Can hell be proven real?

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

I watched a whole lot of Randi, Derren Brown and even some Michael Shermer these last couple of days. I think I've deconverted somewhat... Or at least see some things differently... I'm not sure where I am headed belief-wise, I can't really see right now where I'm at and where I'm going... I need some more time. I'd just like to respond to a few specific points,

Saying that many people will ignore credible evidence IS a conspiracy theory:

So saying Creationism exists as a movement is touting a conspiracy theory?
It's not the same thing. Conspiracies are willing and knowing, collaborative and deceitful. Collective biases, while they can lead to collaboration, will likely be unknown to the holders and would be in good faith.

there are many people in the sciences who are open to these things and would be happy to win a nobel prize, as Dawkins said. You're calling people liars when they admit their interest and explain that they just don't have any credible evidence to believe it.

I guess many people are interested in it on some level. I don't see the conditions being right for large scale paranormal investigations at universities though. Likely because of the reputation of failure for those kind of tests, based on the past, i.e. parsimony. I understand that the suggestion that scientists are willingly frustrating the process of discovery would be insulting. Maybe there is less bias than I imagine. That's quite likely. Still, with emotionally laden subjects such as the afterlife, nobody is guaranteed to be free of a preference towards what would be the truth. The climate in global scientific attitudes can be influenced by all kinds of macro-cultural influences, such as the popularity of new atheism and skepticism Shermer, Dawkins, Dennett, et al. I'd imagine as well for example there isn't much inflow from say parapsychological institutions towards psychology departments of regular universities.

With regards to editing out misses - quite possibly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g74znWzyRTU did edit some things out. As far as I could tell only 2 misses were in the video, one thing about a baby girl and one thing about a burgundy color. Just because the "sitter" couldn't place either of them doesn't mean they are true misses. The sitter might not think of taking a morning after pill as an abortion and so not realize what the baby girl reference could be about.

That's a horrible and frankly insulting rationalization, I've heard that kind of ad hoc excuse from every dogma: you really should know better.
If you make excuses like that, your claims are unfalsifiable and have no scientific or rational value whatsoever. If you do not have any standards of evidence in your belief, then your belief has no value to understanding reality and is as irrational as any dogmatic religion.

It is reasoned from the perspective of mediumship being real. I was just pointing out that if it is real, not everything that is said would necessarily have to make sense to peeps on earth, but still testable things would have to show up true as often as you have modeled the accuracy. If the accuracy you predict is the same as chance, then there is no way to distinguish between a model in which channeling has the same accuracy as chance or a model in which channeling is a random process by experiment, and so other criteria, such as Occams razor would have to be applied. Right now I am convinced that channeling probably does not do better than chance or cold reading. But I do not exclude it should be possible somehow.
Besides Occams razor, one could also look at personal preferences, or better consequences for behavior of one model, or personal experience. Though you might argue that not experiencing spirit communication yourself as a random process is a cognitive bias.

The bus-accident in the Andes girl, Jess - looks somewhat like a miss, yet they didn't edit the video.

It was a miss. They left it in because they are delusional and make excuses for it and decided it was a hit based on the same rationalizations you made. "Oh, age isn't precise. Maybe it was a nickname. Drowning is a similar feeling." and all that bullshit.

They thought it was a hit, and presented it as such, because they have no standards of evidence.

They leave everything in as far as I can tell. I believe they want to record the way they develop themselves. So even if they now think it was a failure, after seeing the comparison to the best "hit" in terms of a newspaper article not performing better than a random guess, which I posted on the DT forum, they may leave it up because they believe the medium can improve in the future, for comparison purposes if you will...

We already talked about that. A feeling only tells you a feeling is there, it doesn't tell you anything about the source of that feeling. I can feel that feeling too: do you not remember my description of it?

Yeah, I've thought about it a lot. I've not managed to obtain the feeling that I had which I called receiving Gods love using your technique. But I could feel like a feeling of love. But it was more like coming out of me towards others. Or just a general feeling of love for everything. But it was not such an earth-shattering experience as feeling the indescribably overwhelming feelings I had earlier. That was also more of an incoming feeling rather then an outgoing one, if that make sense. The blasé and seemingly sarcastic way you said your technique was "totally overwhelming" also makes it seem like the feelings are not comparable. You may not have intended it that way, but that's the way it came across to me. Also feeling loved by spirits, even celestial spirits, is not comparable to being loved by the supreme being.
Kind regards,

[brimstoneSalad]

So saying Creationism exists as a movement is touting a conspiracy theory?

That's a faith based worldview. It's not always so much that they are ignoring the evidence as in the sense you're describing, as they don't care about evidence.

Watch some of Anthony Magnabosco's street Epistemology: https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210

He'll often ask them "If I could show you evidence proving that wrong to your satisfaction, would you change your mind?" and basically the answer is usually "no, because I have faith".

Ask the same of a scientist, and the answer is almost always "yes, of course". This is the answer people like Dawkins and Randi have given time and again; those with skeptical but scientific world views care about evidence, and saying they would dismiss it the same as a creationist is alleging systemic dishonesty, not just a bias.

Conspiracies are willing and knowing, collaborative and deceitful.

And that's what you're saying of scientists when you suggest they are all lying about whether they'd accept evidence or not. If creationists can reveal their faith based biases on investigation, you're saying scientists (as an entire field) are dishonest in a way creationists are not, and lie about their biases (and clearly must be colluding, given all of the variety in belief they otherwise report, and/or have some sinister overseer that will punish them if they consider evidence for supernatural claims -- many Christians believe this is the devil, and scientists are servants to him).

Just as the theists Magnabosco interviews, scientists are straightforward about this: they just give the opposite answer. If you deny that, you're alleging something sinister; collaborative and deceitful.

Collective biases, while they can lead to collaboration, will likely be unknown to the holders and would be in good faith.

This is where you don't understand science: Proper methodology controls for bias. Not everybody is interested in actually doing that kind of research anymore because they think it's a waste of time and money, but it still has been done, there still are scientists interested in these questions, and even for those who aren't all it takes it money to get people on board (to make it worth their wasted time).

There is of course a bias in terms of research funding in favor of things that are most likely to actually yield results, but doesn't imply any kind of bias against evidence that would show results.

I guess many people are interested in it on some level. I don't see the conditions being right for large scale paranormal investigations at universities though.

That's different, it's a matter of funding and time waste.

Likely because of the reputation of failure for those kind of tests, based on the past, i.e. parsimony.

Right, which is why they can't find funding, and scientists (since they have no reason to assume the test will show anything different) aren't usually going to donate their time for free. Although if you actually go to a university and ask nicely, you'd almost certainly be able to find a scientists to give an hour or two of time to this.

Still, with emotionally laden subjects such as the afterlife, nobody is guaranteed to be free of a preference towards what would be the truth.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in an afterlife. I don't know what your claim is here. Preferences don't influence the outcome of properly conducted experiments. A scientist who didn't believe in the afterlife would conduct the test if you paid him or her for the time. Scientists frequently do experiments to disprove things they don't believe in (and often change their minds if they fail to).

I'd imagine as well for example there isn't much inflow from say parapsychological institutions towards psychology departments of regular universities.

Nor from art departments into biology labs. These parapsychological institutions aren't using scientific methodology, so the fields have nothing to do with each other.

It is reasoned from the perspective of mediumship being real.

This is called an ad hoc justification. It's not appropriate to assume your conclusion and work backwards. You have to establish a standard of evidence, and not make excuses when something fails that standard. You could just as easily have accidental hits that pass the standard but aren't real. The issue is the average; you can't salvage the mistakenly classified misses any more than you can remove the mistakenly classified hits.

I was just pointing out that if it is real, not everything that is said would necessarily have to make sense to peeps on earth,[...] then there is no way to distinguish between a model in which channeling has the same accuracy as chance or a model in which channeling is a random process by experiment,

I addressed that. It would mean that it's unfalsifiable and useless to human beings as a means of understanding reality.

and so other criteria, such as Occams razor would have to be applied.

Occam's razor favors naturalism, since these spirits and channeling being real would add a lot of complexity and offer nothing in terms of explanatory power (there's nothing that needs to be explained if the effects are random).

In that case, you should reject it by default until there's evidence.

Right now I am convinced that channeling probably does not do better than chance or cold reading. But I do not exclude it should be possible somehow.

If it did better than chance, then there would be something we'd need to explain, and channeling and spirits being real (or some kind of psychic knowledge in the channeler) would become a preferable explanation under Occam's razor.

Besides Occams razor, one could also look at personal preferences, or better consequences for behavior of one model, or personal experience.

Consequences, like spending time and money on channeling rather than life saving cancer research or on something like vegan outreach to help others in reality.
Believing a falsehood has material consequences.

Given a good will and true knowledge of reality we can realize the best outcomes. False knowledge of reality will statistically act in some way to sabotage that; it's something you have to be mindful of.

IF channeling provided results better than chance that needed to be explained, THEN you might use an appeal to the consequences to choose between models that equally explain it. Like, as I said before, choosing between spirits being real and the channeler having some kind of subconscious psychic knowledge. At least until we have a means of distinguishing between the two, since it's not clear which is preferred by Occam's razor.

Yeah, I've thought about it a lot. I've not managed to obtain the feeling that I had which I called receiving Gods love using your technique.

You have expect to obtain the same feeling. If your expectation is one of doubt, then you won't.

But I could feel like a feeling of love. But it was more like coming out of me towards others. Or just a general feeling of love for everything.

This is because that's what your belief predicts. If you believe that it was in you all along, then you'll be able to feel it at full force like you did. It's your doubt holding you back.

Subjective experience is highly dependent on belief.
Look for god inside yourself, as a distant part of your psyche; a singularity of infinite love and will hiding deep in your subconscious. Other than you, in the sense of being outside the boundaries of your assumptions of what makes up you and your consciousness, but still within you.
Go on a journey to find it in yourself. Astral project into yourself if you have to, to search; it may take very deep meditation. If you have faith it's there, you will find it.

In order to have faith it's inside you, though, you're going to have to lose faith that it's outside you.

You experienced this love. If it's not outside you, it must be inside you. If you still believe it's outside you, when you look inside you won't expect to find it, and your doubt will make it impossible to do so.

[eloine]

maybe the Farming industry and slaughterhouses are hell...Einstein proved that " time is relative", so maybe after our death we can reincarnate as a pig in a farm from our time

[brimstoneSalad]

I agree that humans often create hell on Earth. I hope some day we'll create a heaven on Earth.

maybe the Farming industry and slaughterhouses are hell...Einstein proved that " time is relative", so maybe after our death we can reincarnate as a pig in a farm from our time

"You are what you eat" taken in a poetically literal way. That would make an interesting short story.

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

Right now I don't believe any of it is true... And I just feel like crap basically... I posted my thinking process on the Divine Truth forum, and got banned... (The forum is down right now, so can't show you the post). I did break the terms and conditions of the forum, so can't complain there. It said not to post content in disharmony with teachings of DT obviously saying there is the same amount of evidence for their ideas as for the ideas of the Heavens Gate cult is not in harmony with their teachings... Yet still today I felt like I heard the voice of Mary who said "are you feeling alright, mate?"..

I feel like smoking, though I haven't smoked in 3,5 years, a couple of months after I first found the first DT video on youtube. Smoking is not vegan though...
I also feel like doing drugs, but that has led to big problems in my life.. I feel just angry at life and frustrated. I need some kind of (positive) release for my anger, rather than doing something self-destructive, which I have often done in the past.

[brimstoneSalad]

Know that you have community and support here.

I need some kind of (positive) release for my anger, rather than doing something self-destructive, which I have often done in the past.

Absolutely. It could be beneficial to do more charity and activism. Can you meet up with a vegan group there? Meaning is crucial. We need purpose and motivation in life, and the best comes from helping others.

Do you do anything physical? For a lot of people, running, or even martial arts is a good release.

I posted my thinking process on the Divine Truth forum, and got banned... (The forum is down right now, so can't show you the post). I did break the terms and conditions of the forum, so can't complain there. It said not to post content in disharmony with teachings of DT

Sorry to hear that, but that tends to be the way things go. Most groups like that don't allow questioning or criticism in their ranks, since it destabilizes the group. Only when you're operating on real reason and evidence do questions and criticism become a source of converts, rather than a threat. Any forum that doesn't allow debate or disagreement/disharmony is a big red flag.

Stay strong and remember smokes and drugs never help anything; they're just hollow. You can be very spiritually fulfilled in life without believing in literal spirits.
ALL of those feelings you felt were real, and they came from within you. You have the capacity to connect to that at any time. Anything a sugar pill or hypnosis can do, you have the power to do yourself if you trust in it.

Work on meditation and auto-hypnosis, and look within to find that strength and inspiration you mistakenly thought came from without. It's still there, there's nothing about what DT offered that you didn't have in you all along.