self-renewal' pathways that are used by blood-producing stem cells (haemopoietic stem cells). When this happens in cancer cells they proliferate because the normal cell pathways leading to cell death (aptosis) are disengaged or disabled by the 'self-renewal' activation. This leads to a potentially exponential multiplication.

Research has shown that positive or negative mood does not significantly affect cancer outcomes. Treating depression doesn't improve outcomes and patients with high mood assessments do not fare significantly better than those with low mood assessments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientific American:

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

Multiverses are predictions of leading physical theories, and were proposed before the appearance of fine-tuning was recognised. They are incidentally a potential solution to the appearance of fine-tuning.

So fine-tuning isn't evidence for a multiverse, but it is consistent with a multiverse.

The main problem with the appearance of fine-tuning is that we don't know enough to say whether the various parameters are independent, or what their possible ranges are. We do know that some can vary considerably more than many accounts suggest; i.e. there has been exaggeration of the degree of fine-tuning.

Penrose's estimation of the probability of our universe is based on his own highly speculative guesswork. We don't yet have a theory that can predict such figures. String Theory potentially allows for a vast number of different universes, but we don't know how to calculate their probabilities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Discover magazine refuted this nonsense years ago. You could make wholesale changes to conditions on Earth and still be compatible with life.

As has happened many times in the past, and we are currently well on the way to doing it again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell that to the many physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, etc, who say the evidence of design is overwhelming.

Which ones say this? How many say this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Had you read it you would have noted they discuss fallacies of using mathematical odds to disprove fine tuning,, a direct correlation to your post, especially given that it was on the topic of the formation of our universe, and in point of fact, those who use mathematical odds to disprove fine tuning, generally do so in conjunction with the multiverse hypothesis, that posits a universe generating mechanism that pukes out universes with different laws of physics in each one, so that the astronomical odds against a random BB event producing just the right laws of physics, is negated by randomly generating an astronomical number of universes, with ours being the one lucky universe that allows life to exist in it.

No scientist proves or disproves anything. Multiverse hypotheses predate the fine-tuning problem, but are a potential solution - we just don't yet know enough about either to say one way or another. Your apparently poor understanding of the issues doesn't change that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are right It sounds absurd. That doesn’t alter the veracity or not. It draws attention to a disparity with known science, to say these are not a substitution fraud. ( the obvious fraud hypothesis - which would DNA the victim)
It’s been repeated in so many places, analysed by so many different labs, it has passed the evidential threshold . The question is “why” not whether.

It wasn't the forensic claims I was calling absurd, it was the idea of an omnipotent being making the proposed gesture - as I explained.

By way of comparison of absurdity for life origin : It sounds utterly absurd that a 10000 protein chemical factory can be a product of random chance, particularly because there’s literally no evidence it happened, no mechanism for it, no first cell structure even conjectured ,it can’t be made to happen , has never been observed to happen. Yet nobody seems to think it is other than a logical extension of what is known.

That's mistaken in several ways - evolution (including chemical evolution) is not a product of random chance alone; it is only absurd to someone that doesn't understand it.

There is circumstantial evidence that it happened (the appearance of very simple life when a previously uninhabitable environment became habitable); a number of mechanisms have been proposed for it and surprising progress has been made in testing them.

Protocell structures have been around for decades - e.g. lipid vesicles, and more recent work with self-assembling vesicles that concentrate external chemicals, grow, and divide.

We don't expect to observe it happening today because it may have taken hundreds of thousands of years, and even if it is possible in contemporary Earth's very different environments, given that all the likely niches are already occupied by living things that consume the necessary resources, it seems a better use of time and money to investigate how it could have happened - and some unexpected dscoveries have resulted.

So keen is science to reinforce that conjecture . It is not seen as extraordinary- A pile of chemical bricks is used as evidence of a self building evolving factory of incredible complexity! It’s not even evidence of self building.

We already have plenty of evidence of 'self-building' - much of it discovered during abiogenesis research.

So on the univedenced absurdity test , abiogenesis deserves a wacko award if anything does. Don’t get me wrong it might even be true. But it deserves more scepticism. It has yet to get beyond conjecture.

Your opinion is uninformed. The peer-reviewed research papers as a google away; you don't need to splash any cash on pricey unspecified books that may or may not contain credible & verifiable information.

And that’s the problem I have with science raising barriers to what it does not like. I well remember a telepathy debate n where such was the disdain was shown by wolpert FRS who tried to debunk it without even looking at sheldrake evidence or experimental technique. The scientific establishment uses the falasy “ extraordinary claims” to raise barriers against what it does not like. Extraordinary is a subjective test.

Anything that contradicts multiple fundamental laws of physics gets short shrift. There are countless claims of that nature, why waste time on them unless the claim can be unequivocally demonstrated?

You make an assumption - on whether the phenomena are deliberate signs. I’ve no idea.

So what, exactly, is the claim? Is it a religious claim?

I can say the Eucharist is one of the fundamental dogmas , to point at Christianity, particularly Catholicism , and show apparent intervention in assumptions of life, so What better sign is there?

I'm well aware of the sacrament of the Eucharist - I grew up with the unhygienic wafer sticking to the roof of my mouth and slowly dissolving, twice a week, and neither I nor anyone else I ever encountered ever experienced it changing to human flesh (yeuch!).

Everyone discounts healing. You cannot impose the outcome.

Healing is a physiological phenomenon. Healing by waving of hands, crystals, prayer, etc., is not demonstrably effective - although it may make some people feel better (placebo effect).

I actually think - if it is a sign - it’s a sign aimed at Catholics not to profane the Eucharist and protestants to show their symbolic Eucharist theology Is wrong. . That makes it consistent with messages. Not aimed at sceptics at all.

Personally, I'm incredibly glad to be out of it - a cannibalistic sacrament in celebration of a human sacrifice just seems so.... wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

Each point could be challenged. Is there a point?

If something is the action of a being, not a thing , Does the purpose matter to whether it happened? First establish the “actus Reus” - “ mens rea” in this case may never be known.

Laws of physics are man made, they are part of a model not universe. Easily changed, when evidence proves they no longer explain observation adequately. Science does it repeatedly. So yes , Eucharistic phenomena show models are seemingly wrong. Or rather - they show that science can only deal with a repeatable subset of reality, without which you cannot model.


I can only comment there is a mass of forensic evidence for life in Eucharistic miracles. It happened, the question is why not whether.

By comparison None whatsoever for abiogenesis. Plenty of smoke. None of it fire. The fact a mass of publications speculate on parts of a process neither shows it happened nor how. Nor is any of it actually defined. Don’t get me wrong - it might even be true. But it is pure speculation not evidence.

The contrast between them is stark. One has evidence, the other just an idea.

By way of comparison on how the scientific gatekeepers act:

The evidence also shows statistical significance for telepathy.
Nobody has found a flaw in The sheldrake experiment technique debated at Royal society , indeed - and here is the issue - the critics discounted it because of apriori belief, wolpert didn’t even comment on the evidence, his talk against it an ill informed rant. Dawkins similar on a TV programme, Because it offends their
“ credo”

If it was false they should identify flaws.

Just as you have not commented on the Eucharistic miracle evidence.


Now let’s dismantle specious ideas ( not yours, but often said in this context)

“ I’ll only believe it if it is a peer reviewed journal”
Criminals are put on death row without journal reports. Forensic labs put them there.

Journals are selective in what they will publish , if it offends their “ credo” the letter by the editor of nature about sheldrake was the least professional document I ever saw…

“ peer review” - often a partisan joke , eg
The shroud dating was a farce by labs who refused to heed warnings from archaeologists using textile dating , even to involve those who understood the shroud textile! Plenty of books prove it so. Marino was first to identify problems with the samples via fluorescence etc . Rogers “ chemical perspective” knocked it out of the park, showing not only cotton but also the linen at the edge didn’t match the linen elsewhere. The edge had dye, the rest didn’t. The muppets tested a bad sample because they failed to heed the protocol, or do chemical analysis first.
“ rape of the shroud” and others books prove it.

So Marino wrote a paper highlighting the problems.
The “peers” chosen by various mags were the very same labs whose credibility was wrecked by the paper . Needless to say they ALL rejected it. Marino was right. But It didn’t get published.

I saw the same at various conferences. Professors actively attacking each other in a way that makes schoolboy scraps look more professional, and makes schoolboy argument look erudite. These are “ peers”.

The red herring.
“ I’ll believe it when it’s repeated in a peer reviewed journal”
First you cannot get funding for repeats.
Second you cannot get repeats published.
It’s against terms.

So the only one to try to duplicate sheldrake failed, but only because the technique was substantially different. It showed nothing.

Then the problem with peers again…

Gatekeepers of Science decide a priori whether evidence matches the credo. Nothing else permitted. Even if manifestly true.


I really don’t get the mentality of universities who have refused to test Eucharistic samples when they know the origin. It happened a lot to such as tesoriero and Willesee.

You would have thought they would be only too happy to expose a fraud. Their behaviour suggests they were scared they would end up confirming what all others found. The samples passed the tests.

It wasn't the forensic claims I was calling absurd, it was the idea of an omnipotent being making the proposed gesture - as I explained.

That's mistaken in several ways - evolution (including chemical evolution) is not a product of random chance alone; it is only absurd to someone that doesn't understand it.

There is circumstantial evidence that it happened (the appearance of very simple life when a previously uninhabitable environment became habitable); a number of mechanisms have been proposed for it and surprising progress has been made in testing them.

Protocell structures have been around for decades - e.g. lipid vesicles, and more recent work with self-assembling vesicles that concentrate external chemicals, grow, and divide.

We don't expect to observe it happening today because it may have taken hundreds of thousands of years, and even if it is possible in contemporary Earth's very different environments, given that all the likely niches are already occupied by living things that consume the necessary resources, it seems a better use of time and money to investigate how it could have happened - and some unexpected dscoveries have resulted.

We already have plenty of evidence of 'self-building' - much of it discovered during abiogenesis research.

Your opinion is uninformed. The peer-reviewed research papers as a google away; you don't need to splash any cash on pricey unspecified books that may or may not contain credible & verifiable information.

Anything that contradicts multiple fundamental laws of physics gets short shrift. There are countless claims of that nature, why waste time on them unless the claim can be unequivocally demonstrated?

So what, exactly, is the claim? Is it a religious claim?

I'm well aware of the sacrament of the Eucharist - I grew up with the unhygienic wafer sticking to the roof of my mouth and slowly dissolving, twice a week, and neither I nor anyone else I ever encountered ever experienced it changing to human flesh (yeuch!).

Healing is a physiological phenomenon. Healing by waving of hands, crystals, prayer, etc., is not demonstrably effective - although it may make some people feel better (placebo effect).


Personally, I'm incredibly glad to be out of it - a cannibalistic sacrament in celebration of a human sacrifice just seems so.... wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Laws of physics are man made, they are part of a model not universe. Easily changed, when evidence proves they no longer explain observation adequately. Science does it repeatedly. So yes , Eucharistic phenomena show models are wrong.

And yet the vast preponderance of empirical evidence shows the models are extremely accurate and the little evidence we have of 'bleeding this & bleeding that' claims is often mistaken or fraudulent... hmm, tricky one.

By comparison None whatsoever for abiogenesis. Plenty of smoke. None of it fire. The fact a mass of publications speculate on parts of a process neither shows it happened nor how. Nor is any of it actually defined.

That's why it's still a hypothesis (a number of hypotheses), IOW hypothetical. Research has identified and reproduced in vitro many of the required stages for abiogenesis - your lack of knowledge of that notwithstanding. Abiogenesis is defined as the hypothesis that life originated from inanimate matter.

The contrast between them is stark. One has evidence, the other just an idea.

One is a claim, the other a hypothesis. Comparing a miraculous claim with a scientific hypothesis is apples and oranges - I can see why you resort to it, but... meh.

But the evidence also shows statistical significance for telepathy.
Nobody has found a flaw in The sheldrake experiment technique debated at Royal society , indeed - and here is the issue - the critics discounted it because of apriori belief, wolpert didn’t even comment on the evidence.

I spent some years studying paranormal phenomena a while back, particularly the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which initially seemed to have impressive results, and the one striking commonality of all paranormal claims was that the better controlled the experiments, the less interesting the results.

Independent replicators were unable to reproduce the PEAR results. I'm not sure which Sheldrake experiment you're referring to (the sense of being stared at?), but all Sheldrake's published experiments have been examined in detail and replications done of several - the replicators were unable to confirm his results, and the examination of his work produced criticisms of both methodology and data analysis (particularly the 'dogs know when their master is returning' experiment).

I think it's quite likely that both the PEAR group and Sheldrake honestly believe the results they got indicate anomalous effects, but there are good reasons why experimental methodologies have become increasingly strict, to the extent of triple blinding and the double-blinding of peer review, at considerable cost in time, money, and effort. It is because we have empirical evidence that, if you're hoping or expecting to get a particular outcome, however honestly you think you're working, you can unwittingly influence the outcome at all stages.

Just as you have not commented on the Eucharistic miracle evidence.

As I explained, without indisputable provenance, it's just a claim, not evidence.

let’s dismantle specious ideas
“ I’ll only believe it if it is a journal”
Criminals are put on death row without journal reports. Forensic labs put them there.

Talking of specious claims, check out the number of exonerations of death row inmates. Considering the many obstacles to exoneration, those numbers are truly striking. What price forensics, when at one stroke they can condemn an innocent man to death, and at the next stroke (decades later) exonerate him (if he's exceptionally lucky)?

Journals are selective in what they will publish , if it offends their “ credo” the letter by the editor of nature about sheldrake was the least professional document I ever saw…

Ah, the 'hasty generalisation' fallacy and 'poisoning the well' in one sentence.

“ peer review” - often a partisan joke , eg
The shroud dating was a farce by labs who refused to heed warnings from archaeologists using textile dating even to involve those who understood the shroud textile! Plenty of books prove it so. Marino was first to identify problems with the samples via fluorescence etc . Rogers “ chemical perspective” knocked its out of the park, showing not only cotton but also the linen at the edge didn’t match the rest.
“ rape of the shroud” and others books prove it.
Marino wrote a paper highlighting the problems.
The peers chosen by various mags were the labs whose credibility was wrecked by the paper . Needless to say they ALL rejected it. Marino was right.

The 'Gish Galop' - it's all coming out now.

I saw the same at various conferences. Professors actively attacking each other in a way that makes schoolboy scraps look more professional . These are “ peers”

“ I’ll believe it when it’s repeated in a peer reviewed journal”
First you cannot get funding for repeats.
Second you cannot get repeats published. It’s against terms.
Then the problem with peers again…

Gatekeepers of Science decide a priori whether evidence matches the credo. Nothing else permitted. Even if manifestly true.

Meanwhile forensic evidence discounted before

Right - I get it - when your pet miracle is doubted, attack wildly in all directions!

You've made both your position clear - science is clearly a huge waste of time by blinkered argumentative ignoramuses; one wonders how it produces such extraordinary results...

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
But I think we’ve reached the end of the road with it.

The forensic evidence exists. Not once but at least 8 instances lab researched , I am aware of. They contain the common factors I listed. Even though the researchers, continents , labs , had nothing in common. So the idea of a coordinated fraud is not a viable hypothesis.

None seem to want to look at the test data before discount it.

It’s worse than that , when universities and labs discovered the origin before testing they refused to get involved! why? Ask tesoriero , the lawyer. Science is about truth. They seem to want to limit what they accept as truth. They could have been paid to debunk religion, you would have thought they would welcome the chance. But I think they realised looking at others data, it wasn’t going to be simple to do that.

On the points you ask, the debate at royal society is out there on the web somewhere about the Nolan sisters experiment “ do you know who is ringing you” using one receiver and random callers.

Its an easy experiment to test because it is not transmitting shapes by mind.

It had way past statistical signifance. The use of biological twins may be critical who knows. Could it prove quantum entanglement on cell division?

But my comment was less on the evidence , which is fascinating, than the wholly unscientific way wolpert ( later Dawkins, others ) sought to debunk it.

It was clear their opposition was apriori, not evidence based. Sheldrake cannot get money to perform such research. Nobody wants to touch it. Or publish what he does.

My comment on telepathy more generally demonstrated was Jessica Utts meta studies on all DoD data. Seemed to determine significance to me.
I’m aware of other tests , fascinating too!

And yet the vast preponderance of empirical evidence shows the models are extremely accurate and the little evidence we have of 'bleeding this & bleeding that' claims is often mistaken or fraudulent... hmm, tricky one.

That's why it's still a hypothesis (a number of hypotheses), IOW hypothetical. Research has identified and reproduced in vitro many of the required stages for abiogenesis - your lack of knowledge of that notwithstanding. Abiogenesis is defined as the hypothesis that life originated from inanimate matter.

One is a claim, the other a hypothesis. Comparing a miraculous claim with a scientific hypothesis is apples and oranges - I can see why you resort to it, but... meh.

I spent some years studying paranormal phenomena a while back, particularly the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which initially seemed to have impressive results, and the one striking commonality of all paranormal claims was that the better controlled the experiments, the less interesting the results.

Independent replicators were unable to reproduce the PEAR results. I'm not sure which Sheldrake experiment you're referring to (the sense of being stared at?), but all Sheldrake's published experiments have been examined in detail and replications done of several - the replicators were unable to confirm his results, and the examination of his work produced criticisms of both methodology and data analysis (particularly the 'dogs know when their master is returning' experiment).

I think it's quite likely that both the PEAR group and Sheldrake honestly believe the results they got indicate anomalous effects, but there are good reasons why experimental methodologies have become increasingly strict, to the extent of triple blinding and the double-blinding of peer review, at considerable cost in time, money, and effort. It is because we have empirical evidence that, if you're hoping or expecting to get a particular outcome, however honestly you think you're working, you can unwittingly influence the outcome at all stages.

As I explained, without indisputable provenance, it's just a claim, not evidence.

Talking of specious claims, check out the number of exonerations of death row inmates. Considering the many obstacles to exoneration, those numbers are truly striking. What price forensics, when at one stroke they can condemn an innocent man to death, and at the next stroke (decades later) exonerate him (if he's exceptionally lucky)?

Ah, the 'hasty generalisation' fallacy and 'poisoning the well' in one sentence.

The 'Gish Galop' - it's all coming out now.


Right - I get it - when your pet miracle is doubted, attack wildly in all directions!

You've made both your position clear - science is clearly a huge waste of time by blinkered argumentative ignoramuses; one wonders how it produces such extraordinary results...

 

[Neogaia777]

I've often wondered why that, now at least, God either does not, or will not, or can't, etc, or just won't, make Himself just very, very obvious and just plainly known to all nowadays without anyone having to search for Him or seek Him out or really have to dig very much at all ever, or keep and have and/or maintain faith for a while and keep digging without ever hearing from Him or really ever knowing He is even there at all ever, or having 100% irrefutable scientific proof that He even exists, etc...?

But, my guess is He has His reasons, etc, and He's gone silent for a while before also, no miracles, no speaking to anyone, nothing, for hundreds of years at a time, etc...

And it also says in the last days that He will be trying to find faith in the earth, and will maybe be finding very slim pickings, and I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it, etc...

True faith has to be tested in order to grow and become what it is to become, etc...

Anyway, God does not make Himself blatantly undeniably obvious to all, and I'm sure He has His reasons right now, etc, might only be care about finding faith in the earth only right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[chad kincham]

Hugh Ross was a radio astronomer (not an astrophysicist) who's short, but middling, career in that field ended more than 40 years ago. Since then he has been a professional creationist.

It's disappointing that you can't continue this discussion as all you seem to have is dumping long strings of text you don't understand.

And you don’t understand that his website listed the universal constants that show fine tuning and it was a long list, posted without going into the science behind it, and if he had, it would be a thousand page book.

Despite the fact your sources are found to contradict each other......

So enlighten me - explain how the fact that creation of energy at the BB requiring a supernatural event because of it violating thermodynamics, in any way contradicts the rest of the theory.

It doesn’t deny the theory, it only explains the source of the energy.

 

[chad kincham]

The multiverse is a consequence of eternal inflation which is an extension of inflation theory.

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page,[16] Brian Greene,[17][18] Max Tegmark,[19] Alan Guth,[20] Andrei Linde,[21] Michio Kaku,[22] David Deutsch,[23] Leonard Susskind,[24] Alexander Vilenkin,[25] Yasunori Nomura,[26] Raj Pathria,[27] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[28][29][30] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[31] Sean Carroll[32] and Stephen Hawking.[33]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: David Gross,[34] Paul Steinhardt,[35][36] Anna Ijjas,[36] Abraham Loeb,[36] David Spergel,[37] Neil Turok,[38] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[39] Michael S. Turner,[40] Roger Penrose,[41] George Ellis,[42][43] Joe Silk,[44] Carlo Rovelli,[45] Adam Frank,[46] Marcelo Gleiser,[46] Jim Baggott[47] and Paul Davies.[48]

The multiverse is the recycled version of spontaneous generation of life kicked up a level.

IMO.

 

[chad kincham]

Hugh Ross was a radio astronomer (not an astrophysicist) who's short, but middling, career in that field ended more than 40 years ago. Since then he has been a professional creationist.

It's disappointing that you can't continue this discussion as all you seem to have is dumping long strings of text you don't understand.

Everything I posted, I understand, so you can drop the insults anytime.

Hugh Ross is hardly just a radio announcer BTW, , so your bias is very evident:

Ross obtained his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto[1][2][3]and his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[4] and he was a postdoctoral research fellow for five years at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies.[8][9][10]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everything I posted, I understand, so you can drop the insults anytime.

Hugh Ross is hardly just a radio announcer BTW, , so your bias is very evident:

Ross obtained his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto[1][2][3]and his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[4] and he was a postdoctoral research fellow for five years at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies.[8][9][10]

I said radio *astronomer* (do pay attention) and that's exactly what his CV shows (also a search on ADS). He also ended that career long ago to become a professional liar (er, creationist). [I'm talking of the professionals only.]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
But I think we’ve reached the end of the road with it.

The forensic evidence exists. Not once but at least 8 lab researched I am aware of. They contain the common factors I listed. Even though the researchers, continents , labs , had nothing in common. So the idea of a coordinated fraud is not a viable hypothesis.

None seem to want to look at the test data before discount it.

It’s worse than that , when universities and labs discovered the origin before testing they refused to get involved! why? Ask tesoriero , the lawyer. Science is about truth. They seem to want to limit what they accept as truth. They could have been paid to debunk religion, you would have thought they would welcome the chance. But I think they realised looking at others data, it wasn’t going to be simple to do that.

On the points you ask, the debate at royal society is out there on the web somewhere about the Nolan sisters experiment “ do you know who is ringing you” using one receiver and random callers.

Its an easy experiment to test because it is not transmitting shapes by mind.

It had way past statistical signifance. The use of biological twins may be critical who knows. Could it prove quantum entanglement on cell division?

But my comment was less on the evidence , which is fascinating, than the wholly unscientific way wolpert ( later Dawkins, others ) sought to debunk it.

It was clear their opposition was apriori, not evidence based. Sheldrake cannot get money to perform such research. Nobody wants to touch it. Or publish what he does.

My comment on telepathy more generally demonstrated was Jessica Utts meta studies on all DoD data. Seemed to determine significance to me.
I’m aware of other tests , fascinating too!

OK. A few outspoken opinionated attention-seeking scientists is not a representative sample. I'm sure I could find even more outspoken opinionated Christian attention seekers...

BTW, on the Nolan sisters, thrice no - quantum entanglement doesn't allow classical information transfer; also at macro-scales in a normal environment entanglement decoheres in microseconds; also the entanglement has to occur in a shared quantum event.

Also, for that, and the other stuff, there is extremely good reason to think that there are no undiscovered forces or fields that are significant at human scales that could facilitate the paranormal claims in question. Any as yet undiscovered forces must either be too weak or too short-range to be significant, or they would have already been discovered in experiments at, for example, the Large Hadron Collider. Here is a talk explaining in layman's terms how and why this is the case (the relevant part is at 33 mins, but it's all interesting if you like 'big science'):

 

[Mountainmike]

There are many that are “ Very obvious”

Some in front of tens of thousands witnesses.
Prophesies fulfilled.
Physical evidence.
All sorts.

One problem is some centre around phenomena Protestants would refuse to accept, regardless of truth.

The day a miracle was performed so “ all would see and believe”
13 Oct 1917

3 Infant peasant kids who couldn’t read predicted the fall of Russia before it was even a power.
They Talked of the sign to happen in the time of a pope, who had yet to become a lope, of an “unknown light in the sky in his reign heralding the start of another war,” 20 years later. In the last days of that Pope as the Germans annexed Austria a red light covered the whole northern hemisphere reported in all the worlds papers in jan 38. No Aurora has ever come close.

but They als prophesied a miracle to happen six months ahead,” So all would see and believe”. and it happened at the time and date they said in front of 70000 witnesses, including secular and atheist press, and many professional witnesses . Some reported it up to 30 miles away unaware it would happen , so not mass hysteria.

There are many books full of witness statements. Even of atheist scientists. It also left physical signs. A land turned into a mud bath by days of torrential rain ( which doesn’t dry in days or weeks there, I know I have a villa close by) baked dry in seconds.

However people try to rationalise that extraordinary event as meteorology, cannot explain the prophesy. The time and date were exact. Or the subsequent prophesies fulfilled. They predicted Their own deaths.

Yet Sceptics now refuse to accept any of it regardless. People impose a priori views on it. Science is no longer objective.

It refuses to even test things it does not “ like”, take Eucharistic miracles.

They are discounted by sceptics without even looking at evidence.
remember the statement “ an evil generation looks for signs”

I've often wondered why that, now at least, God either does not, or will not, or can't, etc, or just won't, make Himself just very, very obvious and just plainly known to all nowadays without anyone having to search for Him or seek Him out or really have to dig very much at all ever, or keep and have and/or maintain faith for a while and keep digging without ever hearing from Him or really ever knowing He is even there at all ever, or having 100% irrefutable scientific proof that He even exists, etc...?

But, my guess is He has His reasons, etc, and He's gone silent for a while before also, no miracles, no speaking to anyone, nothing, for hundreds of years at a time, etc...

And it also says in the last days that He will be trying to find faith in the earth, and will maybe be finding very slim pickings, and I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it, etc...

True faith has to be tested in order to grow and become what it is to become, etc...

Anyway, God does not make Himself blatantly undeniably obvious to all, and I'm sure He has His reasons right now, etc, might only be care about finding faith in the earth only right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Mountainmike]

I was just being mischevious with entanglement.

As you see it’s an experiment that deserves proper critique.

The results are easy to quantify.

I’ll watch your video.

Will you ever read the Eucharistic miracle forensic reports?

OK. A few outspoken opinionated attention-seeking scientists is not a representative sample. I'm sure I could find even more outspoken opinionated Christian attention seekers...

BTW, on the Nolan sisters, thrice no - quantum entanglement doesn't allow classical information transfer; also at macro-scales in a normal environment entanglement decoheres in microseconds; also the entanglement has to occur in a shared quantum event.

Also, for that, and the other stuff, there is extremely good reason to think that there are no undiscovered forces or fields that are significant at human scales that could facilitate the paranormal claims in question. Any as yet undiscovered forces must either be too weak or too short-range to be significant, or they would have already been discovered in experiments at, for example, the Large Hadron Collider. Here is a talk explaining in layman's terms how and why this is the case (the relevant part is at 33 mins, but it's all interesting if you like 'big science'):

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you don’t understand that his website listed the universal constants that show fine tuning and it was a long list, posted without going into the science behind it, and if he had, it would be a thousand page book.

All I've asked is for you to engage in a discussion about one of them. Then I offered a chance to discuss a different one. I have no need to view the web site of a scientist who turned propagandist. No one needs you to post (Gish Gallop style) large blocks of his text.

Talk about the speed of light, or don't. It's completely up to you. But until Ross starts posting here, I'm not discussing it with him, only you (or other posters).

 

[Hans Blaster]

The multiverse is the recycled version of spontaneous generation of life kicked up a level.

IMO.

That's weird, because the two things are nothing like each other. Also sjastro told you exactly what it was in the post you replied to:

The multiverse is a consequence of eternal inflation which is an extension of inflation theory.