Inductive Atheism

The mans verified track record is all that is in question.Maybe this will be more suitable?http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

He wasn't always right. It isn’t where he has been wrong that has made him a poster board for psychic anomalies. He was right ALOT. You’re just ignoring information. If you do not understand the document just say so.The point of the document is to show that many people exhibit 'supernatural' abilities of perception.Also from the passage:
"It is worth speculating on what this might mean for determining how psychic functioning works. Physicists are currently grappling with the concept of time, and cannot rule out precognition as being consistent with current understanding. Perhaps it is the case that we do have a psychic sense, much like our other senses, and that it works by scanning the future for possibilities of major change much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change and our ears are responsive to auditory change. That idea is consistent with anecdotal reports of precognition, which are generally concerned with events involving major life change. Laboratory remote viewing may in part work by someone directing the viewer to focus on a particular point in the future, that in which he or she receives the feedback from the experiment. It may also be the case that this same sense can scan the environment in actual time and detect change as well.Even if someone can see your future, it doesn’t mean that it’s not natural to true function of our universe.But do 'supernatural' abilities exist? Yes. Now ask: why call it supernatural if its natural and we just don't know how it works?At least some scientists understand that. If they didn't, how could they do research and come up with theories?It isn't the imagination when its researched science showing these super-cognitive abilities are greater than chance, and have yet to discover the reason these abilities exist.From the document:
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.Now the data clearly shows supernatural phenomenon is not just the imagination. So are you now going to attack the reputation of the California University?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Potato patata. Your arguing semantics.1. supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.1. paranormal/ˌparəˈnrməl/
Adjective: Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding The Cayce validation isn’t necessary since the other document already renders your theory invalid.
If your curios research Cayce for real:Read this link:
Return of the Phoenix: Book One: The Veil; Chapter 4 - Cayce’s Accuracy; by MW MandevilleA quote from the link:
"Many doctors studied scores of Cayce’s readings, beginning with Dr. Blackburn and Dr. Ketchum. They attested to his inexplicable ability to consistently deliver accurate results. These findings eventually persuaded doctors to work full time with him to organize his psychic hospital."

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You are playing the sophist debate game to attempt to win an argument you clearly have lost.Please wrap your brain around this:Nothing true in this universe is supernatural. The soul, if it exists well beyond the physical body, is no more supernatural to be able to do so; simply because it would be natural to the dynamics of the universe. [It is] just misunderstood.The question is not: do things exist beyond the realm of true physics such as supernatural events that appear to? Answer: no.The question is: do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES. The psychic abilities exhibited are beyond current understanding of physics. So what do people consider it? Supernatural. However, nothing true; is truly supernatural.I have nothing left to debate with you. having kept to the topic of this thread and shown; that there is more to supernatural phenomenon than peoples imagination. Many acts beyond understanding have fed imaginations.I hope scientists eventually discover the reason behind these occurrences to further the knowledge of mankind. Ignoring the fact they exist will not do that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You took quotes using the word supernatural in a different context.The topic of debate is: Is there another source other than human imagination to explain supernatural phenomenon.My reply was: yes there are. Human imagination did not invent the psychic phenomenon’s that have been scientifically studied and found to be real events with no explanation to suffice.People did not imagine the supernatural phenomenon, it was real. What is imagined is the source (or reason) behind the behaviors.If all of the physics of the universe were understood, it would be called natural. And because it is real, it truly is natural, just not understood and labeled supernatural.So: supernatural events are real. But in truth, are natural to true dynamics of this universe.See how difficult it can be to explain when the same word is used in different context?But the end result is the same: some supernatural events are real even though it is a natural behavior within the true laws of the universe. And one day I hope mankind can find the answers.As far as ‘human minds’ being a source: every idea, every sense, and every action: is an interpretation of the mind.
Imagination is a tool of that mind. if it was only imagination: then the event would not be happening. People would only believe they are. But the events are real with no explanation. Have I clarified my position to you? Sorry about English: the language can suck. And it’s my first language.Edited by tesla, : spacing

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Imagined things are not actual events.
Physic phenomenon and other supernatural phenomenon have been recognized as actual events by many in the scientific community.Therefore: Supernatural events are not just products of imagination.The confusion is: a deeper understanding of the word supernatural.Supernatural is a word ascribed to events unexplainable by science. However, just because something cannot be explained by science doesn’t mean that one day it will. Therefore: once science progresses: the actual events will no longer be considered supernatural.That’s as clear as i can explain my position that the data I have supplied supports.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

1. supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ərəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Supernatural falls under the same category as paranormal activity; in the definition being: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.Talking to the dead is a source of psychics information [according to many physics]. They claim 'spirit guides' inform them.We can’t prove it’s not true. We can't prove it's their imagination. Neither can we prove that it isn't. But the abilities they have beyond what we know to be natural are true enough, so how else do you explain it?Is it your belief that all notions of 'God' and 'Spirit' and 'Soul' are simply the imaginations of a needy mankind? I believe you do. But evidence of faith healing exists. Why does faith healing work?Perhaps the best evidence of supernatural 'God' is a universe of stuff with no explanation of how it could exist at all. Changing from ’form to form- for all eternity-without an explanation for the first cause.I consider ‘existence’ a supernatural thing. I cannot explain how it is possible. Many don’t appear to see it that way. They accept [existing] is, then find a philosophy to exist within it [existence], and then live and die by their chosen philosophies. I find nothing wrong with any philosophy that’s chosen.Everyone believes their own philosophy is the best. That is natural. But when we approach science, I consider science a philosophy of evidenced belief. And so you say more evidence supports that God and spirits and other supernatural phenomenon have no true acts to base the beliefs on. And I say there is more evidence to support water is heavier than air. However: science understands water is lighter than air. Science cannot explain or validate supernatural event claims. But neither has science been able to prove they are not real events. In fact, because of paranormal research it has been found the events themselves are real.I stand by my position because it is greater evidenced there is more than imagination involved when it comes to supernatural events.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

It was correctly labeled supernatural until science understood it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Define supernatural for me please.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Why because I used the standard definition?Do you honestly believe the capabilities of man ALWAYS included the ability to explain the sun?You’re reaching.You meant to say: all imagined supernatural events are figments of the imagination.You instead said: All supernatural events are figments of the imagination.Science has proven supernatural events are natural when technology and understanding reveal the way the universe works.So: supernatural events are real, not yet understood, and explanations of the events are simply imagined reasoning’s for the behavior with no proof of the reasons.The reasons are not the events. The events are true.I.E. a man has an interaction with God. Did he? He believes he did. Can you prove it was his imagination? No. so what do you have proof of? Nothing. so how can you say it was the man’s imagination? Because that’s what you choose to believe. that’s all.You have run this debate into the ground and have proven your theory is inadequate to the definition of supernatural which I have posted twice.Furthermore: scientists explore supernatural phenomenon to the limitations of science. Now why would they do that if they didn't believe it was anything but the marvelous power of imagination? Because more than imagination is at play. no one knows what.Let’s assume people accept your theory: all supernatural events are just imagination. Ok, now who is going to discover anything beyond the current abilities of science if they never even examine currently labeled 'supernatural' events? Answer: no one.I have said my peace, and proven your theory wrong. You can choose to believe what you will, as you will. but I believe those who choose to believe your theory are just going to be closed minded atheist willing to endorse their own beliefs with a dogmatic stance no more, and no less, than any creationist, Christian, or otherwise stubborn ideology that you profess to be distasteful to science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

LMAO This belief is no more erroneous than string theory or the big bang theory which more than likely will proof to be just as ridiculous if science ever evolves far enough to understand cause of existing.By your definitions it would appear all things not proven are figments of the imagination.The truth is all our explanations fall short when they pass the limits of science. This does not mean there is not truth in them.Perhaps the ideas and definitions of soul and spirit and ghosts and God will all be discovered to be true when mankind discovers enough via science. However, this does not mean that it is strictly imagination. The events are REAL. Its explanations that are lacking.Your still saying: all interpretations of what we call supernatural are from the imagination. And I will agree with that. So is the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe, if were discussing actual proof.However, it is still true the events the ideas are based on have been scientifically researched and found true to the standards of science, yet lacking any explanation other than what can be imagined.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I notice you said "supernatural hypothesis".
Kind of funny wording but I can't disagree with this point.Which also must be pointed out, all hypothesis are imaginations based on data we haven’t proven A final point: the events are of course real, just beyond current abilities to understand.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

And you think paranormal and supernatural phenomenon has zero evidence? There is tons of evidence, thousands of books and the fact a vast majority of the population of this planet believe in it. Scientifically nothing is proven. Even in science many theories are well beyond understanding and have theories based on data no one truly understands yet.The only reason scientists don't do more research than is already being done in supernatural and paranormal events is because scientists have no idea where to start looking, or what question to ask.UFO's real? Yes. Are they understood? No. and how can we go about researching an unidentified flying object? Are they there? Yes. But unidentified means we cannot explain it. Which also has something to say about how controlled the experiments are may also be affecting the experiment. If you take a fish out of water it will die. But at least they are running experiments trying to explain the phenomenon and not just ignoring the fact they exist.Edited by tesla, : typing errors

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Then by your opinion there is nothing outside the realms of known physics.That would mean we know everything there is to know about the universe.You can believe what you wish. Evidence (i guess) is dependent upon belief. People ignore scientific evidence, and people ignore personal testimonies.Believe what you will. I reject your theory.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I must also reject this hypothesis.It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet.Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides