Re:  - There is a Hole in Materialism .

By Paul Edwards

E-mail: [email protected] 

 

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40315.htm

> I recall when I was a teenager, one day my mother 
> told us, she dreamt a giant had fallen from a height 
> and its pieces were scattered all around. The dream 
> left her traumatized. That very day, the big and 
> overweight maid of our neighbor went to the roof to 
> shovel the snow off. She fell from the third floor and 
> her brain was scattered all around.


Wow, your mum can predict the future - impressive!


> All we heard so far from the materialists who debated
> with me on this issue is that psychics are not capable of 
> reading what lottery numbers will win and similar 
> childish arguments to dismiss this faculty. Psychic 
> ability is not about guessing the lottery number. They 
> simply can't do that. It is not about predicting the future. 
> It is about dream-like impressions that psychics get 
> while awake.


What?  They can't predict the future, after you just provided
irrefutable proof that your mum can predict the future?

Seems like Sinality is more contradictory than Islam.

BTW, I don't see why lottery numbers are considered
"childish", but giants masquerading as maids are to be
considered "adult-quality proof".

It so happens that lottery numbers aren't ambiguous, and
if your mum was to dream about them instead, and win the
lottery 5 times in a row, the whole world would start
paying very close attention.  This is exactly the sort of
thing that can be studied scientifically, which, surprise
suprise, is the one thing that psychics never appear to be
able to do, despite the fact that "we're all psychic".

But it seems that for some (completely inexplicable)
reason, the "spirits" appear to prefer to talk in vague
terms, a bit like Praagh really.


> We can give all the proof that matter is not everything 
> but a materialist will not be able to agree.


Wrong.  I don't know any of what you call "materialists"
who would deny that God existed, or psychics existed,
if PROOF is provided.

As an atheist, if you can arrange for God to come over
to my house, show me his magic power, maybe fly me
around Sydney just like Superman would, you would
come damn close to having convinced me.  At this stage
I would probably assume that I'm either dreaming or
hallucinating, and arrange for God's demo to be gotten
down on videotape, and in fact, I'd go to the local TV
station to get them to film it, and call the cops as well.

BTW, when these little girls go missing, it would be
great if all the genuine psychics would hop into a plane,
go to the location where the girl is being held, take a
photograph, then give it to the police.  It would be
WONDERFUL if psychics were actually real, we
could make the world a better place.

Again, you are saying that materialists/skeptics/whatever
deny the possibility that these things exist.  Did you do a
survey to find out that skeptics deny the POSSIBILITY?
What percentage said that it was impossible?  I don't know
ANY.  Not 1.  0%.  All the skeptics, including myself, am
very interested to see this.  Certainly I think the chances
are extremely low, based on past disappointments, but I
am eager to see the psychics/spirits in action.  All we ask
for is for the paranormal ability (like Praagh talking to the
dead) to be demonstrated in a controlled environment.

There is a lot of things skeptics are eager to learn from the
dead.  There are large tracts of history which we would
like to fill in.  The dead can help us.  You're the one who
knows how to operate an ouija board.  That's all you need
to collect the $1 million.  You seem to have an aversion
to huge quantities of money.  Very, very strange.  It is things
like that, and the accompanying lame excuses, that make
skeptics ever-skeptical.

By the way, you mentioned the anecdotes used in a court
of law.  You are correct.  People are extremely unreliable
witnesses, and some people are wrongly convicted because
of that.  That is why there is a policy of allowing 10 guilty
to walk free rather than have 1 innocent jailed.  And that is
why physical evidence is far more valuable.  And also why
witness testimonies are corroborated against the physical
evidence.

If 3 witnesses say that they saw a man stab a woman, then
it will probably pass the "beyond reasonable doubt", as we
certainly know that human beings are capable of using a
knife, it has been adequately documented and the process
is well-understood.

If 3 witnesses say that the woman was taken by little green
men in a spaceship, then it is far less likely to be believed,
because no-one has ever provided evidence that there is
such a thing as little green men or spaceships.  A more
likely explanation would be collaboration between the 3
witnesses, or some sort of magician's illusion to mask the
murder/abduction of the woman.

Leastways, I've never seen a court issue an arrest warrant
on little green John Does for kidnap and unlawful medical
examination of a US citizen.


> Just as a religionist is convinced he is right, a materialist 
> is convinced he is right.


Not quite true.  A religionist, such as a Sinalist, is indeed
convinced he is right, and no amount of evidence would
seem sufficient.  Even if Praagh were to go on live TV and
admit that he was a fraud, and explain that it is simply cold
reading, the Sinalist would insist that Praagh is just trying
to protect the spirit world by lying.

However, the "materialist" thinks that it is LIKELY that he
is right, but is willing to discard his theory if EVIDENCE,
not ANECDOTE, is presented.  In fact, the skeptics have
even presented a $1 million reward so that the psychics have
a financial incentive to submit their claims to scientific
scrutiny.

This is your queue to pop over to Randi's house armed with
your ouija board.  You are convinced you can talk to the dead.
Why are you so scared to collect on the $1 million reward?
If you can make the ouija board produce words instead of
random rubbish, you'll get paid handsomely.

Or you could trot out some lame excuse.  Which will it be?


> What is the explanation of Piggy and my friend's story? 
> Are they anecdotal? 


The explanation is the "law of large numbers".  There was
a woman who won the lottery twice in a row.  The odds
of a *specific* woman doing that are astronomical.  The
odds of *some* woman doing that are not so high.  Time
for you to do some reading of skeptic web sites.


> Or take the example of Aparthib who claims the milk 
> drinking of Ganesh was "scientifically evidenced" 
> and yet he says there is an explanation for that but fails 
> to tell us what that explanation is.


I have already provided links for this.  All you need to do
is read them, instead of writing about it.
Here it is again:

http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/ganesh.html

http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/leisure/trivia/ganapati-milk.html

The coloured milk and the buckets of milk are dead giveaways.
Oh yeah, and the mass hysteria is a bit like the mass movement
to Mecca every year - meaningless.


BFN.  Paul.

[Mukto-mona] [Articles] [Recent Debate] [Special Event ] [Moderators] [Forum]