In a National Geographic doumentary, a man controls his Chi (or Qi) and uses the force field to protect his body. This is evaluated in a controlled environment as a scientific experiment.

Might not such an observation as this put to some rest the arguments of non-theists about the possible existence of "supernatural" things? Or at least make you wonder if there are things that science may never be able to explain?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tb8bWbA678

Intellectually honest conversation only, please. And if you'd like to peddle insults kindly don't let the door hit ya where your body split ya.

You mean inexplicable things like the universe emerging out of nothing or creating itself? Or do you have a particular inexplicable thing in mind?

Weah96: You mean inexplicable things like the universe emerging out of nothing or creating itself? Or do you have a particular inexplicable thing in mind?

I meant "inexplicable" like an invisible, intangible non-physical force as evidenced in the video above.

Want to share your thoughts on the topic?

OP


Atheists have already debunked qi gong
http://www.skepdic.com/chikung.html




Admit it, you are impressed

More atheist debunking

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/sima_nan_fighting_qigong_pseudoscience_in_china/

Hi InesQor

How body?

I looked up Qi Gong on google and I saw that its quite controversial. There seems to be a raging debate over its authenticity. Strongly smells like a scam.

Now, from my own personal perspective (some others, notably Plaetton have shared similar thoughts), there really isnt anything supernatural or spiritual about anything.

I will admit that there are things that I may witness that I may not have an explanation for but that doesnt mean I or anyone else should conclude that its supernatural. Other more prosaic factors may be involved. One must be sure to have excluded every possibility that can be verified before even thinking of the supernatural.

According to Plaetton and I agree to an extent, some inexplicable thing might be due to "higher physics" as yet unknown by the vast majority of the populace.

To give a simple example, most of us feel pain however some are born with congenital analgesia and feel no pain. Well suppose I got into a fight with one such person who refused to hit me but rather kept advancing after 5 kicks, 2 blows and some slaps? If I was superstitious, I would imagine the person was using jazz and I would show a clean pair of heels.

Not being superstitious, my mind will tell me at that point that the guy is probably a trained fighter and is going to rip me in pieces in not distant future. Again I employ my feet and put distance between us.

In both cases, I came to the wrong conclusion on the spot. The guy is neither a trained fighter nor is he using any dark arts, he simply doesnt feel pain.

I might go home and reflect on how lucky I have been to leave the scene in one piece, I might contemplate on how to appease him with some bottles of beer, or I might after the adrenaline rush, sit back and consider what happened. If my mind is fixated on the supernatural, I wont be able to get past that. Anything I find out will only reinforce my original conviction. He's not a trained fighter; he must be using jazz. He doesnt feel pain; it must be jazz etc

On the other hand, if I started with the wrong but rational assumption that he is a trained fighter, I wont be blinded to the truth when I find it.

Lol, aahhh that good ol' "non physical" force a.k.a magic

Here's Inesqor's and Deep Sight's filipino cousin displaying the efficacy of the powerful non physical force.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2007/10/01/martial-idiocy/

The.Big.Urban:
OP


Atheists have already debunked qi gong
http://www.skepdic.com/chikung.html




Admit it, you are impressed

Yes indeed I'm impressed that the spear did not impale his throat, knowing there's neither strong muscle nor bone there, and even after the heavy impact of the wooden rod on his neck. I don't see what there is, not to be impressed by.

As for your links, they're out of place here cos they talk about demonstrations done by Qi Gong believers/members and not a controlled environment like this one.

jayriginal: Hi InesQor

How body?

I looked up Qi Gong on google and I saw that its quite controversial. There seems to be a raging debate over its authenticity. Strongly smells like a scam.

Now, from my own personal perspective (some others, notably Plaetton have shared similar thoughts), there really isnt anything supernatural or spiritual about anything.

I will admit that there are things that I may witness that I may not have an explanation for but that doesnt mean I or anyone else should conclude that its supernatural. Other more prosaic factors may be involved. One must be sure to have excluded every possibility that can be verified before even thinking of the supernatural.

According to Plaetton and I agree to an extent, some inexplicable thing might be due to "higher physics" as yet unknown by the vast majority of the populace.

To give a simple example, most of us feel pain however some are born with congenital analgesia and feel no pain. Well suppose I got into a fight with one such person who refused to hit me but rather kept advancing after 5 kicks, 2 blows and some slaps? If I was superstitious, I would imagine the person was using jazz and I would show a clean pair of heels.

Not being superstitious, my mind will tell me at that point that the guy is probably a trained fighter and is going to rip me in pieces in not distant future. Again I employ my feet and put distance between us.

In both cases, I came to the wrong conclusion on the spot. The guy is neither a trained fighter nor is he using any dark arts, he simply doesnt feel pain.

I might go home and reflect on how lucky I have been to leave the scene in one piece, I might contemplate on how to appease him with some bottles of beer, or I might after the adrenaline rush, sit back and consider what happened. If my mind is fixated on the supernatural, I wont be able to get past that. Anything I find out will only reinforce my original conviction. He's not a trained fighter; he must be using jazz. He doesnt feel pain; it must be jazz etc

On the other hand, if I started with the wrong but rational assumption that he is a trained fighter, I wont be blinded to the truth when I find it.

Hi Jay. I dey alright oh, thanks!

I agree with you that there is a lot of controversy on this topic.

Odd as this will sound, I also agree that many things we currently cannot explain in science might be due to higher and undiscovered science. Where we will probably disagree is that for me as a theist, I believe some non-physical things can be interaacted with at those higher levels of science. This belief is of course as yet unfounded in science but it's my personal view.

I like your example about congenital analgesia, but one can even explain it away as toughened conditioning to resist pain (not necessarily that the pain was not felt).

But for instance how would you take it as a scientist if you see a human being that cannot burn (or at the very least get scarred in a fire) or cannot get impaled (like this guy)? That would mean the person's skin has some property that makes it impervious (it's the stuff of superhero legends) and definitely defies our current science. Either the skin has some extraordinary quality, or there is a non-physical / intangible barrier to the skin. Either case is unusual, so I will not be quick to dismiss one rather than the other, especially when we have no cause to accept that the man's skin is any different from yours.

Note that I do not claim this is a proof of any sort for intangible forces. But unless the Nat Geo guys are in on some massive conspiracy, this just might be a tiny tip in the balance.

P.S. Jayriginal, when you say there's nothing "supernatural" about anything, I wonder, are those not the same things you said science cannot currently explain? Man's reach exceeds his grasp, so whatever we currently cannot account for might be termed "beyond natural" without loss of generality. Though personally I refrain from using the word "supernatural" in theological discussions because people mentally associate it with "spiritual" and that's not always the case.

Theists deny phenomena that defy the imagination, except those that legitimize the bible or their holy book. For example, the spontaneous genesis of the universe out of nothing is dismissed as irrational and incompatible with reality, when the process itself could be an unknown 'spiritual' phenomenon. So a conscious God is proposed as the ONLY possible piece of the puzzle. But they're willing to assume that this God itself has no beginning, as irrational as that sounds. So theists don't really believe in spiritual things, just the ones that validate their holy books.

Weah96: Theists deny phenomena that defy the imagination, except those that legitimize the bible or their holy book. For example, the spontaneous genesis of the universe out of nothing is dismissed as irrational and incompatible with reality, when the process itself could be an unknown 'spiritual' phenomenon. So a conscious God is proposed as the ONLY possible piece of the puzzle. But they're willing to assume that this God itself has no beginning, as irrational as that sounds. So theists don't really believe in spiritual things, just the ones that validate their holy books.

I hope you do know not all Theists have "holy books" or religious books that they consider inerrant? I, for example?

I for one can never know whether God has a beginning or not, because I'm an entity within THAT framework - it is like asking if Harry Potter knows anything about J.K. Rowling besides what she may have written about herself within the pages of Potter's context of existence - assuming we accept I'm God's creation. Meanwhile if we accept that God created Time, then it even makes no sense to speak about a "beginning" for God.

InesQor:
Hi Jay. I dey alright oh, thanks!
I agree with you that there is a lot of controversy on this topic.
Odd as this will sound, I also agree that many things we currently cannot explain in science might be due to higher and undiscovered science. Where we will probably disagree is that for me as a theist, I believe some non-physical things can be interaacted with at those higher levels of science. This belief is of course as yet unfounded in science but it's my personal view.
I like your example about congenital analgesia, but one can even explain it away as toughened conditioning to resist pain (not necessarily that the pain was not felt).
But for instance how would you take it as a scientist if you see a human being that cannot burn (or at the very least get scarred in a fire) or cannot get impaled (like this guy)? That would mean the person's skin has some property that makes it impervious (it's the stuff of superhero legends) and definitely defies our current science. Either the skin has some extraordinary quality, or there is a non-physical / intangible barrier to the skin. Either case is unusual, so I will not be quick to dismiss one rather than the other, especially when we have no cause to accept that the man's skin is any different from yours.
Note that I do not claim this is a proof of any sort for intangible forces. But unless the Nat Geo guys are in on some massive conspiracy, this just might be a tiny tip in the balance.

Lets see if we can harmonize.

in my opinion, when you dont know the reason/answer to something, every possibility exists until examined and discarded. In that wise then, the supernatural/mystical is a possibility that may deserve consideration. The problem with this is that by virtue of its nature, there is really no way to objectively test any supernatural posit. How do we draw valid conclusions from something like that?

I mean if we had 5 options and the supernatural was one of them, we would make a mistake in trying to investigate the supernatural first. There would be so much controversy because of its subjective nature and we may never make it to investigating the other 4 options.

If however we start with theories that can be verified/falsified we make progress. By the time we exhaust all rational options, whatever remains must be the truth. But we must know that we KNOW what we know. Thus in my opinion, considering the supernatural is a waste of time considering its nature. I could pull a simple trick, claim its supernatural and most wouldnt know.

Take tv magicians for example, Blaine, Dynamo, Angel etc some people actually believe that these people are using dark arts. It doesnt matter how many times you explain that some of it is clearly effects with stooges in the crowd and clever props, these people will ignore you. Even if David Blaine says its an illusion and not magic, these people will still tell you its a trick of the devil and the devils greatest trick was making folks believe he did not exist. See what I mean?

Again, once you say something is supernatural, you have pushed it beyond rational inquiry (reasons stated above). That kills knowledge. We would still be binding the hell out of malaria demons rather than take quinine if someone didnt think differently.

The better path would be to put the supernatural to one side first and examine the more rational options.

InesQor: P.S. Jayriginal, when you say there's nothing "supernatural" about anything, I wonder, are those not the same things you said science cannot currently explain? Man's reach exceeds his grasp, so whatever we currently cannot account for might be termed "beyond natural" without loss of generality. Though personally I refrain from using the word "supernatural" in theological discussions because people mentally associate it with "spiritual" and that's not always the case.

Well I didnt exactly say science cannot explain (although its not everything science can explain currently), I said "that there are things that I may witness that I may not have an explanation for but that doesnt mean I or anyone else should conclude that its supernatural."

Then I gave the example of congenital analgesia which is known to science but I as an individual may never have heard of it, and even though I couldnt explain it, it would still be better to go with the rational assumption that he is a trained fighter (which turned out to be wrong) than to go with the mystical explanation that he is using dark arts (wrong as well). I then explained how the supernatural conclusion tends to hinder the realization of truth as opposed to the natural conclusion.

I dont think I agree with "beyond natural" for things that we dont understand (if I understand you correctly). Is it beyond natural always or beyond natural until we find a way that it works (at which time it becomes natural)?

@jayriginal:

Very well reasoned. I enjoyed reading your riposte! Thanks.

As for the question you posited in the last paragraph, I'll say it is "beyond natural" only until man can understand how it works, at which time it becomes (apparently, at least) as "natural" as anything else that man observes in nature.

@Jayriginal

Every passing moment.