@ Trippy, Since you've been alluding to trolling quite often in your last post, and since you are the only moderator who has ever banned me from sciforums for what I still believe to be a trumped up accusation. You actually banned me for SPAM for posting a link three times in a row to someone elderly whom seemed unable to find or read the links I was posting, or had been ignoring them. I shall make this short. Call it "God of the gaps" all you like. In missing gaps of technology people have filled in God as the cause of the witnessed effect. This is true. In the case we are discussing I say Telepathy is that technological gap. Now imagine for one moment that telepathy does exist. Just do this thought experiment. Okay. We are imagining telepathy is real. Would this mean that one mind was connected to another, or could it mean that every mind is connected in some way to every other mind? I think logically if one mind can connect to another then all minds would likely be connected via the same mechanism. This seems like a fair conclusion if telepathy were a real thing. Now with God of the gaps arguments normally you would find these gaps shrinking as technological understanding increased. i.e. Solar eclipses are explained, Volcanoes become understood. If telepathy were this gap then discovering a way to measure it might not shrink the gap. If we discovered telepathy in a 100% provable way, then we would be forced to look at the possibilities that we are all connected by the same method. It would force us to at LEAST consider the idea of a mass consciousness if not a god. I still disagree that this is a fitting example of that argument style. I also do not think labeling the argument as a certain type has any bearing on this conversation, and said the point was "Moot" in the post where I disagreed with the evaluation. I also say you are using "evidence of absence" arguments, which again bears no affect on the ability to establish whether god does or does not exist. It is just a style of argument. You just said, Again.... (sigh) This is okay to evaluate your personal belief, but is not "VALID" in science. You also just said, is trolling as if you are trying to set up justification for a ban, yet that quote is completely out of context as it was part of an analogy about a fictional character trying to prove radio waves 1000 years ago. If you were trying to disprove radio waves 1000 years ago "Evidence of Absence" based on absence of evidence would lead a skeptic to the wrong conclusion no matter how "VALID" you say it is. If a technologically advanced person 1000 years ago understood that radio waves must exist and made this claim, then skeptics would cry "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Yet this is not true. It needs proof to become science yes, but because he had no proof at all does not mean radio waves do not exist. The same with "Burden of Proof". These are phrases tossed around in these threads quite often. Does it not seem a bit ridiculous to ask a man to prove Radio Waves 1000 years ago. Even though the "Burden of Proof" is upon him and he fails to prove it, does this make Radio Waves non existent. Radio waves did exist, but could not be proven. Does it seem to be trolling when you include the story it was attached to. I moderated on a website 1000 times bigger than sciforums (yes that's 50 million+ members) in various languages (I speak a few). I hardly think your definition of trolling is called for there, but who cares. If I get banned from sciforums maybe I will publish more books. You say, I would be interested to see this, although I do not see how it could be of any real value. I have been forced to evaluate a number of fringe hypothesis myself since there is no mainstream theories that are accepted on this topic, and cannot imagine how someone could .. . But it would be fun to look at nonetheless. It would also be fun to see what Hypothesis they used to explain telepathy in the first place. We already know that certain types of psychic/psi tests give high probabilities psi exists, it is just that probabilities do not work with the scientific method. The only tools used in psi experiments are people themselves which already would lead to flawed testing. The only way telepathy could be proven is with machine measurement, which does not seem possible, however the "Global Consciousness Project" does use random number generation machines in their experiments. God cannot be proved. God cannot be disproved. Label the arguments as whatever type you like. I say that has no bearing on the topic. The OP used a religion choice as his proof god does not exist. This is flawed thinking. Religions are man made, and are in many cases ridiculous. If I was forced to choose a religion I would say Hindu or Buddhism are closer to the truth. I believe Jesus was someone who attended the Mystery Schools in Egypt and basically taught people the power of positive thinking a.k.a. "The law of attraction".