Evidnece for the super natural

[Creation]

12 hours ago, freeform said:

Some examples of the effects of Nei Qi emission:

To my untrained eye the first one looks like wai qi emission, can you comment? 

[freeform]

8 hours ago, Creation said:

To my untrained eye the first one looks like wai qi emission, can you comment? 

Yup it’s a method called Wai Qi Liao Fa - a healing method which is pretty common and reasonably easy to do once your LDT is at 50% or so. Although from what I understand it’s pretty much banned in China (unless the clinic is skilled in the art of bribary)

 

The later videos show something a lot more advanced and requires your LDT to be at close to 100% and your Yi Jing Jin to be complete, with your channels fully open... along with some special training to be able to move all that power.

Edited November 26, 2020 by freeform

[CCD]

On 11/25/2020 at 1:59 AM, freeform said:

But the truth is that the majority of people (at least the ones I know) who develop something ‘supernatural’ are in pursuit of spiritual development not the supernatural - what’s being called the supernatural is just a byproduct of that development.

 

I would avoid anyone who pursues the supernatural for its own sake - because firstly it’s of no interest to me and secondly that scene is filled with egotism and delusion - as you say.

I'm talking about ordinary people who've admitted that they have tried simple things like moving things with their mind, or reading someone else's mind. Most people have at least tried things like that a few times in their life. Fewer people have pursued it with enough dedication to see results. More just stick to focusing on "spiritual development", so they can feel that they're better than other people without actually having to prove anything.

[CCD]

On 11/24/2020 at 6:16 PM, qofq said:

"claim that your own ideas for the measures and observance of said subject are the only valid ones"  

 

These threads are like watching people go through the stages of grief.  Usually stagnating around the first 3.

 

Many of us understand the frustration of realizing there might be more to life than you have otherwise been lead to believe. 

 

That empathy is the door for a conversation for which you could be the main beneficiary.  

That just seems like a very long-winded way of saying "you mad."

[freeform]

2 hours ago, CCD said:

More just stick to focusing on "spiritual development", so they can feel that they're better than other people without actually having to prove anything.

 

You seem to know a lot about millions of people's motivations!

 

I think you may have managed to achieve the supernatural yourself!

[Master Logray]

All those videos are doubtful as there are just too many fakes and simply not scientific.  Nowadays if journalists still happen to be interested in emitting Chi, they would be having a stage magician around during the performance.  In the old days researchers observe themselves.  The conclusion is they were easily tricked.

 

China did have more scientific studies.  They tried to measure the effect of off site Chi emission in killing cancer cells, under laboratory condition.  This kind of research is far more trustworthy in terms of the context.

 

[Maddie]

21 hours ago, Master Logray said:

All those videos are doubtful as there are just too many fakes and simply not scientific.  Nowadays if journalists still happen to be interested in emitting Chi, they would be having a stage magician around during the performance.  In the old days researchers observe themselves.  The conclusion is they were easily tricked.

 

China did have more scientific studies.  They tried to measure the effect of off site Chi emission in killing cancer cells, under laboratory condition.  This kind of research is far more trustworthy in terms of the context.

 

 

Yes some video is not evidence at all since there's no way to differentiate that between a stage trick.

[wilfred]

evidence is everywhere via direct perception. but you might be waiting a while for science to prove this.

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, wilfred said:

evidence is everywhere via direct perception. but you might be waiting a while for science to prove this.

 

Well it almost seems like it times science wants to disprove things that seem rather difficult to disprove. Like during World war II there was a case when American B-17 bombers were about to bomb the monastery that saint Padre pio lived but then he flew up to the bombers and stopped them from dropping their bombs and the entire crew saw this and they recognized him later when the Allies occupied the town he lived in and they ran into him and apparently he recognized them as well and said oh you were the guy's wanting to blow everything up. Of course science says that none of that ever happened even though an entire bomber Crew saw the same thing with their own eyes and apparently Padre pio recognized them as well. Now how he got to that level to me is a more interesting question.

Edited November 27, 2020 by dmattwads

[qofq]

On 11/26/2020 at 1:50 AM, CCD said:

That just seems like a very long-winded way of saying "you mad."

 

"you mad"

 

+

 

"if you want a cookie, you won't get it throwing a temper tantrum"

[Maddie]

Sometimes I like watching the atheists on YouTube because I do appreciate skepticism since in the past I was swept up into a cult and had I been more skeptical that would have not been the case but sometimes people call in and they have these examples of children remembering past lives and then researchers like Ian Stevenson follow up their past life claims and discover the details to be correct and they always just dismiss it out of hand. I mean yes obviously these things could be staged and faint but sometimes I feel like they're intentionally dense.

[idiot_stimpy]

I think its beneficial to be open to the possibility of something instead of being completely closed off from it.

 

I've never seen someone levitate, or shape shift or perform any other superhuman like task, however its not to say it hasn't happened. I'm open to the possibility that its real, just I have not personally experienced it myself. I'm also open to the possibility that it is not real too.

[C T]

Its very difficult to witness the mystical & supernatural when people assume the self is the final arbiter for whats real (and what's not). In fact, the very notion that there's that deep, pervasive distinction is itself a major obstacle to touching the void. 

[Maddie]

Just now, C T said:

Its very difficult to witness the mystical & supernatural when people assume the self is the final arbiter for whats real (and what's not). In fact, the very notion that there's that deep, pervasive distinction is itself a major obstacle to touching the void. 

 

I think according to the Buddha this is one of the last wrong view to go before someone goes from Non-Returner to Arahat.

[C T]

If one desires to be in awe of life, it is necessary to cultivate a sense of childlike wonder in/with/towards all things, no less this self. 

 

Its been said that beginner's mind is zen mind, and vice versa. There's even a book written about this.... Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki. The well-worn quote, "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind, there are few," is attributed to master Suzuki. Even in the gospels there's a passage that points to a similar necessity: "Unless you become as little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) Important to note that in (almost?) all the translations, it reads thus: "...become AS little children"  and not "like little children". To me, the former suggests, among other things, not to get lost in wonderment. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by C T
space

[silent thunder]

Who can see the miracle of 'the ordinary' any more?

 

I contend, there are more miracles playing out in a square yard of 'ordinary dirt'... than in all the religious and philosophical tomes of humanity, combined.

 

 

[XianGong]

I really don't believe in supernatural myself. Cultivation is all physics, you accumulate electricity inside the body.

[Maddie]

The direction this thread went was unexpected by me. I suppose I had assumed people would be contemplating the existence or non-existence of "the gods" or other spiritual beings. I didn't really expect it to take the "qi powers" route that it took.

 

 That being said I would like to hear people's thoughts on the existence of deities and other such beings.

[CCD]

On 12/2/2020 at 2:32 PM, dmattwads said:

That being said I would like to hear people's thoughts on the existence of deities and other such beings.

Basically everything that I've said about "qi powers" applies just as well to gods & spirits. If they actually existed in any way, they'd be testable somehow. Even if we were talking about some weak god that's part of a large pantheon of gods, should at least be as powerful as an average human. Even if that god could only exist in one place at one time, it should still be just as capable of proving they exist. If an all-powerful god wanted people to worship him, it shouldn't be easy for the god to prove its existence, but none ever do. Most theists say that their god doesn't want you to believe because of proof, but you should have faith just because. That "just because" is usually either a vague threat or promise of some kind, with no proof to back it up.

[Paradoxal]

14 minutes ago, CCD said:

Basically everything that I've said about "qi powers" applies just as well to gods & spirits. If they actually existed in any way, they'd be testable somehow. Even if we were talking about some weak god that's part of a large pantheon of gods, should at least be as powerful as an average human. Even if that god could only exist in one place at one time, it should still be just as capable of proving they exist. If an all-powerful god wanted people to worship him, it shouldn't be easy for the god to prove its existence, but none ever do. Most theists say that their god doesn't want you to believe because of proof, but you should have faith just because. That "just because" is usually either a vague threat or promise of some kind, with no proof to back it up.

Why do you assume that said gods and spirits actually *want* to be known and/or worshipped? It's a vast minority that actually want human attention, and most that want it do not want it for purposes that actually help humans. On top of that, you misunderstand the nature of said beings. They aren't physical, thus they do not have the ability to affect the physical as strongly as humans can. What they can do, however, is affect things in the physical via toying with chance. Weather, "fate", and freak incidents are where they manifest the most. Of the deities that I've met, one was strictly malicious towards humans, one helped me as a passerby, one has mentored but never interfered directly, and one strongly desires worship and will tell you anything you want to hear (no matter whether it has to lie or deceive you) to get you to praise it. Of the two of these that were named, one was a god from the Norse mythos, and one was the Christian god. Of the two, the one that was more pleasant to deal with was the Norse mythos one, and never did he ask for worship or praise. 

 

It's easiest to compare human interaction with gods to a human stumbling across a group of ants misspelling the humans' name on the sidewalk. Yeah, it'll get your attention. You might decide to give them sugar, or you might decide that they're an eyesore and wipe them out. It purely depends on what kind of human you are, and what mood you are in at that time. Gods are similar in their interactions with humans. While they may incarnate from time to time, very few truly care about the state of human affairs, much less proving themselves to said humans. Afterall, would you waste effort proving your existence to ants? 

[Maddie]

What about starting from the baseline of the materialist atheist who says there is nothing beyond the physical reality that science can verify and that all these other things that we think of as being metaphysical are just the brain's ability to abstract?

[Paradoxal]

15 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

What about starting from the baseline of the materialist atheist who says there is nothing beyond the physical reality that science can verify and that all these other things that we think of as being metaphysical are just the brain's ability to abstract?

The first step when starting with a materialist atheist is to soften his mindset. This is where I find weather magic (or other basic magics with obviously observable effects) useful. By showing the materialist atheist how he himself can change the weather against the odds through certain rituals, that mindset begins to soften up. Once his mindset softens up, he can begin to properly work through "supernatural" experiences with less bias and will allow him to process what he sees much easier. This is also applicable with fanatic believers, but the process is somewhat reversed. 

 

If we were to compare mindsets to yin and yang, materialist atheists are extreme yin, whereas fanatic believers are extreme yang. One extreme pushed too far can switch itself for the lesser opposite, so the two viable methods of easing one such person out of that mindset are to push them further into the material (towards further yin), or to ease them out of the material (towards lesser yin). If you push them towards further yin, their switch can end up being explosive and dangerous to themselves, and they can easily fall into more traps. If you ease them out of their extreme yin mindset, it becomes easier for them to find the answers they seek. 

 

This is something I personally find rather amusing, as the types that typically dominate debates about the supernatural are either materialist atheists (who will argue against the supernatural at all costs, even at the loss of their own reason) or fanatic believers (who will argue for the supernatural at all costs, even at the loss of their reason). Neither side is truly ready to approach the subject, as they are both too unbalanced, but due to the nature of their disbalance, they end up attracted to the subject. It's as if they know they're mistaken somewhere, but can't truly find where without outside help. 

[Maddie]

5 minutes ago, Paradoxal said:

The first step when starting with a materialist atheist is to soften his mindset. This is where I find weather magic (or other basic magics with obviously observable effects) useful. By showing the materialist atheist how he himself can change the weather against the odds through certain rituals, that mindset begins to soften up. Once his mindset softens up, he can begin to properly work through "supernatural" experiences with less bias and will allow him to process what he sees much easier. This is also applicable with fanatic believers, but the process is somewhat reversed. 

 

If we were to compare mindsets to yin and yang, materialist atheists are extreme yin, whereas fanatic believers are extreme yang. One extreme pushed too far can switch itself for the lesser opposite, so the two viable methods of easing one such person out of that mindset are to push them further into the material (towards further yin), or to ease them out of the material (towards lesser yin). If you push them towards further yin, their switch can end up being explosive and dangerous to themselves, and they can easily fall into more traps. If you ease them out of their extreme yin mindset, it becomes easier for them to find the answers they seek. 

 

This is something I personally find rather amusing, as the types that typically dominate debates about the supernatural are either materialist atheists (who will argue against the supernatural at all costs, even at the loss of their own reason) or fanatic believers (who will argue for the supernatural at all costs, even at the loss of their reason). Neither side is truly ready to approach the subject, as they are both too unbalanced, but due to the nature of their disbalance, they end up attracted to the subject. It's as if they know they're mistaken somewhere, but can't truly find where without outside help. 

 

That is a good point though I have noticed from watching hardcore materialist atheists on YouTube that they will reject any arguments for the supernatural just as out of hand as a fanatical religious person will reject anything that contradicts their religion out of hand.

[Paradoxal]

Just now, dmattwads said:

That is a good point though I have noticed from watching hardcore materialist atheists on YouTube that they will reject any arguments for the supernatural just as out of hand as a fanatical religious person will reject anything that contradicts their religion out of hand.

The first step to convince anyone of anything is to recognize their views as valid, thus giving them legitimacy. Once that is done, it lowers the walls that usually pop up when people are told of their mistakes, and makes it easier for them to learn to correct them rather than falling into cognitive dissonance. 

 

In my personal experience, the easiest way to do this for both sides is to befriend them, and allow them to see you as a reasonable individual. If you bust a ritual out of nowhere, they'll likely enter cognitive dissonance instead of improving. Unfortunately, like a doctor can't help those out of their reach, it is near impossible to do that for YouTube celebrities unless you already know them. 

[CCD]

4 hours ago, Paradoxal said:

Why do you assume that said gods and spirits actually *want* to be known and/or worshipped? It's a vast minority that actually want human attention, and most that want it do not want it for purposes that actually help humans. On top of that, you misunderstand the nature of said beings. They aren't physical, thus they do not have the ability to affect the physical as strongly as humans can. What they can do, however, is affect things in the physical via toying with chance. Weather, "fate", and freak incidents are where they manifest the most. Of the deities that I've met, one was strictly malicious towards humans, one helped me as a passerby, one has mentored but never interfered directly, and one strongly desires worship and will tell you anything you want to hear (no matter whether it has to lie or deceive you) to get you to praise it. Of the two of these that were named, one was a god from the Norse mythos, and one was the Christian god. Of the two, the one that was more pleasant to deal with was the Norse mythos one, and never did he ask for worship or praise. 

 

It's easiest to compare human interaction with gods to a human stumbling across a group of ants misspelling the humans' name on the sidewalk. Yeah, it'll get your attention. You might decide to give them sugar, or you might decide that they're an eyesore and wipe them out. It purely depends on what kind of human you are, and what mood you are in at that time. Gods are similar in their interactions with humans. While they may incarnate from time to time, very few truly care about the state of human affairs, much less proving themselves to said humans. Afterall, would you waste effort proving your existence to ants? 

On 11/24/2020 at 6:28 AM, CCD said:

My understanding is that people who pursue these things do so for egotistical reasons rather than aversion to them, since test subjects in experiments usually remain unnamed. Having supernatural abilities makes someone feel unique or special compared to those who don't, which is why so many seem to promote their own anecdotal evidence or beliefs as facts pertaining to the supernatural. Both disproving & proving it would be a major blow to the ego, so it's easier to avoid doing so entirely. Failure to preform would be a simple, obvious blow to the ego, but proving it would have a longer-term impact. If rigorous scientific testing could prove the existence of the supernatural, it'd be explained & then simply become natural. More would learn it, excel at it, explain & understand it better than you ever could, so it would become logical, ordinary & mundane. The easiest way to feel like an expert at something is to be the only who does it.