Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Regina wrote:

Paul wrote:

A version of Russian Roulette would be just as applicable.

John would not accept the doughball method in court, since murder trials don't deal with the supernatural. John strictly reserves bollocks as evidence where bollocks is claimed. Is it coincidence that we call those guys dough nuts?
I think not.

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Regina wrote:
John would not accept the doughball method in court, since murder trials don't deal with the supernatural. John strictly reserves bollocks as evidence where bollocks is claimed. Is it coincidence that we call those guys dough nuts?
I think not.

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:(Note to Paul: take note)

You're still evading the original request. I can only take it you are unable to back up the assertion that you made (well infact I'm fairly certain you can't, but I can't be arsed to go and look again)
When I did my cursory check earlier it looks like there was only one person making repeated references to 'scientific evidence', and that person was you.

Any more comments like the above will be taken as trolling.

I'm simply pointing out requests I get for scientific evidence of supernatural events as they come in so I can demonstrate that indeed atheists make such requests. I don't see why that isn't sufficient to prove my point. And it has now been well established that I am not the only person making repeated references to scientific evidence.

And you cannot provide the evidence so you admitting therefore this whole notion of supernaturalism is what it is just a word with no use or meaning. That is why any further discussion in null and void.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Regina wrote:
John would not accept the doughball method in court, since murder trials don't deal with the supernatural. John strictly reserves bollocks as evidence where bollocks is claimed. Is it coincidence that we call those guys dough nuts?
I think not.

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Regina wrote:
John would not accept the doughball method in court, since murder trials don't deal with the supernatural. John strictly reserves bollocks as evidence where bollocks is claimed. Is it coincidence that we call those guys dough nuts?
I think not.

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

Paul wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Put it this way John, would you accept your name being chosen by the doughball method as evidence that you are guilty of murder? If not, why not?

A version of Russian Roulette would be just as applicable.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Paul wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Put it this way John, would you accept your name being chosen by the doughball method as evidence that you are guilty of murder? If not, why not?

A version of Russian Roulette would be just as applicable.

Now there's an experiment that's repeatable. Up to a point. And then with varying experimental subjects.

ElDiablo wrote:
I found the source of the supernatural tools known as Doughballs!

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

What evidence John? Remember the flopping out on the table thing?

Well, for example, sometimes the Doughball method is used to determine if someone is the reincarnation of someone else.

http://www.esoterism.ro/english/tibetan ... nation.php

1)Doughball Divination: This method is practised mainly in the monasteries or by individual lamas when an important decisions needs to be made, such as in the search for the reincarnation of very high lamas. A number of possible answers to the enquiry, such as the names of likely candidates for a reincarnation, are written on slips of paper. These are then encased in equal sized balls of dough. Great care is taken to weigh the dough balls to ensure that they are exactly the same size. The doughballs are then placed in a bowl, which is carefully sealed and placed in front of a sacred object, such as the Jowo statue in the main temple in Lhasa, images of Dharma protectors or the funerary monuments of great lamas, requesting their inspiration in deciding the outcome. For a period of three days monks remain in the temple reciting prayers day and night. During that time no one is allowed to touch the bowl. On the fourth day, before all those present the cover of the bowl is removed. A prominent lama rolls the doughballs round in the bowl before the sacred object until one of them falls out. That is the ball containing the answer.

How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

Fucking hell, John, seriously?! That's what's known as a lottery!

ohhh, perhaps you missed a previous thread where I explained in great detail the value of pseudo random function generators and their relationship to the supernatural.

It's related to the supernatural phenomenon of synchronicity and the whole area of acausal events. Great scientific minds tried to apply the tools of science to it, Einstein, Pauli, Jung, etc. etc. they couldn't make a dent in it. It's pretty hard to figure out how to approach events that are connected by meaning instead of cause and effect. I'm no reincarnation expert but I'm guessing the doughballs work on the principle of synchronicity.

As Albert Einstein may have put it, "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. -” so I'm thinking God is in the doughballs.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Regina wrote:
John would not accept the doughball method in court, since murder trials don't deal with the supernatural. John strictly reserves bollocks as evidence where bollocks is claimed. Is it coincidence that we call those guys dough nuts?
I think not.

Does John have evidence that the causality is supernatural?

Of course not. This flaw in his thinking has been pointed out right at the beginning: if the supernatural interacts with the natural world, and is inextricably part of it which can be demonstrated wonderfully with this whole reincarnation business, then it is subject to scientific exploration. His central premise has never taken off.

That's just wrong. The supernatural could interact with the natural world in a causal way that is not repeatable and therefore will not yield to scientific exploration. Or the supernatural could interact with the natural world in an acausal way- and how is science going to deal with that.

For example, If God exists and if God occasionally heals someone at Lourdes at some low unpredictable rate how will science detect that supernatural event. And if reincarnation actually happens but memory distortion across the life-death-life interfaces prevents reliable scientific investigation then we may have to rely on doughballs.

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Put it this way John, would you accept your name being chosen by the doughball method as evidence that you are guilty of murder? If not, why not?

It depends on the court I was charged in. For example, if I was in a Joan of Arc on trial in Rouen type of situation, I'd be glad to have the doughballs decide my guilt or innocence.

Cito di Pense wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:
I found the source of the supernatural tools known as Doughballs!

Scot Dutchy wrote:Looks expensive.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.