Message #3322

[Jan]

It's not you who is on trial, but your position, the opinion you and others claim as fact. That's what scientific scrutiny is.

What - do you not think that me and 'others' would have actually bothered to look into this further? I think I have mentioned before that my educational background is in science - meaning that I am not one who would readily believe anything unless I had proof. The proof I have had (over and over) is personal proof - though I have given you a list of professional scientists who have done the scrutiny bit and if you have read the links properly you will know of their findings.

Oh I do show a healthy scepticism about spirits, because I have good reason to do so!  But my posts on this thread are not scepticism.  On this thread I am making a statement of fact and challenging you to disprove it.
  All it would take to do so is to produce one piece of properly controlled evidence, something published in a scientific journal, repeatable and verifiable, I am not contesting that something called a soul might exist. I'm stating as a matter of fact, that there is no scientifically controlled evidence which supports its existence. 

THE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH

We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - The Quarterly Journal of Science - in 1874. These were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. International teams of scientists then repeated the experiments and obtained the same results. People who had once lived on earth came back and proved to these scientific teams that they had conquered death and were still very much alive. This is what Professor Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments:

    "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact."

The purpose of this pamphlet is only to bring to peoples' attention these exciting discoveries in subatomic physics. My job is easy, all I have to do is point to the books that have been published, but suppressed. The main reason why this incredible scientific discovery did not cause a revolution at the beginning of this century is because these experiments lacked the backing of any detailed mathematical theory. This is what Sir Oliver Lodge said in 1929:

    "We have to be guided by the facts; and if the facts seem incredible as the they do - we have first of all to assure ourselves that they are facts, and then conclude that there is a department of knowledge to which we have as yet not got the key."

At the end of the century we now have the key, the missing mathematical theory to back up these revolutionary, scientific experiments.

source www.cfpf.org.uk

References

Lodge, Sir Oliver "Phantom Walls" 1929 (Hodder & Stoughton)

Medhurst, Dr. R.G. "Crookes and the Spirit World" 1972 (Souvenir)

Crookes, Sir William "Experimental Investigation of a New Force" Article in "Quarterly Journal of Science" July 1, 1871 (Early experiments)

Richet, Professor Charles "Thirty Years of Psychical Research" 1923 (W. Collins & Sons). The French scientific team.

von Schrenck Notzing, Baron "Phenomena of Materialisations" 1923 (Kegan Paul. Trench. Trubner). The German scientific team.

Hamilton, Dr. T. Glen "Intention and Survival" 1942. (Regency Press) The Canadian scientific team.

Warrick, F. W. "Experiments in Psychics" 1939 (Rider & Co. London)

This was published to do with NDE entitled Scientific Evidence for Survival Of consciousness after death

http://www.near-death.com/

It stands to reason that the survival of consciousness after physical death would mean soul survival too wouldn't it?
There has been plenty of evidence collected regarding NDE over the years (and NDE is just one phenomenon pointing to this conclusion)

The very nature of scientific evidence is that it is not possible to do this.  And the fact that you are asking for it shows that you haven't been reading what I'm saying (either that or you are again trying to sidetrack the issue away from your lack of evidence).  You are the one demonstrating your closed-mindedness.  I am simply demonstrating my good reasoning.

Good reasoning?     Actually Martin - I was trying to make a point - and not to sidetrack away because of lack of evidence - not when there is so much evidence out there. What exactly am I being 'closed minded' about in your opinion?

The fact that one cannot provide scientific evidence to disprove the existence of something, has never been under dispute by me.  I cannot produce a properly controlled experiment to show that hippogryphs, yettis, invisible dragons or whatever, do not exist, though to prove that they do, all I would have to do is to produce one.

well if a dragon (or any other 'exotic' creature) is invisible (to our perceptions) you would need something (perhaps technology) to help others to see it or perceive it in some way. Again - just because we cannot perceive something with our limited 5 senses it doesn't mean it is not there or cannot exist. That is more to do with unseen creatures though.

Amazing to think that the question in the OP was

who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...?

and we have got onto the existence of the soul (or unusual creatures even) from that!