Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

The evidence is the proper double slit experiment, and the physical phenomenon being altered is the pattern of light, i.e. altering between wave characteristics and particle characteristics in response to conscious awareness of exactly what goes thru the slit. You haven't seen the evidence because you haven't even looked at any of the documentation or the available video demonstrations. How convenient for you to dismiss the issue and deny it based on your thorough ignorance of it.

 

It's certainly obvious that you have a lot more to do based on your screen name.

 

If you read any accounts of Einstein's actual practices/habits and how novel his perceptions were, you would realize that what was going thru his mind was for more unusual than just thinking about things.

 

No, this has nothing to do wth mind over matter.

I'm not interested in videos. Videos aren't evidence on a topic such as this.

Show me a paper peer reviewed and published by a reputable science journal.

 

Oh, come ON.

 

Also, you won't likely see any direct evidence of ordinary physical reality (other than light under controlled experiment) being altered by mind action because objective physical reality is after the fact, i.e. form already established and perceived when the mind action is applied. Only more fluid, flexible transitions can be affected.

The only well-known claim for registering that kind of influence involves the small slewing of results obtained from random number generation. Supposedly, some gifted individuals can identify a card before its face is turned up at the top of a stack at an accuracy rate that is significantly higher than that of chance guessing.

 

Various videos on the topic provide clear explanations and are consistent. So then the films on the Kennedy assassination are nearly as meaningless to you.

Do you also need official papers to accept nonlocality aspects of quantum physics such as entanglement, quantum tunneling, and quantum translocation? The double slit experiment has been around since the 1920's, and I'd be surprised if it isn't published to the pedigree standards that make it officially recognizable.

 

Wow. Is there anything that you can't brush off based on your conservative mindset?

 

This is abject woo woo.

Again, show me the peer reviewed and published paper.

If your woo were real, it would be the biggest news around the entire world. It would have monumental influence on ALL sciences. It would be like proving there is a god. The discoverer would be more famous than Einstein.

But, no, there is nothing going on like that anywhere.

 

True Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which “are not dreamt of in our philosophy.”

The theological “gnosis” would have us believe that the world is a conjurer’s house; the anti-theological “gnosis” talks as if it were a “dirt-pie,” made by the two blind children, Law and Force.

Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be behind phenomena.
— Thomas Henry Huxley
In Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1913), Vol. 3, 98, footnote 3.

 

We'll see about that. In the meantime, consider the fact that Uri Geller was paid handsomely by the petroleum industry in Israel because he could locate promising well locations better than anybody else.

 

There is no evidence of human consciousness affecting this experiment.

Clarity and consistency are great attributes in explanations. But, that doesn't address validity.

The question at hand is whether what is being clearly described is woo woo.

 

Oh, come ON. Uri Geller???

So, Uri Geller (with proof he got no consulting) pointed DOWN in the ME and they found oil!!!

I'm no longer sure what you're after here.

This has gone so far beyond anything related to science that it no longer warrants comment.

If you want to believe in Uri, go for it. But, please read up on James Randi, who solidly and repeatedly debunked this charlatan.

 

Yes, the existence, or non existence of god cannot be proven. Otoh, the same is true of unicorns... and yet most of us have an opinion about unicorns.

i surmise that most agnostics are in a similar situation with god as they are with unicorns. We do not believe in either until convincing evidence. Is presented

 

That is the atheist perspective.

 

That is the atheist perspective.

 

That is the rational perspective

 

FALSE
It is the irrational perspective, and as I have posted countless times that perspective is not agnostic.

“ agnostic-person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.“

 

You can surmise that atheist are similarly inclined.

 

You can't really be more agnostic than that.

I can't take steps to worship or otherwise do for a god when I don't have an answer to whether such exists.

So, you confuse me with being atheist.

That's on you.

 

but he did not surmise that atheists are similarly inclined, he surmised that agnostics were so inclined and therefore equally as incorrect.

 

Sounds like your definition of neo atheists are “ Democrats. “

 

more agnostic than what? Explain how that is agnostic?

 

You mean Democrats. Your entire line reads like a political agenda.

 

Then it’s true. You have a litany of slanderous terms you assign to liberals. Ku klux klan , neo atheists.....none of which you have any interest in defining. Don’t forget socialists, Communist, minorities.....
Trump Humpers are so obvious.