@ Trippy, No. I am not using god to explain anything our scientific knowledge does not comprehend yet, mainly because it is the entity of "god" that is the subject matter that is not being comprehended by science. I see a line between the arguments. If man witnessed a solar eclipse and it was attributed to god because their science at the time could not comprehend an eclipse, then that would be a better example for what you are arguing. You could say I think there is a gap in scientific knowledge ( I do ) regarding scientific knowledge vs telepathy, however I also think this would mean a mass consciousness must exist and that it would be a part of what god is. I think god is everything plus a bit more. I would argue that the meaning is meant for other things, but I will not formally debate it here as the point is moot. You say I am using god to fill some sort of gap in our understanding, and I am saying our gap in understanding is the inability to measure god. I see a line between those positions, but will not waste time trying to explain it further. I'd buy that argument if you applied it to something else in nature like ball lightning (caused by lightning hitting copper), volcano's, or solar eclipses. I also doubt many here would even say psychic phenomenon exists at all, never mind calling it a gap in our scientific knowledge. Calling it a gap in our scientific knowledge I would herald as an improved stance of many here if they concurred. You either grasp it or not as it stands. My argument is (from post 117). If people argued the existence of radio waves 1000 years ago there would be no way to measure because science had not advanced far enough to measure them. This does NOT mean radio waves did not exist. Their inability to prove radio waves does not equal proof that they do not exist. Think on that for a minute. Their inability to prove radio waves does not equal proof that they do not exist. Now again I point to the words under my name, "Finally we know everything!" It is a good thing we do know everything now, because otherwise no rational person would ever ask for proof of god, psi, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. Arguing "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is fine. That is about belief and unrelated to science. That statement should not even be allowed on a science forum. Imagine again those folks arguing that radio waves must exist 1000 years ago (unreal example for argument). They had no extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim. Did that make radio waves unscientific? Does this make radio waves unreal? Does this make radio waves unbelievable at the time? Yes; it would have been unbelievable at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no tool to prove god exists. There is no tool that disproves gods existence. There is no valid argument for either (except god is real). This thread and ones like it have 2 sides. Side a - They stick out their tongues at side b and say god is fake. Side b - They stick out their tongues at side a and say god is real. I have shown AGAIN (for those not comprehending great explanation in post 117), that this argument has no solution and is ridiculous in nature. It is like watching bickering children from my viewpoint. I can understand debating religions or their arguments as they themselves are often a joke in my eyes. Simply look here... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all If you want to argue ancient religions are a joke then sign me up... That has NOTHING to do with how I have come to view this Universal consciousness/all that is/god. I'm side b so.... :blbl: God is real.