Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum who created 'god' then

Yeah, I agree with all of that. Except of course for; "He will not be what we want Him to be, but will remain what He is " because there is no such thing as God. How can I prove this?? Grrr! This is annoying! Let me think...
I'll be back when I think of a way to PROVE that 'god' doesn't exist.

So "who created God then"
As a concept God was a creation of man. If you mean as an object of existence that is suggested as redundant in that like "Matter" God always was and always will be. I guess the argument is that God created us so we could create him. Nice.
jjw

Rob,

That's so interesting that you would use an uquana in your example as a medium.
Makes me wonder if you've watched Sonia Fitzpatrick the pet psychic on Animal Planet.

Personally, I would really love to see behind the scenes of that show because if the audience members can be trusted, it really looks like scientific evidence of the afterlife could be obtained.
I mean she talked to a bird for two minutes and the bird told her that the owner found her one day when she was rollerblading. I mean that's so improbable for someone to guess.

And no one says she's a blatant sham. And she's talked to so many people.
Now I dont' think anyone who claims to be psychic actually is. But Sonia looks like a real possiblity.
Maybe I'll try googling to see if she has any critics.

Lots of times the evidence we are presented with is quite convincing. The problem is that what is presented - what appears to us - is not what really is.

A common technique for these psychics for example is to have shills casing the audience before-hand - usually someone who just doesn't look like a plant. For example, Peter Popoff the famous faith-healer used to have his wife go out into the audience before the spectacles and case the crowd, getting loads of information just by listening unobtrusively and by innocently asking questions of the dupes who just really, REALLY wanted to believe. And I do mean dupes - the Popoffs referred to their victims as much worse.

What we see is not all there is. These shows are a lot like books. A writer doesn't have to lie. He can contrive a story that just tells you what he wants you to hear. He can also lie, exaggerate, or distort. Same for these miraculous shows. In the movies, we always root for the believer over the skeptic, because we see that from the reality of the story, the believer has sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real reality.

Yes I know in most cases that is what happens. Any time that I've personally gone to a psychic, they made general guesses and then built off of my responses.
But that doesn't mean every psychic is a hoax. Just most of them.

I just googled Sonya. I gotta say that there is a possibility she does have this capability. I do think she falls back on old information she's learned in the past and applies it to other animal because she sounds redundant in many situations, but some of her communications are so unique. Especially, when she communicates with animals who have passed over and then she mentions there's a human family member there, too. And the audience member always immediately recognizes the person. They commonly say, "Sonya really hit the mark".
I ran into an interview where someone asked if she'd been scientifically tested and she said she wasn't interested. Go figure.
Pesonally, I would be alright if it turns out there's no afterlife, but what if there is?
I would really like to have certainty on this subject.
I don't know. And I do see your point about shows being a lot like books. I mean they could edit out all her "misses" which would make her "hits" less extraodinary.

"But that doesn't mean every psychic is a hoax. Just most of them."

The cases we study turn out to be hoaxes or self-delusion. The ones we don't study we don't know. But if I have to bet I know where I'm putting my money.

The problem is we've NEVER found a case where a psychic held up under scrutiny. You're right. That doesn't mean they're all fakes. OTOH, it seems to make sense to me that we would withhold acknowledging any of them are genuine until we can confirm a single case.

I just found an interesting site. The VERITAS Research Program. http://veritas.arizona.edu/TRUTH.htm#quackery

I'm going to read it and see if it's as interestiing as it looks.

Ok well not any proof found after reading that site and following leads to G Schwarz's book, The Truth about Medium.
(sounds like he's just cashing in on someone else's fame)
oh but I got some leads from reading the book reviews. other scientist's names who have done research and have come to believe in life after death. (I'll look into them tomorrow)
And a great quote by Victor Hugo, when asked Why does God not better reveal himself? "because doubt is the instrument which forges the human spirit".

Do you intend to look at any skeptical sources?

Check out the following exchange, for example:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-schwartz.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-hyman.html

Just because someone has some letters after his name and uses some scientific jargon, doesn't mean he knows what he's doing.

Edgar Cayce might possibly be the exception.
I read all of his reading reports due to my interest in some occult issues.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/
jw

I was impressed with the critique by Ray Hyman.
Very thourough. Seems Gary Schwarz isn't neutral enough of an observer to really trust his research. Not to mention the protocal he followed had too many problems. Worthless really. And it's too bad because I doubt these same psychics are going to put themselves through any more lab tests.
Well I suppose you're right that after so many years of studing psychics if it hasn't been proven yet that they truly speak to the DEAD then most likely they don't.
One part of the Hyman's article that I really appreciated was his own story of thinking he could accurately read palms until one day he started giving readings with purposefull incorrect information and people still thought he was accurate.
So it's understandable that many psychics are not only duping their audience but duping themselves at the same time. It's no wonder they seem so honest.

Edgar Cayce's material is intersting, but from what I read it wasn't the kind of information that could be tested and proved. I haven't checked on any skeptic's reviews of him, yet.

Subtle distinction: I think it's not justified to assume that people can speak to the dead AND that it's justifiable to be skeptical when someone claims they can.

"uping themselves at the same time. It's no wonder they seem so honest."

Many people who claim to perform miraculous things like faith-healing, talking to the dead, predict the future, remotely view - many of these people - are frauds and profiteers. But some of them really do believe in what they're doing and are absolutely stunned when they subject themselves to truly objective tests that fail to support their beliefs.

Edgar Cayce is an interesting case. http://skepdic.com/cayce.html for starters.
He had little to no formal education, but read a lot. Probably he read well, but had poor reasoning ability. When I read the stuff he writes, it sounds like long strings of scientific sounding jargon strung into meaningless phrases. (I get the same feeling of dysphoria when I read Cayce, et. al., that I do when I read deconstructionist "essays.")

-Sounds like long strings of scientific sounding jargon strung into meaningless phrases-

Remindes me of when I found the same affect in Black Elk's narratives. He's a Native American Medicine Man. He talks exactly that way, incorrporating bits of scientifc jargon with his own wisdom gained from personal experience.
He's had many experiences with spirits or he believes he's had these experiences.

I read his book a while ago and I don't have it with me, but I remember him describing a group of scientists wanting to study his spiritual ways. But when they studied his sweat lodge, they didn't have the same reverence and wanted to make substitutions to materials that his people had always used. In the interest of time and convienance almost every bit of material was substituted and the whole sweat tent was done half-assed. He was such a peaceful man and describing this experience he didn't seem angry, just aware of the disrespect to the spirits, almost like he understood the people couldn't help thier ignorance. Culture clash I guess. I think the scientists were pleasent and curious people, but it seemed to me they disrespected Black Elk and his people more than the spirits.

Hi:
Edgar Cayce is unique when it comes to psychic matters. I was reading stuff about him many years ago. Some people confuse the junk written by his followers that they feel they extracted from his readings. They will write an entire book providing their interpretation of what they think Cayce was saying in a few readings. To judge the work of Cayce it is necessary to read the readings themselves. These are like reporters notes transcribed during one of Cayce?s readings, while Cayce was asleep, being provided for some visitor that made the request. In some readings his mind travels to other cities where he will describe for those present the makeup of a bedroom he has never seen and proceed to answer their question. The question may be something like the health of a family member that lives there and he will then proceed to discuss what he finds. There has never been a psychic that left this detail of specific documentation of what they were doing available for later corroboration. It is one of my life?s regrets that I never got to meet him. He died before I was convinced of his abilities.

Edgar Cayce was the exception to the phony psychics that con the world.
jjw

It's all about trust isn't it. If we could only trust in the authenticity of each other in the case of psychics and faith healers and thier subjects.

It's unfortunate that there are so many cons that have proven that there's good reason to be skeptical of one another.

I'd love to know if Edgar Cayce and Sonya Fitzgerald are authentic because of the detail specific information you describe.
And then there's the question of the authenticity of the sitters or audience members or if theya are too eager to make the reading "fit". So subjective in most cases.

Well, until I have a disposable 300.00 to spend on a reading by Sonya, Sylvia Brown, or John Edwards, I guess it's something to just let go of as difficult as that is for me.

And after I pass away I'll keep in mind to pass on concrete, verifiable, provable information on to any medium instead of just telling my family how much I love them.

I'm such a spoilsport. I don't think Edgar Cayce was genuine. People are very easily fooled. It doesn't make us stupid to be fooled. Many brilliant people get fooled. Many brilliant people have fooled themselves.

Cayce's seems like a garden variety delusion.

TFF:

I feel as I do and it requires no confirmation.
Some person complained about critics of evolution being poorly informed and this could be applied to many discarded concepts. When I read the documented readings I see much of note. It would be amazing if all agreed.
jjw

This is a science site.

The site www.freewebs.com/biblicalcreation has no discernable relation to science.