# Thread: How scientific is the James Randi Paranormal Challenge?

1. The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?

2.

3.

4. If one can scientifically demonstrate something which is beyond the scope of scientific understanding, then it is no longer a paranormal phenomenon.

Not sure why this is in religion, either. It's a much more appropriate topic for the trash can...

5. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
If one can scientifically demonstrate something which is beyond the scope of scientific understanding, then it is no longer a paranormal phenomenon.

Not sure why this is in religion, either. It's a much more appropriate topic for the trash can...
Not quite. If the JREF accept the challenge from whoever they allow to be tested and they win, it could still be claimed "it was just chance" and it could be.
In one video James calculated and said the guy should get one of the five answers correct by chance but there were two right. It dawned on me the process could be beaten simply by chance.
Statistics of probability are not my favorite topics but I'd love to master it.
If there are five people and five places should the person get one right simply by chance? How is your maths?

6. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
If one can scientifically demonstrate something which is beyond the scope of scientific understanding, then it is no longer a paranormal phenomenon.

Not sure why this is in religion, either. It's a much more appropriate topic for the trash can...
Not quite. If the JREF accept the challenge from whoever they allow to be tested and they win, it could still be claimed "it was just chance" and it could be.
In one video James calculated and said the guy should get one of the five answers correct by chance but there were two right. It dawned on me the process could be beaten simply by chance.
Statistics of probability are not my favorite topics but I'd love to master it.
If there are five people and five places should the person get one right simply by chance? How is your maths?
There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

The Randi Foundation is well aware of probability and statistics. Criteria for awarding the prize would of course be informed by that awareness.

7. Originally Posted by tk421

There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

The Randi Foundation is well aware of probability and statistics. Criteria for awarding the prize would of course be informed by that awareness.
I'll have to go and look at the situation again. Did the person have to get all 5 right?
First situation is you have 5 places and 5 people so you have a 1:5 chance of getting the first place right.
That leaves you 4 places and 4 people so it is 1:4 and so on.
So the odds of getting them all right is one chance in 5X4X3X2 = 120 which is not bad odds when you are going for a million dollars! From memory they had their calculations wrong. Have I done that right?

8. How scientific is the James Randi Paranormal Challenge?
I'm sure it's scientific enough to keep deluded fools from winning. The challenge has been in effect since 1964 -- with no winners yet.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Not sure why this is in religion, either. It's a much more appropriate topic for the trash can...
You got that right.

9. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk421

There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

The Randi Foundation is well aware of probability and statistics. Criteria for awarding the prize would of course be informed by that awareness.
I'll have to go and look at the situation again. Did the person have to get all 5 right?
First situation is you have 5 places and 5 people so you have a 1:5 chance of getting the first place right.
That leaves you 4 places and 4 people so it is 1:4 and so on.
So the odds of getting them all right is one chance in 5X4X3X2 = 120 which is not bad odds when you are going for a million dollars! From memory they had their calculations wrong. Have I done that right?
Which experiment are you talking about? There have been many challenges. Don't make me guess -- I have no paranormal powers. A link to the experimental protocol would be helpful.

10. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk421

There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

The Randi Foundation is well aware of probability and statistics. Criteria for awarding the prize would of course be informed by that awareness.
I'll have to go and look at the situation again. Did the person have to get all 5 right?
First situation is you have 5 places and 5 people so you have a 1:5 chance of getting the first place right.
That leaves you 4 places and 4 people so it is 1:4 and so on.
So the odds of getting them all right is one chance in 5X4X3X2 = 120 which is not bad odds when you are going for a million dollars! From memory they had their calculations wrong. Have I done that right?
Which experiment are you talking about? There have been many challenges. Don't make me guess -- I have no paranormal powers. A link to the experimental protocol would be helpful.
OK I'll have to try and find it. I have looked at just about all the YT vids for Randi and there were hundreds of them, but it had to do with auras. The guy reckoned he could see auras, but that didn't matter for the experiment seemed to be just a matter of chance. "James Randi Tests An Aura Reader"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU the "odds were less than 1 percent" but that is not bad odds when going for a million dollars.

How did Randi get duped so easily? How was the contestant going to remember the differences in the auras? It is just chance and there was no science in it but Randi gambled the million dollars.

11. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
How scientific is the James Randi Paranormal Challenge?
I'm sure it's scientific enough to keep deluded fools from winning. The challenge has been in effect since 1964 -- with no winners yet.
If they run the challenge with odds as low as 1% it won't last forever. It needs to be 1 billion to 1.

12. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
How scientific is the James Randi Paranormal Challenge?
I'm sure it's scientific enough to keep deluded fools from winning. The challenge has been in effect since 1964 -- with no winners yet.
If they run the challenge with odds as low as 1% it won't last forever. It needs to be 1 billion to 1.
If they let me have a go at it the odds have to be at least greater than a million to one. I'm not going into it unless the odds of getting it by chance are virtually nonexistent.

13. If you think, and I do not think you do. That a million dollar prize could be claimed by a chance guess you have got to be kidding..
~ and this should be in Off Topic Bab ling.. It's got naught to do with religious belief a..?

The point is surly made that to claim the prize you must convince the said organization of a claim that can not be disputed.
I do not see that this is possible as I cast real doubt upon any supernatural powers exist. No spiritualism, no means of foreseeing any future event. Is this a science forum ?
Just for the ridicule of this, consider what you are asking of people to find as true.. Would you ? Think about that for a while.
When something is for nothing it can never be truth.. or worth the tears.

14. Originally Posted by astromark
If you think, and I do not think you do. That a million dollar prize could be claimed by a chance guess you have got to be kidding..
~ and this should be in Off Topic Bab ling.. It's got naught to do with religious belief a..?

The point is surely made that to claim the prize you must convince the said organization of a claim that can not be disputed.
I do not see that this is possible as I cast real doubt upon any supernatural powers exist. No spiritualism, no means of foreseeing any future event. Is this a science forum ?
Just for the ridicule of this, consider what you are asking of people to find as true.. Would you ? Think about that for a while.
When something is for nothing it can never be truth.. or worth the tears.
The James Randi Challenge is a paranormal challenge, and paranormal activity is the basis of beliefs/religions is it not? If someone can see auras, well that is a belief, another form of religion.
I don't relate to seeing auras, and I suspect you don't either, but if someone can do that I'd expected them to take notes of which person had what type of aura, or was this contestant implying they are all identical in any case and hence no need for notes?
The JREF sets up a protocol, and anyone passing the test, will be disputed for sure if the odds of winning are as low 1:100. Even you Mark could win that one by chance, and I hope in future they keep the standard up as high as possible.

This is a science forum, which has a section on "the scientific study of religion", so for sure, the science behind the Randi Challenge certainly is valid.
Look I have thought about these things ever since I was 14. So it is not a matter of lack of time. Nothing is for nothing, I think that is what you are saying.

15. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
OK I'll have to try and find it. I have looked at just about all the YT vids for Randi and there were hundreds of them, but it had to do with auras. The guy reckoned he could see auras, but that didn't matter for the experiment seemed to be just a matter of chance. "James Randi Tests An Aura Reader"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU the "odds were less than 1 percent" but that is not bad odds when going for a million dollars.
He wasn't going for a million dollars. You have jumped to a conclusion. Yes, JR offers a million dollar prize, but the YT you linked to wasn't for a prize contestant. The protocols for the million dollar prize are considerably tighter than merely requiring beating 1% odds.

How did Randi get duped so easily?
He didn't get duped (are you even looking at the youtube video you linked to??). The claimant only did somewhat better than chance.

How was the contestant going to remember the differences in the auras? It is just chance and there was no science in it but Randi gambled the million dollars.
I don't understand your point about "remembering differences." But no matter; Randi was not gambling a million dollars.

I think you are confused as to what the youtube video was about, and are leaping to unsupported conclusions based on the shakiest of inferences.

16. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
OK I'll have to try and find it. I have looked at just about all the YT vids for Randi and there were hundreds of them, but it had to do with auras. The guy reckoned he could see auras, but that didn't matter for the experiment seemed to be just a matter of chance. "James Randi Tests An Aura Reader"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU the "odds were less than 1 percent" but that is not bad odds when going for a million dollars.
He wasn't going for a million dollars. You have jumped to a conclusion. Yes, JR offers a million dollar prize, but the YT you linked to wasn't for a prize contestant. The protocols for the million dollar prize are considerably tighter than merely requiring beating 1% odds.

How did Randi get duped so easily?
He didn't get duped (are you even looking at the youtube video you linked to??). The claimant only did somewhat better than chance.

How was the contestant going to remember the differences in the auras? It is just chance and there was no science in it but Randi gambled the million dollars.
I don't understand your point about "remembering differences." But no matter; Randi was not gambling a million dollars.

I think you are confused as to what the youtube video was about, and are leaping to unsupported conclusions based on the shakiest of inferences.
Years ago the prize was just \$10,000, and true there is no mention of the prize. How did you workout there was no prize offer associated with this test?

I'm pleased to hear that the protocols are tighter than the 1%. That is why I said he was duped, thinking he had accepted such low odds.

So what are the odds on the other challenges?
I think you are confused as to what the youtube video was about, and are leaping to unsupported conclusions based on the shakiest of inferences.
That's why I'm asking the questions! To get to the bottom of it.

17. I thought I read that the challgne was no longer running.

But anyway, I used to follow some of the planning of tests (they take/took place on the public forum). The experimental design was developed to eliminate chance, cheating, subconscious cues, etc. They were always well-designed, rigorous tests.

The tests were developed in cooperation with the challenger, so it would start by the challenger saying, "I can do X". The testers would then suggest test conditions which the challenger could negotiate. In almost every case, the challenger gave up at this stage when it was clear the experimental design was going to prevent whatever it was that they really did (e.g. reading subtle cues from other people involved, counting cards [unconsciously or otherwise], etc).

In the few cases where the challenger accepted the test conditionss they did no better than chance. In almost every case they then complained that the experiment was unfair, they hadn't agreed to it, the weather was wrong, they were too nervous, someone from the Randi Foundation had cheated, etc.

p.s. you obviously won't learn any of this from watching yooutube videos.

18. Originally Posted by Strange
I thought I read that the challgne was no longer running.

But anyway, I used to follow some of the planning of tests (they take/took place on the public forum). The experimental design was developed to eliminate chance, cheating, subconscious cues, etc. They were always well-designed, rigorous tests.

The tests were developed in cooperation with the challenger, so it would start by the challenger saying, "I can do X". The testers would then suggest test conditions which the challenger could negotiate. In almost every case, the challenger gave up at this stage when it was clear the experimental design was going to prevent whatever it was that they really did (e.g. reading subtle cues from other people involved, counting cards [unconsciously or otherwise], etc).

In the few cases where the challenger accepted the test conditions they did no better than chance. In almost every case they then complained that the experiment was unfair, they hadn't agreed to it, the weather was wrong, they were too nervous, someone from the Randi Foundation had cheated, etc.

p.s. you obviously won't learn any of this from watching youtube videos.
You'd be surprised, a lot of what you say is confirmed in the YT videos. Thanks.

19. Originally Posted by Strange
I thought I read that the challgne was no longer running.

I checked the JREF website and the price is still being offered.
Besides, the Skeptic's Dictionary lists other institutions and organisations that offer price money for the demonstration of paranormal powers.

20. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by Strange
I thought I read that the challgne was no longer running.

I checked the JREF website and the price is still being offered.
Besides, the Skeptic's Dictionary lists other institutions and organisations that offer price money for the demonstration of paranormal powers.
It's the preliminary test that can be the most difficult.
4. In all cases, the Applicant will be required to perform a Preliminary Test in a location where a properly
authorized representative of the JREF can attend.
This Preliminary Test is intended to determine if the
Applicant is likely to perform as promised during the
Formal Test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To
date, no applicant has passed the Preliminary Test,
and therefore no Formal Test has yet been
conducted. At any time prior to the Formal Test, the
JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if
issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and
unbiased test. After an agreement is reached on the
protocol, no part of the testing procedure may be
changed in any way without an amended agreement,
signed by all parties concerned.

The agency setting up the preliminary test makes it so hard, no one gets to the next stage.

21. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The agency setting up the preliminary test makes it so hard, no one gets to the next stage.

The JREF sets up a preliminary test that is in agreement with the applicant:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 5.1
You may receive communications from the JREF about the nature of your claim. The JREF will want extremely specific details about the precise scope of your ability. If the protocol you submitted with your application does not qualify as a true test of the ability, the JREF will offer up alternate testing ideas until one can be agreed upon.

Source:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...lenge-faq.html

22. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The agency setting up the preliminary test makes it so hard, no one gets to the next stage.
It is called "science" - rigorous, evidence-based testing.

The reason no one gets the the next stage is simply because no one has the abilities they claim/think they have. It all comes down to dishonesty or self-deception.

23. If the guy could really read auras, then he should have been able to do the test multiple times. If he got it right by sheer chance once, then running the test again would increase the odds hugely. However, only a single negative result is needed to disprove his claimed ability.

24. If someone could (e.g.) read people's minds, what test scenario could make it impossible?
The only things I can think of is if they required that the person was unconscious or medicated.
Anything else would be irrelevant.

"I can bend spoons!"
"Well, we will supply you with the spoons."
"No fair! The test is weighted against me!"

25. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The agency setting up the preliminary test makes it so hard, no one gets to the next stage.
It is called "science" - rigorous, evidence-based testing.

The reason no one gets the the next stage is simply because no one has the abilities they claim/think they have. It all comes down to dishonesty or self-deception.
You're being kind Strange. We have an example right here on this forum of the type of wacked-out woo-head crank that thinks they can win the Randi prize.

26. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?
You think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?

27. The reason it will never be won is because all claims are filch proofed. A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

28. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk
He wasn't going for a million dollars. You have jumped to a conclusion. Yes, JR offers a million dollar prize, but the YT you linked to wasn't for a prize contestant. The protocols for the million dollar prize are considerably tighter than merely requiring beating 1% odds.
How did you workout there was no prize offer associated with this test?
The correct question is: Why did you leap to the conclusion, in the total absence of any evidence at all that the video was of a \$1 million challenge, that there was a prize involved?

Here's the inferential chain I followed:

1) James Randi and his colleagues are not idiots. Therefore, the protocols in place to win the prize will be well designed to preclude simple chance from confounding the results.

2) The youtube video itself, as well as the metadata associated with it, lacked any reference to a million dollar prize. Furthermore, no mention of such a prize is made by Randi or the claimant during the video. In the absence of any such mention (which one would imagine would figure prominently in the video if there were a million dollars at stake), it is most likely that the video simply documents one of many educative demonstrations that Randi has given during his career. Certainly, it would be silly to leap to the conclusion that there is a prize at stake, on the basis of what is (and what is not) evident.

29. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by tk
He wasn't going for a million dollars. You have jumped to a conclusion. Yes, JR offers a million dollar prize, but the YT you linked to wasn't for a prize contestant. The protocols for the million dollar prize are considerably tighter than merely requiring beating 1% odds.
How did you workout there was no prize offer associated with this test?
The correct question is: Why did you leap to the conclusion, in the total absence of any evidence at all that the video was of a \$1 million dollar challenge, that there was a prize involved?

Here's the inferential chain I followed:

1) James Randi and his colleagues are not idiots. Therefore, the protocols in place to win the prize will be well designed to preclude simple chance from confounding the results.

2) The youtube video itself, as well as the metadata associated with it, lacked any reference to a million dollar prize. Furthermore, no mention of such a prize is made by Randi or the claimant during the video. In the absence of any such mention (which one would imagine would figure prominently in the video if there were a million dollars at stake), it is most likely that the video simply documents one of many educative demonstrations that Randi has given during his career. Certainly, it would be silly to leap to the conclusion that there is a prize at stake, on the basis of what is (and what is not) evident.
I stand corrected.
As I said I looked at all the YT on Randi. I'm sure there were some that were involved in the challenge. Maybe it became unclear which ones were challenges and which ones weren't. But yes I made the mistake.

30. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
As I said I looked at all the YT on Randi. I'm sure there were some that were involved in the challenge. Maybe it became unclear which ones were challenges and which ones weren't. But yes I made the mistake.
I'm not nearly as certain as you are that videos of any \$1M challenges have been uploaded to the web. But if you find any, please be sure to post a link.

31. Originally Posted by pavlos
The reason it will never be won is because all claims are filch proofed. A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Strange word, it seems to come straight out of Dickens. "You've got to pick a pocket or two".

32. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?
You think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
See how that is an accusation disguised as a question. "Do you think ....?" Either that or have no question mark please.

33. Originally Posted by RedPanda
If someone could (e.g.) read people's minds, what test scenario could make it impossible?
The only things I can think of is if they required that the person was unconscious or medicated.
Anything else would be irrelevant.

"I can bend spoons!"
"Well, we will supply you with the spoons."
"No fair! The test is weighted against me!"
Not too sure what's on your mind with that post.

34. Originally Posted by KALSTER
If the guy could really read auras, then he should have been able to do the test multiple times. If he got it right by sheer chance once, then running the test again would increase the odds hugely. However, only a single negative result is needed to disprove his claimed ability.
He was a complete charlatan as far as I could see.

35. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The agency setting up the preliminary test makes it so hard, no one gets to the next stage.
It is called "science" - rigorous, evidence-based testing.

The reason no one gets the the next stage is simply because no one has the abilities they claim/think they have. It all comes down to dishonesty or self-deception.
You could be right, but I was also thinking about my own attempt to enter the challenge. How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get. Maybe there is no test for premonitions.

36. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by RedPanda
If someone could (e.g.) read people's minds, what test scenario could make it impossible?
The only things I can think of is if they required that the person was unconscious or medicated.
Anything else would be irrelevant.

"I can bend spoons!"
"Well, we will supply you with the spoons."
"No fair! The test is weighted against me!"
Not too sure what's on your mind with that post.
What I was trying to point out was that when someone can do something, they can do it regardless of any testing requirements.

I had a mate that could do the Rubic's cube in under a minute.
It didn't matter where he was or whose cube he used or what the weather was: he could do a Rubic's cube in under a minute.

People that claim the tests are too rigorous are clearly unable to actually do the thing they claim.

37. Originally Posted by RedPanda
...
I had a mate that could do the Rubic's cube in under a minute.
It didn't matter where he was or whose cube he used or what the weather was: he could do a Rubic's cube in under a minute.

People that claim the tests are too rigorous are clearly unable to actually do the thing they claim.
Could your mate do the Rubic Cube blindfolded?

38. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by RedPanda
...
I had a mate that could do the Rubic's cube in under a minute.
It didn't matter where he was or whose cube he used or what the weather was: he could do a Rubic's cube in under a minute.

People that claim the tests are too rigorous are clearly unable to actually do the thing they claim.
Could your mate do the Rubic Cube blindfolded?
If each colour had a different tactile pattern imprinted onto it then yes, I'd expect he could. That way he could even do it in the dark.

39. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by RedPanda
...
I had a mate that could do the Rubic's cube in under a minute.
It didn't matter where he was or whose cube he used or what the weather was: he could do a Rubic's cube in under a minute.

People that claim the tests are too rigorous are clearly unable to actually do the thing they claim.
Could your mate do the Rubic Cube blindfolded?
If he could still know what the colours were, yes.

{abe} ... Deacon's example would be one way.

40. <double post>

41. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
. . . , but I was also thinking about my own attempt to enter the challenge. How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get. Maybe there is no test for premonitions.
Please don't start. We've heard enough about you and your stupid Randi prize quest. Let it rest.

42. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by pavlos
The reason it will never be won is because all claims are filch proofed. A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Strange word, it seems to come straight out of Dickens. "You've got to pick a pocket or two".
Irrelevant and pointless did you look at the link. Here it
is again A Field Guide to Critical Thinking - CSI

43. Originally Posted by pavlos
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by pavlos
The reason it will never be won is because all claims are filch proofed. A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Strange word, it seems to come straight out of Dickens. "You've got to pick a pocket or two".
Irrelevant and pointless did you look at the link. Here it
is again A Field Guide to Critical Thinking - CSI
I'll read it later, busy day here.

44. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
. . . , but I was also thinking about my own attempt to enter the challenge. How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get. Maybe there is no test for premonitions.
Please don't start. We've heard enough about you and your stupid Randi prize quest. Let it rest.
I'm not letting it rest till I win it!

45. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by RedPanda
...
I had a mate that could do the Rubic's cube in under a minute.
It didn't matter where he was or whose cube he used or what the weather was: he could do a Rubic's cube in under a minute.

People that claim the tests are too rigorous are clearly unable to actually do the thing they claim.
Could your mate do the Rubic Cube blindfolded?
If each colour had a different tactile pattern imprinted onto it then yes, I'd expect he could. That way he could even do it in the dark.
I'm a real expert at messing them up. Give me a cube that is complete and in about 4 moves I'll mess it up to a point where I find that my next move only seems to make it worse.

46. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
. . . , but I was also thinking about my own attempt to enter the challenge. How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get. Maybe there is no test for premonitions.
Please don't start. We've heard enough about you and your stupid Randi prize quest. Let it rest.
I'm not letting it rest till I win it!
You believe in some weird shite. Just how weird are you? Do you also believe in angels, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, possession, telekinesis?

47. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get.
So what sort of predictions can you get?

48. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
. . . , but I was also thinking about my own attempt to enter the challenge. How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get. Maybe there is no test for premonitions.
Please don't start. We've heard enough about you and your stupid Randi prize quest. Let it rest.
I'm not letting it rest till I win it!
You believe in some weird shite. Just how weird are you? Do you also believe in angels, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, possession, telekinesis?
I don't think I'm weird at all.
Angels - maybe but I have had no personal experience. Yet the guy who was boarding with me in 1990 reckoned an angel came and spoke to him in the room across the hallway from mine. So that was close to say the least.
Leprechauns - I'd have to look that up later.
Fairies - NO experience.
Ghosts - maybe but I have had no personal experience. Yet I have heard of people staying in Room 1 of the Vulcan Hotel and experiencing weird things.
Can you guys see this? The ghost of St Bathans - TV News Video | TVNZ

Possession - yes.
Telekinesis - yes

49. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?
You think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
See how that is an accusation disguised as a question. "Do you think ....?" Either that or have no question mark please.

50. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Ghosts - maybe but I have had no personal experience. Yet I have heard of people staying in Room 1 of the Vulcan Hotel and experiencing weird things.
Can you guys see this? The ghost of St Bathans - TV News Video | TVNZ
That is your evidence for ghosts existing? (I am laughing our loud now.) That was pure crap. Five wasted minutes. Only a moron would believe in ghosts based on that shite. I can't believe I watched the entire five minutes -- I'm an idiot too.

51. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
How the agency wanted me to make predictions of things that I'd never get.
So what sort of predictions can you get?
Anything but not things like the location and strength of an earthquake. That is what they wanted yet I've never dreamt of an earthquake.

52. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Ghosts - maybe but I have had no personal experience. Yet I have heard of people staying in Room 1 of the Vulcan Hotel and experiencing weird things.
Can you guys see this? The ghost of St Bathans - TV News Video | TVNZ
That is your evidence for ghosts existing? (I am laughing our loud now.) That was pure crap. Five wasted minutes. Only a moron would believe in ghosts based on that shite. I can't believe I watched the entire five minutes -- I'm an idiot too.
I'm not basing it on that report but that report was accessible on the internet. That hotel has been haunted for over 130 years since 1880s. Look it up. Go there and book the front room. I dare you!

53. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?
You think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
See how that is an accusation disguised as a question. "Do you think ....?" Either that or have no question mark please.
Do you think I'm an idiot and what is this thread exploring? So we are looking to see if the James Randi Challenge is capable of just being beaten by chance, and TK421 says it is.
There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

54. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Do you think I'm an idiot . . .
Yes.

55. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Do you think I'm an idiot . . .
Yes.
Well when you come down to NZ, go to the Vulcan Hotel at St. Bathans and stay in the front room overnight then.

56. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I have studied previous attempts at the JREF challenge it appears just a matter of time till it is claimed for the outcome could be achieved by random chance alone.
Will it be a non-event if it is won?
You think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
See how that is an accusation disguised as a question. "Do you think ....?" Either that or have no question mark please.
Do you think I'm an idiot and what is this thread exploring? So we are looking to see if the James Randi Challenge is capable of just being beaten by chance, and TK421 says it is.
There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.
Do you think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?

57. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Do you think I'm an idiot . . .
Yes.
Well when you come down to NZ, go to the Vulcan Hotel at St. Bathans and stay in the front room overnight then.
you mean, give them your business? spend your money on their service in the hopes that you see ghosts? My parents own a restaurant that is haunted, you should eat there and prove it's haunted. No seriously, why would they make that up? You should eat there. Can you believe it? a haunted restaurant. No kidding. You should eat there. Oh you did and didn't see any ghosts? Oh, well, you should should come back and eat here again maybe they'll show up the next time or the time after that.

58. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Do you think I'm an idiot . . .
Yes.
Well when you come down to NZ, go to the Vulcan Hotel at St. Bathans and stay in the front room overnight then.
you mean, give them your business? spend your money on their service in the hopes that you see ghosts? My parents own a restaurant that is haunted, you should eat there and prove it's haunted. No seriously, why would they make that up? You should eat there. Can you believe it? a haunted restaurant. No kidding. You should eat there. Oh you did and didn't see any ghosts? Oh, well, you should should come back and eat here again maybe they'll show up the next time or the time after that.
I've got no financial interest in the Vulcan. It will be money well spent.
Where is your parent's restaurant. Is there any claim for it supported on the internet?

59. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Do you think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
No I don't but how can you really separate it? "5-sigma confidence level" - do you understand that level of confidence. I don't so if you do could you explain it please?

60. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I don't so if you do could you explain it please?
Maybe a god will explain it to you in a vision.

61. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I don't so if you do could you explain it please?
Maybe a god will explain it to you in a vision.
That will be the same sort of answer you'll get from me now on too.

See how good God is - Google and the internet - visions everywhere! What does the 5 sigma mean?| Explore | physics.org
5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance of the result occurring by chance.
I didn't know that! At that level you can be 99.9999% sure it is not chance.
Now that is my sort of test.

62. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I've got no financial interest in the Vulcan.
I didn't say you did or even suggest or hint that...

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
It will be money well spent.
...but the owners do. Which would explain why they would start a rumor like that.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Where is your parent's restaurant. Is there any claim for it supported on the internet?
They don't own a restaurant. I was making a point.

63. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Do you think random chance is an acceptable substitute for testibility?
No I don't but how can you really separate it?
Can you separate chance from testibility? I'm no scientist, but I think that answer is "no."

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
"5-sigma confidence level" - do you understand that level of confidence. I don't so if you do could you explain it please?
I have no idea what that is. I don't even think I've ever heard/read those words uttered in that order until today.

64. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I've got no financial interest in the Vulcan.
I didn't say you did or even suggest or hint that...

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
It will be money well spent.
...but the owners do. Which would explain why they would start a rumor like that.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Where is your parent's restaurant. Is there any claim for it supported on the internet?
They don't own a restaurant. I was making a point.
Anyone around from the 1880s is long gone, so it's not a rumour but a type legend. My girlfriend at that time offered to put me up in the front room when we were staying at St. Bathans in her campervan. I chickened out. But in the hotel on the wall was a poem that had been written about the lady who was murdered there, and just reading that made your hairs stand on end.
I looked for it on the internet years ago and couldn't find it. Now I have forgotten what the poem was called.

65. The more I listen to James Randi the more I find he would love to know the truth. He is totally against frauds but he will welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration.
He is on target as far as I can see. So that makes him agnostic rather than an atheist. Did that resonate with other posters?

66. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Anyone around from the 1880s is long gone, so it's not a rumour but a type legend.
My point still stands

67. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Anyone around from the 1880s is long gone, so it's not a rumour but a type legend.
My point still stands
Are we scoring points now?
So you think there is financial gain from the haunting. It would scare off patrons as well.

68. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Anyone around from the 1880s is long gone, so it's not a rumour but a type legend.
My point still stands
Are we scoring points now?
So you think there is financial gain from the haunting. It would scare off patrons as well.
There is no real haunting Rob. Sheesh. It might scare off some patrons, but they are catering to a niche market. There will be people who would love to try it out (like your ex) and they have just the place for it!

Next, you'll ask us about the Bigfoot vacations, where as part of the deal, you get to go out looking for him.

69. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Anyone around from the 1880s is long gone, so it's not a rumour but a type legend.
My point still stands
Are we scoring points now?
So you think there is financial gain from the haunting. It would scare off patrons as well.
There is no real haunting Rob. Sheesh. It might scare off some patrons, but they are catering to a niche market. There will be people who would love to try it out (like your ex) and they have just the place for it!

Next, you'll ask us about the Bigfoot vacations, where as part of the deal, you get to go out looking for him.
As i said I did NOT stay in the room (chicken) so I'll never know. But as far as BigFoot goes I haven't seen anything convincing yet. A group has been looking for moose in the fiords and the have set up motion activated cameras and occasionally get a hit of something like a moose.

Have they tried that so of thing?
On a wild moose chase | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News

70. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I listen to James Randi the more I find he would love to know the truth. He is totally against frauds but he will welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration.
He is on target as far as I can see. So that makes him agnostic rather than an atheist. Did that resonate with other posters?
After two threads about it you still don't realize that being agnostic or being atheist are about different things and categories and a person can be both? I suspect though Randi is probably a gnostic atheist.

71. I thought it said how scientific was the King James bible. It's worse.

72. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I listen to James Randi the more I find he would love to know the truth. He is totally against frauds but he will welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration.
He is on target as far as I can see. So that makes him agnostic rather than an atheist. Did that resonate with other posters?
After two threads about it you still don't realize that being agnostic or being atheist are about different things and categories and a person can be both? I suspect though Randi is probably a gnostic atheist.
Yes he admits to that being on the verge of atheism. Well then not all atheists are agnostic atheists are they?

73. Originally Posted by Trivium
I thought it said how scientific was the King James bible. It's worse.
You could weigh it, and then calculate its acceleration as you throw it as hard as you can.
Do it scientifically!

You could also set out in another science experiment to prove they burn better when they are dry than wet.

74. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I listen to James Randi the more I find he would love to know the truth. He is totally against frauds but he will welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration.
He is on target as far as I can see. So that makes him agnostic rather than an atheist. Did that resonate with other posters?
After two threads about it you still don't realize that being agnostic or being atheist are about different things and categories and a person can be both? I suspect though Randi is probably a gnostic atheist.
Yes he admits to that being on the verge of atheism. Well then not all atheists are agnostic atheists are they?
You still aren't using the terms correctly, they are separate categories like apples and automobiles.

I'm in some doubt and think that there's no god, making me an agnostic atheist.
My mother thinks there is a god....but has serious doubts..she's an agnostic theist.
Dawkins seems pretty sure there isn't a god...so he's likely in the gnostic atheist quarter.
Most born again Christians (and Muslims) are sure there is a god, making them gnostic theist.

75. That diagram makes it pretty clear. Thanks.
James Randi confesses to being an "agnostic atheist" but doesn't use those words himself.
Where as I am in the opposite corner of being an "Gnostic Theist"

76. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
That diagram makes it pretty clear. Thanks.
James Randi confesses to being an "agnostic atheist" but doesn't use those words himself.
Where as I am in the opposite corner of being an "Gnostic Theist"
It seems unusual for a Gnostic Theist to be on a science forum, especially when you consider the principles of the scientific method.

77. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
That diagram makes it pretty clear. Thanks.
James Randi confesses to being an "agnostic atheist" but doesn't use those words himself.
Where as I am in the opposite corner of being an "Gnostic Theist"
It seems unusual for a Gnostic Theist to be on a science forum, especially when you consider the principles of the scientific method.
Why would it be different for you and me?
I am a scientist of a sort, my degree is a science degree.

78. I find it a fascination that so much of our effort is put into religious doctrines justification..
This IS a science based forum yet we have a empathy to be tolerant of what must be seen as un- scientific.
Look across the number of threads started of every idea regarding Theists and atheists..
I will repeat a earlier comment that I feel pivotal.. That as a science minded person expands the knowledge of science based logic.
Very little room is left for what is described as biblical waffle.. and it maters not which cult of religious belief one follows. I look upon them all as primitive nonsense. That might not be fare, but true. No proofs of Gods are found as testable yet the indoctrinated search and accept that which is not science based.

79. Originally Posted by KALSTER
If the guy could really read auras, then he should have been able to do the test multiple times. If he got it right by sheer chance once, then running the test again would increase the odds hugely. However, only a single negative result is needed to disprove his claimed ability.
A single mis-read probably wouldn't prove him wrong. Most claimants of supernatural abilities don't claim 100% certainty in their 'reads' or whatever they call them. But he would have to predict with some level of consistency. I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
The more I listen to James Randi the more I find he would love to know the truth. He is totally against frauds but he will welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration.
He is on target as far as I can see. So that makes him agnostic rather than an atheist. Did that resonate with other posters?
After two threads about it you still don't realize that being agnostic or being atheist are about different things and categories and a person can be both? I suspect though Randi is probably a gnostic atheist.
Yes he admits to that being on the verge of atheism. Well then not all atheists are agnostic atheists are they?
You still aren't using the terms correctly, they are separate categories like apples and automobiles.

I'm in some doubt and think that there's no god, making me an agnostic atheist.
My mother thinks there is a god....but has serious doubts..she's an agnostic theist.
Dawkins seems pretty sure there isn't a god...so he's likely in the gnostic atheist quarter.
Most born again Christians (and Muslims) are sure there is a god, making them gnostic theist.

So how sure of something do you have to be to be a Gnostic? I believe in G-d, and live according to that assumption, but I admit I could be wrong and will defer to the evidence/logic on matters of science even when that means altering my religious views, but I still don't know if agnostic fits me. Really, the only area I am 100% certain on is mathematics. Would that make me agnostic in all areas except mathematics?

81. Originally Posted by SowZ37
A single mis-read probably wouldn't prove him wrong. Most claimants of supernatural abilities don't claim 100% certainty in their 'reads' or whatever they call them. But he would have to predict with some level of consistency. I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time.

So how sure of something do you have to be to be a Gnostic? I believe in G-d, and live according to that assumption, but I admit I could be wrong and will defer to the evidence/logic on matters of science even when that means altering my religious views, but I still don't know if agnostic fits me. Really, the only area I am 100% certain on is mathematics. Would that make me agnostic in all areas except mathematics?
When you say "I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time" isn't that preempting the test.

There would be 10 things that have happened in my life which make me feel like a Gnostic, so one example , one event would be enough.

How does mathematics prove God to you?

Or is your certainty in maths merely meaning you have expertise in maths?

82. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by SowZ37
A single mis-read probably wouldn't prove him wrong. Most claimants of supernatural abilities don't claim 100% certainty in their 'reads' or whatever they call them. But he would have to predict with some level of consistency. I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time.

So how sure of something do you have to be to be a Gnostic? I believe in G-d, and live according to that assumption, but I admit I could be wrong and will defer to the evidence/logic on matters of science even when that means altering my religious views, but I still don't know if agnostic fits me. Really, the only area I am 100% certain on is mathematics. Would that make me agnostic in all areas except mathematics?
When you say "I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time" isn't that preempting the test.

There would be 10 things that have happened in my life which make me feel like a Gnostic, so one example , one event would be enough.

How does mathematics prove God to you?

Or is your certainty in maths merely meaning you have expertise in maths?
My certainty in math is because it is the only universal truth I can be sure of. Anything else could be an illusion of my senses. But 1 and 1 is 2 is true even if I am an alien from the planet Xardu experiencing a fever dream and the world is really a flat disk suspended in orange goop instead of outer space.

I wouldn't say math proves to me that G-d exists. I have other reasons for believing in G-d, but they are fallible. Unlike 1 and 1 is 2.

83. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by SowZ37
A single mis-read probably wouldn't prove him wrong. Most claimants of supernatural abilities don't claim 100% certainty in their 'reads' or whatever they call them. But he would have to predict with some level of consistency. I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time.

So how sure of something do you have to be to be a Gnostic? I believe in G-d, and live according to that assumption, but I admit I could be wrong and will defer to the evidence/logic on matters of science even when that means altering my religious views, but I still don't know if agnostic fits me. Really, the only area I am 100% certain on is mathematics. Would that make me agnostic in all areas except mathematics?
When you say "I am sure if he ran the test 100 times, he would be wildly inconsistent and incorrect the majority of the time" isn't that preempting the test.

There would be 10 things that have happened in my life which make me feel like a Gnostic, so one example , one event would be enough.

How does mathematics prove God to you?

Or is your certainty in maths merely meaning you have expertise in maths?
My certainty in math is because it is the only universal truth I can be sure of. Anything else could be an illusion of my senses. But 1 and 1 is 2 is true even if I am an alien from the planet Xardu experiencing a fever dream and the world is really a flat disk suspended in orange goop instead of outer space.

I wouldn't say math proves to me that G-d exists. I have other reasons for believing in G-d, but they are fallible. Unlike 1 and 1 is 2.
I admit knowing 1 plus 1 equals 2 is a level of expertise in maths. It is difficult to see why it would not be universally true.

84. I saw a question from Roberttybob to SowZ37.. What proofs of God are mathematical and for that matter, What proofs ? Oh yes I noted that was not a quote, but the intention I am sure.. and the answer has not appeared yet.. or ever ? I shall wait.
We have a growing number of threads discussing all aspects of Faith's.. In a science Forum I would DEMAND that some attempt to show by scientific methods any proofs of paranormal and including Gods.. When a Catholic Priest ( and still practicing ) Tells me that he doubts the words of the bible are meant to be interpreted so literally as to be full of miracles.. A flexibility of belief over Faith with scant regard for science.. would be a appropriate stance.. You have to take from it what best fits your understanding. So I take none of it.. That works for me.. What say you ... ?

85. Originally Posted by astromark
I saw a question from Roberttybob to SowZ37.. What proofs of God are mathematical and for that matter, What proofs ? Oh yes I noted that was not a quote, but the intention I am sure.. and the answer has not appeared yet.. or ever ? I shall wait.
We have a growing number of threads discussing all aspects of Faith's.. In a science Forum I would DEMAND that some attempt to show by scientific methods any proofs of paranormal and including Gods.. When a Catholic Priest ( and still practicing ) Tells me that he doubts the words of the bible are meant to be interpreted so literally as to be full of miracles.. A flexibility of belief over Faith with scant regard for science.. would be a appropriate stance.. You have to take from it what best fits your understanding. So I take none of it.. That works for me.. What say you ... ?
I never claimed to provide mathematical proofs for G-d. Nor could I. G-d, if He exists, must be the simplest entity in existence. He could not accurately be defined by a list of properties, because to be a composite of such properties would imply such properties exist outside of G-d. G-d would be the beginning of all things, absolutely simple, and so would not be the result of any mathematical equation. Divine simplicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, I never claimed I was 100 percent on G-d.

86. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by astromark
I saw a question from Roberttybob to SowZ37.. What proofs of God are mathematical and for that matter, What proofs ? Oh yes I noted that was not a quote, but the intention I am sure.. and the answer has not appeared yet.. or ever ? I shall wait.
We have a growing number of threads discussing all aspects of Faith's.. In a science Forum I would DEMAND that some attempt to show by scientific methods any proofs of paranormal and including Gods.. When a Catholic Priest ( and still practicing ) Tells me that he doubts the words of the bible are meant to be interpreted so literally as to be full of miracles.. A flexibility of belief over Faith with scant regard for science.. would be a appropriate stance.. You have to take from it what best fits your understanding. So I take none of it.. That works for me.. What say you ... ?
I never claimed to provide mathematical proofs for G-d. Nor could I. G-d, if He exists, must be the simplest entity in existence. He could not accurately be defined by a list of properties, because to be a composite of such properties would imply such properties exist outside of G-d. G-d would be the beginning of all things, absolutely simple, and so would not be the result of any mathematical equation. Divine simplicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, I never claimed I was 100 percent on G-d.
Some of those ideas are quite original to me, though quite old concepts.

87. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by astromark
I saw a question from Roberttybob to SowZ37.. What proofs of God are mathematical and for that matter, What proofs ? Oh yes I noted that was not a quote, but the intention I am sure.. and the answer has not appeared yet.. or ever ? I shall wait.
We have a growing number of threads discussing all aspects of Faith's.. In a science Forum I would DEMAND that some attempt to show by scientific methods any proofs of paranormal and including Gods.. When a Catholic Priest ( and still practicing ) Tells me that he doubts the words of the bible are meant to be interpreted so literally as to be full of miracles.. A flexibility of belief over Faith with scant regard for science.. would be a appropriate stance.. You have to take from it what best fits your understanding. So I take none of it.. That works for me.. What say you ... ?
I never claimed to provide mathematical proofs for G-d. Nor could I. G-d, if He exists, must be the simplest entity in existence. He could not accurately be defined by a list of properties, because to be a composite of such properties would imply such properties exist outside of G-d. G-d would be the beginning of all things, absolutely simple, and so would not be the result of any mathematical equation. Divine simplicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, I never claimed I was 100 percent on G-d.
Some of those ideas are quite original to me, though quite old concepts.
Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.

88. Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
So the first things to go would be any and all human or animal attributes ... like gender. Whatever such an omnipotent, eternal and trait-less entity might or might not be, human/ animal concepts of gender like male, female, neuter, interchangeable or whatever (some critters are deeply peculiar) have to fall by the wayside.

I now seem to be putting the proposition that it's near impossible to talk about such an entity. All languages have deeply embedded concepts based in our various experiences of reality and our cultures' interpretations and evaluations of experience. Perhaps everyone needs a training in philosophy to be able to deal with religion if this absolute simplicity is to be the central idea.

89. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
~ I saw your comment and it sent me off giggling for a bottle of red.. Rich flavorsome with a full body of sweetness and flavor..
Love, Justice and Power are not concepts of Godliness are they ? You have just said so.. and Yes I did read your earlier explanation for not wanting to offend so you do not write GOD. but you mean god don't you. ? I do not see it as his name as so much as what it is.. A God.
So you can not answer the question can you.. or have you.. That with absolute simplicity is nothing at all.
~ This mamby pamby messing about with questions and definitions is just side stepping the question at hand.
Where is the proofs of God / Gods. Spirituality and the paranormal. Until advised with a weighted argument for a proof as yet unseen I will remain with the door open and inviting to share the red with all who will dare enter.. to discuss this question of proofs offered.

90. Whatever Randi's stance might be on the existence of deities, it is irrelevant to the challenge he set up almost 50 years ago.
Besides, religious and spiritual claims are rejected by the JREF:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 2.5
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Source:
JREF Challenge FAQ

91. Originally Posted by astromark
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
~ I saw your comment and it sent me off giggling for a bottle of red.. Rich flavorsome with a full body of sweetness and flavor..
Love, Justice and Power are not concepts of Godliness are they ? You have just said so.. and Yes I did read your earlier explanation for not wanting to offend so you do not write GOD. but you mean god don't you. ? I do not see it as his name as so much as what it is.. A God.
So you can not answer the question can you.. or have you.. That with absolute simplicity is nothing at all.
~ This mamby pamby messing about with questions and definitions is just side stepping the question at hand.
Where is the proofs of God / Gods. Spirituality and the paranormal. Until advised with a weighted argument for a proof as yet unseen I will remain with the door open and inviting to share the red with all who will dare enter.. to discuss this question of proofs offered.
Hey, far be it from me to turn down free alcohol. It would be difficult to debunk my concept of G-d, though, seeing as it is as abstract as it is. You may say the burden of proof falls on me, except that I'm not really proselytizing anyone, am I?

I don't write G-d's name in completeness because it is one of the 613 Mitzvot. (Commandments in the Torah.) Of course, I do not keep all 613.

Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
So the first things to go would be any and all human or animal attributes ... like gender. Whatever such an omnipotent, eternal and trait-less entity might or might not be, human/ animal concepts of gender like male, female, neuter, interchangeable or whatever (some critters are deeply peculiar) have to fall by the wayside.

I now seem to be putting the proposition that it's near impossible to talk about such an entity. All languages have deeply embedded concepts based in our various experiences of reality and our cultures' interpretations and evaluations of experience. Perhaps everyone needs a training in philosophy to be able to deal with religion if this absolute simplicity is to be the central idea.
The traditional Jewish understanding is that, yes, any time you use language to discuss G-d or try and explain Him you are only doing so because of the limitations of human understanding/communication. You aren't being truly accurate. Him is used not as an actual representation of G-d's gender but because It has disrespectful connotations. It is not an implication that G-d has gender or is a person. But absolute simplicity is a logical imperative for a G-d that is truly the beginning and end of all things. Sure, you could say He is also absolutely complex because he would encompass all things, but you aren't really talking about His nature at that point. No, His nature must be divinely simple.

92. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Whatever Randi's stance might be on the existence of deities, it is irrelevant to the challenge he set up almost 50 years ago.
Besides, religious and spiritual claims are rejected by the JREF:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 2.5
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Source:
JREF Challenge FAQ
My claim to enter the challenge would be that there is information in dreams, maybe to find missing persons. That would be the interesting situation for it could have immediate benefit to the friends and family of the missing. That is the field I would love to get involved in. I wonder if the JREF would take an application along those lines?

93. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Whatever Randi's stance might be on the existence of deities, it is irrelevant to the challenge he set up almost 50 years ago.
Besides, religious and spiritual claims are rejected by the JREF:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 2.5
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Source:
JREF Challenge FAQ
My claim to enter the challenge would be that there is information in dreams, maybe to find missing persons. That would be the interesting situation for it could have immediate benefit to the friends and family of the missing. That is the field I would love to get involved in. I wonder if the JREF would take an application along those lines?
I imagine they could design a test based around dreams. Of course, dream recall is so inconsistent and dream memory is so pliable I doubt you could perform such a task with any reliability even if it was ​possible.

94. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by astromark
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
~ I saw your comment and it sent me off giggling for a bottle of red.. Rich flavorsome with a full body of sweetness and flavor..
Love, Justice and Power are not concepts of Godliness are they ? You have just said so.. and Yes I did read your earlier explanation for not wanting to offend so you do not write GOD. but you mean god don't you. ? I do not see it as his name as so much as what it is.. A God.
So you can not answer the question can you.. or have you.. That with absolute simplicity is nothing at all.
~ This mamby pamby messing about with questions and definitions is just side stepping the question at hand.
Where is the proofs of God / Gods. Spirituality and the paranormal. Until advised with a weighted argument for a proof as yet unseen I will remain with the door open and inviting to share the red with all who will dare enter.. to discuss this question of proofs offered.
Hey, far be it from me to turn down free alcohol. It would be difficult to debunk my concept of G-d, though, seeing as it is as abstract as it is. You may say the burden of proof falls on me, except that I'm not really proselytizing anyone, am I?

I don't write G-d's name in completeness because it is one of the 613 Mitzvot. (Commandments in the Torah.) Of course, I do not keep all 613.

Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
So the first things to go would be any and all human or animal attributes ... like gender. Whatever such an omnipotent, eternal and trait-less entity might or might not be, human/ animal concepts of gender like male, female, neuter, interchangeable or whatever (some critters are deeply peculiar) have to fall by the wayside.

I now seem to be putting the proposition that it's near impossible to talk about such an entity. All languages have deeply embedded concepts based in our various experiences of reality and our cultures' interpretations and evaluations of experience. Perhaps everyone needs a training in philosophy to be able to deal with religion if this absolute simplicity is to be the central idea.
The traditional Jewish understanding is that, yes, any time you use language to discuss G-d or try and explain Him you are only doing so because of the limitations of human understanding/communication. You aren't being truly accurate. Him is used not as an actual representation of G-d's gender but because It has disrespectful connotations. It is not an implication that G-d has gender or is a person. But absolute simplicity is a logical imperative for a G-d that is truly the beginning and end of all things. Sure, you could say He is also absolutely complex because he would encompass all things, but you aren't really talking about His nature at that point. No, His nature must be divinely simple.
Who knows, but please note we are looking at the mechanics of the James Randi challenge.

95. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by astromark
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
~ I saw your comment and it sent me off giggling for a bottle of red.. Rich flavorsome with a full body of sweetness and flavor..
Love, Justice and Power are not concepts of Godliness are they ? You have just said so.. and Yes I did read your earlier explanation for not wanting to offend so you do not write GOD. but you mean god don't you. ? I do not see it as his name as so much as what it is.. A God.
So you can not answer the question can you.. or have you.. That with absolute simplicity is nothing at all.
~ This mamby pamby messing about with questions and definitions is just side stepping the question at hand.
Where is the proofs of God / Gods. Spirituality and the paranormal. Until advised with a weighted argument for a proof as yet unseen I will remain with the door open and inviting to share the red with all who will dare enter.. to discuss this question of proofs offered.
Hey, far be it from me to turn down free alcohol. It would be difficult to debunk my concept of G-d, though, seeing as it is as abstract as it is. You may say the burden of proof falls on me, except that I'm not really proselytizing anyone, am I?

I don't write G-d's name in completeness because it is one of the 613 Mitzvot. (Commandments in the Torah.) Of course, I do not keep all 613.

Let's say G-d is a combination of Love, Justice, and Power. Logically, that means that the concepts of Love, Justice, and Power exist outside of and without G-d. Meaning He is no longer the beginning of all things. The only consistent way to conceptualize a truly omnipotent and eternal G-d is one without traits. Anything that would be a trait of G-d, therefore, is synonymous with G-d. He only has one, unified, central essence and anything He is is simply an expression of that absolute simplicity.
So the first things to go would be any and all human or animal attributes ... like gender. Whatever such an omnipotent, eternal and trait-less entity might or might not be, human/ animal concepts of gender like male, female, neuter, interchangeable or whatever (some critters are deeply peculiar) have to fall by the wayside.

I now seem to be putting the proposition that it's near impossible to talk about such an entity. All languages have deeply embedded concepts based in our various experiences of reality and our cultures' interpretations and evaluations of experience. Perhaps everyone needs a training in philosophy to be able to deal with religion if this absolute simplicity is to be the central idea.
The traditional Jewish understanding is that, yes, any time you use language to discuss G-d or try and explain Him you are only doing so because of the limitations of human understanding/communication. You aren't being truly accurate. Him is used not as an actual representation of G-d's gender but because It has disrespectful connotations. It is not an implication that G-d has gender or is a person. But absolute simplicity is a logical imperative for a G-d that is truly the beginning and end of all things. Sure, you could say He is also absolutely complex because he would encompass all things, but you aren't really talking about His nature at that point. No, His nature must be divinely simple.
Who knows, but please note we are looking at the mechanics of the James Randi challenge.
Sure, sorry.

96. Originally Posted by SowZ37

Sure, sorry.
Start a thread to discuss "absolute simplicity" for I'm finding it an interesting concept.

97. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Whatever Randi's stance might be on the existence of deities, it is irrelevant to the challenge he set up almost 50 years ago.
Besides, religious and spiritual claims are rejected by the JREF:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 2.5
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Source:
JREF Challenge FAQ
My claim to enter the challenge would be that there is information in dreams, maybe to find missing persons. That would be the interesting situation for it could have immediate benefit to the friends and family of the missing. That is the field I would love to get involved in. I wonder if the JREF would take an application along those lines?
I imagine they could design a test based around dreams. Of course, dream recall is so inconsistent and dream memory is so pliable I doubt you could perform such a task with any reliability even if it was ​possible.
Just thinking this through a bit more, unless the information helped the police find the missing person within a reasonable time frame it would still be a bit pointless.
Say someone has been missing for the last 10 years and a clue comes in the form of a dream, it might just be something non-specific and it takes another 10 years to say whether it was helpful or not.

I have already done this for two people but the results were still not fully conclusive for it required the police or other investigators to followup on the information.
It can be very frustrating thinking a breakthrough was just moments away but nothing was done.

98. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Whatever Randi's stance might be on the existence of deities, it is irrelevant to the challenge he set up almost 50 years ago.
Besides, religious and spiritual claims are rejected by the JREF:
Originally Posted by JREF Challenge FAQ, 2.5
Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Source:
JREF Challenge FAQ
My claim to enter the challenge would be that there is information in dreams, maybe to find missing persons. That would be the interesting situation for it could have immediate benefit to the friends and family of the missing. That is the field I would love to get involved in. I wonder if the JREF would take an application along those lines?
I imagine they could design a test based around dreams. Of course, dream recall is so inconsistent and dream memory is so pliable I doubt you could perform such a task with any reliability even if it was ​possible.
Just thinking this through a bit more, unless the information helped the police find the missing person within a reasonable time frame it would still be a bit pointless.
Say someone has been missing for the last 10 years and a clue comes in the form of a dream, it might just be something non-specific and it takes another 10 years to say whether it was helpful or not.

I have already done this for two people but the results were still not fully conclusive for it required the police or other investigators to followup on the information.
It can be very frustrating thinking a breakthrough was just moments away but nothing was done.
Also, who's to say your clue actually lead to the break through, as opposed to the investigator who already knows the facts of the case getting inspired by your clue and trying again, and he solves it mostly from his own knowledge/intuition. The dream was the catalyst, sure, but that wouldn't make it paranormal. Such a test wouldn't be conclusive since it is in too organic an environment.

99. Originally Posted by SowZ37
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
....
Just thinking this through a bit more, unless the information helped the police find the missing person within a reasonable time frame it would still be a bit pointless.
Say someone has been missing for the last 10 years and a clue comes in the form of a dream, it might just be something non-specific and it takes another 10 years to say whether it was helpful or not.

I have already done this for two people but the results were still not fully conclusive for it required the police or other investigators to followup on the information.
It can be very frustrating thinking a breakthrough was just moments away but nothing was done.
Also, who's to say your clue actually lead to the break through, as opposed to the investigator who already knows the facts of the case getting inspired by your clue and trying again, and he solves it mostly from his own knowledge/intuition. The dream was the catalyst, sure, but that wouldn't make it paranormal. Such a test wouldn't be conclusive since it is in too organic an environment.
There would always be the reluctance of the police or whoever to acknowledge the paranormal aspect, but we had a series on NZ TV where a pair of psychics would investigate cold cases and they were exceptional viewing but I don't think they solved any case.
Sensing Murder was the name of the program and some of the episodes may have been uploaded to YouTube so you might be able to see them still.
I would have to go that one step better.

100. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
There would always be the reluctance of the police or whoever to acknowledge the paranormal aspect,
No it wouldn't be reluctance, it would be good sense, because no amount of paranormal/supernatural has ever been proven and is ever likely to either.
If someone says he sees dead people, the onus is on him, to show he is right.
It is infantile to believe such a thing without further corroborating evidence. Same with your claims. Hence why the Randi challenge is set up the way it is. The onus is on the claimer. if it cant be proven, under reasonable conditions then it cant be proven.

101. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
If one can scientifically demonstrate something which is beyond the scope of scientific understanding, then it is no longer a paranormal phenomenon.

Not sure why this is in religion, either. It's a much more appropriate topic for the trash can...
Not quite. If the JREF accept the challenge from whoever they allow to be tested and they win, it could still be claimed "it was just chance" and it could be.
In one video James calculated and said the guy should get one of the five answers correct by chance but there were two right. It dawned on me the process could be beaten simply by chance.
Statistics of probability are not my favorite topics but I'd love to master it.
If there are five people and five places should the person get one right simply by chance? How is your maths?
There's an entire field devoted to probability and statistics. Of course in any one run of an experiment there is a nonzero chance of a spurious outcome (one way or the other). For precisely that reason, scientists insist on more than a single run. In fact, one must generally achieve a "5-sigma" confidence level for the result to be widely accepted.

The Randi Foundation is well aware of probability and statistics. Criteria for awarding the prize would of course be informed by that awareness.
tk421....I love you to pieces.....but....dammit...didn't understand a word you said *L*......can you er um elaborate?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement