Re: I am affronted by the presence of god
Ok, again, gay rainbow unicorns. I believe in gay rainbow unicorns. If science is supposed to disprove everything, then please tell me how to disprove gay rainbow unicorns?
You can't start from the assumption that something is true and then prove it false. Maybe gay rainbow unicorns are only found on the surface of neutron stars in the Andromeda galaxy. As long as I start from the assumption that gay rainbow unicorns must exist, science can't disprove them. Sometimes science can, for example if I said "gay rainbow unicorns can be found in Central Park in new York City on Tuesdays at noon".
If you want me to take back my comment about how I think people here are intentionally avoiding understanding science to hold onto their beliefs, explain how psionics is different? Every time science disproves it, the bar just gets moved: maybe it can't be done in the lab because the instruments somehow destroy it, maybe you have to be holding the spoon for the mental energies to connect, and so on. I say what I'm saying about intentionally ignoring science because even the most religious schools out there--the crazy cultish ones--teach you why this kind of argument is bad sometime in middle school. You have to explicitly decide to ignore what is literally the most basic thing in science or any type of argument where one side must be correct to maintain the argument about psionics and other mental powers. It's only in the realm of philosophy, where there is no objective truth, that you get to use other structures. And even there, it's frowned on.
I have less of a problem with religion as a whole in this regard because religious people don't literally move the bar a couple weeks after each experiment rather than accepting the results. The religion stuff at least takes a generation to shift the bar. They shouldn't be moving the bar because that's bad arguing, but they're at least not going "hahaha, science, time to purposely move the bar, here's my blog post with something quantum interference can't measure it something something" a few days after the papers come out. They don't argue properly, but they at least *try*. maybe that will change as science continues moving faster, I don't know.
But the psionics stuff, you have to actively not look to believe in it. You have to actively ignore the most basic tenants of science. You have to actively not google things like "why is telekinesis impossible". The only way to believe in it is to be incredibly gullible, be incredibly uneducated, or actively work to avoid trying to find out if you're right about it.
Provide me a way for science to actively disprove gay rainbow unicorns that I can't counter with an argument along the lines of what the mental powers people use and I'll take it back. Until then, I stand by this viewpoint.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
