Strange

No. It might be. But how do I know that. There are countless videos of UFOs on yootoob. Some deliberate hoaxes, some are just someone mistaking a bird for a UFO, some are genuinely unknown, some are fakes. As a source of information it has, by itself, zero credibility. And yet all attempts to detect or quantify this ability show results no better than chance. That is obviously totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Note that philosophy does not mean "love of wisdom". This is an example of the etymological fallacy. As for a one word summary of science, I guess "objective" or "rigorous" or "evidence-based" might be a start.

I was not asking you to. You were referencing some dumb videos as "evidence". I was asking why the entertainer/stage magician/conman/gullible idiot/whatever isn't doing science. And if he isn't doing science, why do you consider him to be a source of scientific information?

Why does the mind need to be "spiritual" for you to be able to hear a voice in your mind, or see a picture in your "mind's eye", or like the taste of chocolate, or enjoy remembering the taste of chocolate, or admire a sunset? The brain does all that. And allows us to be amazed about it, as well. Amazing.

This is similar to many anti-science arguments (such as "you can't create the big bang in the lab, therefore it isn't science"). You don't need to make predictions on demand in order for this to be testable. But you do need to make clear and specific predictions that can be tested. These may occur randomly and intermittently, that doesn't matter. The predictions should also include an indication of when and where the event will take place. For example, I can predict that "there will be a large earthquake in a remote area that will kill thousands." Sooner or later that "prediction" will be true. Say you write down each of your predictions. Then we check how many of them occur. If they all do, and are surprisingly accurate, then maybe you have the ability to see the future. (Or have an army of evil henchmen arranging to make them come true. ) However, what if only half, or 1 in 10, or 1 in 1,000 come true. Do you then say, "well, I'm never sure whether they are real predictions or not so I write them all down." In that case, how can we tell they are predictions and not just guesses that happen to come true? Well, we can test that hypothesis as well. We compare your success rate with people who do not claim to be prescient by getting them to make up predictions. We compare your success rate with theirs. If your predictions are no better than their inventions you might say, "ah, but they really are predicting the future sometimes, they just don't know it". In which case we replace them with a computer that makes up random guesses and compare your success rate to that. If you are still no more successful than random, do you make a new excuse or admit there is nothing to it. If the former, then this ceases to be science because you are making the hypothesis unfalsifiable. Then why isn't the scientific approach relevant?

Very obviously not. Just by inspection: the original number does not end in 0 or 5, therefore 655 cannot be a factor. And 655 is not a prime number. Edit: and the two nearest primes are not factors of the original number either. So your system doesn't work. Utterly incomprehensible, as always, without some explanation.

Matter is made of atoms which are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Hydrogen was formed in the early universe. Other elements were created in stars. "Mind over matter" means different things in different contexts. For example, how you feel can affect your health. Matter is not spiritual. Yes. I don't see why.

So you agree it isn't science, just entertainment.

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is a result of brain activity. There is no evidence that the mind exists independently of the brain.

There is no point trying to find the reason for something unless you have some evidence that it exists. And, the answer to your question is that it is rarely worth watching videos. And it is certainly a complete and utter waste of time in a context like this. However, if you can provide a reference to his copious peer-reviewed papers showing the measurements of "TK" then there may be something to discuss. As you can't, all you are doing is demonstrating how gullible you are. I would prefer to watch professional stage magicians. At least they know (and admit) that they are lying.

Is he as amusing as Penn and Teller?

Except it hasn't been demonstrated. And all you have is excuses: "it is real but undetectable".

There is no reason to think that the big bang is supernatural.

There are areas of science that deal with humans and their variability. So people are quite used to doing this (and have often used the techniques to study claims of psychic powers). It should be possible to determine if you can make it move more often than it would by chance. And if you can't then there is no reason to think you have any "powers".

Do you have any evidence that the mind is like that? I don't get the impression that you, or anyone else, has infinite information flowing into their mind. There is evidence that indicates the possibility/likelihood that the brain gives rise to the mind. There is zero evidence that the mind exists independently of the brain. So it is clear that only one of those choices is opinion.

If they can't be measured, how do you know they exist? How do you distinguish between coincidence and whatever magic it is that you are claiming? Sometimes, maybe. Sometimes it is just hard work. But how is that relevant to the topic? I don't know why you think people wouldn't admit it. There are many examples of people dreaming of solutions to problems. August Kekule famously dreamed of the structure of the benzene ring. But, again, how is this relevant to the topic? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that hunches and dreams are related to the actions of the mind. Do you claim otherwise? If so, what is the evidence? But, more importantly, how is this relevant to the topic of the thread?

No.

That's brilliant. No need to obey Him/Her then! I'm booking my next holiday in Gomorrah.

Why did your God create satan and these dark/unseen worlds? What was She thinking of? And having seen that they are Evil why doesn't She just destroy them? Maybe your God is not as powerful as She wants you to think? Or maybe She didn't create them, but just pretends to?

Is there? What objective evidence do you have for this? No, it is part of your imagination. What soul? Do you have evidence for such a thing? What is it about this "special matter" that makes it special? Is it made of the same elements as all other matter? How is it that no one has found this "special matter" when looking at brains? In case you are not aware, entire brains have been cut into very thin slices, stained and photographed. The data is then used to create a 3D model. Similarly, people have done 3D scans (CAT, MRI, PET, fMRI, etc). And the two processes have been correlated to check that they are showing the same thing. No one has ever spotted any "special matter" in this process. Your beliefs are unsupported and, frankly, ludicrous. I had hopes of a rational discussion initially, but this thread has strayed further and further from science and into pure nonsense. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

That is one of those clever-sounding but shallow arguments that don't really work. If by "television" you mean the entire television industry: studios, broadcasting equipment, manufacturers, supporting services ... oh, and the TV set then looking for the actors in "television makes perfect sense. Your analogy is like: trying to understand sight by just looking at the lens of the eye. (Because nearly all of the sense of sight is handled by the brain.)

So is both infinite and finite. That makes sense. </sarcasm> That is not what infinite means. Maybe the word you are looking for is "incomprehensible". But we are doing a pretty good job of understanding the universe. We just don't know if it is finite or infinite. No.

Except, we have discovered that measurements of both space and time (as well as many other properties, for example, energy) are observer dependent. Your discomfort with the way the universe works is not very relevant.

We don't (yet) have a big problem because it is known that current experiments are very unlikely to detect anything (because they are not really sensitive enough). There is, no doubt, some limit of sensitivity at which it would become a "big problem" - or, as scientists tend to think of it, a massive and very exciting opportunity to discover new physics. Because we are not yet able to detect it. This is hardly an unprecedented situation. It was several years after the missing energy in beta decay was spotted before neutrinos could be detected. It is being considered. Nonsense. The way for a scientist to become world famous (hailed as "the new Einstein") and win a Nobel Prize would be to show that GR is wrong. Don't let your emotional dislike of the theory get in the way of rational discussion.

Note that this hypothetical body has not been observed directly yet. It is based on its effects on other objects in the Kuiper belt: https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523