Cosmic Ordering - let's try again?

[SylviasSlippers]

Logically I know it "should" be a load of crap but every time I've tried it, I've received what I asked for. Way back as an 8 year old we were moving house and I so desperately wanted a garden with steps on the path (no idea why). I visualised it and "prayed" for it and the house we ended up with had two steps on the path which was very rare in that area.

More recently I stumbled across the concept of cosmic ordering and decided to "order" a money find. A few nights later we were walking through a graveyard and there on the ground wet through and covered in muck was a £10 note staring up at me. I put it down to co-incidence.

A couple of years later I met a guy, fell in love with him and looking back it was obvious that I liked him more than he liked me ... So out of desperation I "cosmically ordered" for him to tell me he loved me on one specific night. So there we are, camping in a field, messing around and I do something daft and he laughs and says "oh god, I love you!" - he was not being serious, he was being sarcy but he still said it.

So a few months later I placed a cosmic order for him to say he loved me and meant it. So there we are, great night out, we're back in the hotel, he'd not said it. I tried to prompt it by asking how he thought the relationship was going and he said "great, but let's take it slow eh? I mean, I don't want to say I love you ... We've not been together long ... But I do, I do love you ..." Wtf? Cosmic order granted but not quite in the way I'd hoped.

A year later, we're still together. I place a cosmic order for him to ask me to marry him on this specific night. So we're sat in a restraunt and I do not prompt the conversation at all. All of a sudden he laughs and says "let's run off and get married in Vegas?". I didn't know how to take it so didn't say anything .. He then added - "I'm joking ..."

A few days ago I "ordered" an iphone 5c in green for less than £300 - that same night dp told me he'd won me that same phone on ebay for £260 (almost impossible to get one so cheap in "like new" condition.

It just seems that I get everything I ask for when I try it but never in a way I expect it. Does anyone else have any stories about cosmic ordering?
If you're not into it, don't take the piss please :-)

Today, I'm going to try it again. I'm going to start small and order the sighting of a red balloon by the end of the day. I'll update tonight whether or not it appeared.

^is. Typo.

How do you define an assumption then Hettie?

Well, best guess is 100 - 250,000 years. Very imprecise even now. But flipping ages anyway. Doesn't really detract from my point, does it?

Science doesn't make assumptions. It infers that reality has consistency...because it has to. It would be impossible to carry out experiments if it didn't make that inference.

This is not faith. Science relies on evidence. Faith operates in the absence of evidence. Do you see the difficulty?

Anyway, I've been here for two hours and not done any work yet. Will catch up with you later, Capsium. And then we can have the unbounded joy of going over the same things we've been over many, many times before!

Yay!

In fact we should perhaps value 'hunches' more, it is what we can do better than computers, why we are better at solving certain types of equations faster and more reliably than a computer, according to New Scientist.

I am not well trained enough in Pure Mathematics to test the theory, though.

Inferring reality has enough consistency or the a consistency that we have the ability to predict is an assumption.

There are problematic areas when considering a pattern, that you could be just seeing a very small part of. It could be a wave, cyclical or a myriad of other repeated patterns but by only observing a very small part it is impossible to tell. It is also impossible to say for certain how large the pattern is. Thus the assumption in Science. Scientifically derived actions therefore work sometimes, when the pattern is small enough to predict.

Christianity does not really discount this. What Christianity recognizes is the very narrow, specific view point of an individual (fallible) person and human societies. Thus the reliance on God (who knows everything), and getting to know the nature of God on a deeper subconscious level. Which in turn affects all those subconscious and conscious decisions we make everyday.

And don't even talk to me about Social 'Sciences' and 'Theory of Mind'. Delve not very deep in these areas and superstition is the very phrase which comes to mind....

Cause and effect reversals, interchangeability, entanglement...

No. An assumption is belief that something is true without evidence.

An inference is a conclusion that's reached through evidence and reasoning.

There's rather a lot of evidence that nature is reliably constant, in case you hadn't noticed, so it's justifiable to infer that it will remain so.

In order to set up an experiment, then test the result with more experiments, it must be inferred that reality will remain consistent and that the results can be relied upon.

That cannot be relied on 100%, of course....that's why science will never declare absolute certainty about anything.

This, of course, can be compared with faith which always declares certainty without the benefit of evidence that it ought to have to back it up.

The rest if your post appears to be "could be, could be, could be". "Could be" could equally be "might not be". So what's your point?

Oh, and until you get round to demonstrating that this god thing actually exists, you can use him as evidence of anything. Now THAT is presuppositional if anything is.

Can't use him as evidence.

I am torn.

I saw a thread recently and i only sat on my typing hands as the OP was clearly ill and vulnerable. But it was all about how positive thinking/prayer could help with cancer.

Cancer is a molecular disease. It cant read your mind. it neither knows nor cares what you are thinking about. I had a lovely friend who visualised her cancer going away, for over a year, with loads of prayer and mindfulness. She's dead, of course.

It's absolutely true that positive thinking has some measurable benefits. But given the circumstances, sometimes positive thinking has to be delusional as well. I'm afraid I do include both CO and prayer in this description, I realise that "delusional" isn't a respectful term; it's meant to be an accurate one, though. Delusional, as in, believing something strongly, to the point of hallucination.

So, if CO or prayer is making people feel better, and feeling better can have health benefits in itself, perhaps I ought to let them get on with it? As long as, of course, they don't try to get people to abandon scientific treatment- which may fail sometimes, but fails measurably less often than CO and prayer does, which frankly is always.

My point was essentially that human beings are unreliable at predicting large patterns. We see only part, even in Science. So when the results suddenly flip, as part of a wave form pattern for example, it could be tomorrow or in 100 years or whenever, people are shocked. Consistency yes, but easily measurable no. Some would predict even Chaos is not truly Chaos but not recognisable (by human beings) as such.

So not a practical working definition of consistency really. human limitation than the factual correctness of the consistency, IMO.

I never claimed God was evidence. I said getting to know the nature of God affects the subconscious at a deep level which in turn affects decision making.

When I was taught science were taught to list assumptions and New Scientist talks about assumptions and Prior Assumptions.

You make an assumption, then do experiments to prove or disprove the assumption. Nothing to to do with faith- you have to start with something.

Beast - I am not sure the OP is ill, I think she just likes asking for stuff like balloons. It is another poster who has come thread who sadly is very unwell (from my understanding of the thread).

On the subject of winning the lottery. I find it a strange concept that CO could ever work. Surely EVERYONE who buys a ticket is sitting there thinking "I hope I win, I hope I win". Does anyone buy at ticket in the hope to lose?

So, when no one wins the jackpot on any particular week, is it because none of the 200,000 people who bought a ticket, concentrated their minds enough?

When two people have the same numbers and both share the jackpot, did the think in exactly the same (and perfect) way?

What about the people who have won and forgot they had even bought a ticket, they didn't do any CO, or are they just so go at CO that they can do it without trying? That said, if they are that skilled at CO, why don't they win every week?

There is just no evidence.

Matorana But even that narrows your view point, strictly speaking. You look for /test the assumptions which are important to you. The link could be non causal, due to one of the variables, but your attention is taken away from that and towards testing your assumption. Or cause and effect could easily be muddled with too strong a fixation on testing the assumption.

Capsicum, you test, discard, test another, discard.......

And yes, there is the possibility of bias. That's what peer review is for. And that's why pseudoscience never gets past the peer review stage.

What about the people who have won and forgot they had even bought a ticket, they didn't do any CO, or are they just so go at CO that they can do it without trying? That said, if they are that skilled at CO, why don't they win every week?

This illustrates the difference between CO and prayer. Since prayers are only granted by God if it is His will and you can persevere in exercising strong enough Faith, that whatever prayed for, is His will.

And that's why pseudoscience never gets past the peer review stage.

Oh if only peer review were infallible. In only pseudoscience never got beyond it...

Capsium

You are still missing the point. You imply that peer review is bad because some issues slip through, by that is not a justification of pseudoscience, or religion, being supportable.

On the occasions that peer review does not pick up issues, the process still works. This is because, when the theory is proven wrong at a later date, it is revised, retested and re-peer reviewed. Thus evolving out best understanding of the evidence.

CO and religious belief does not do this. It does not alter its view based upon new findings.

Furthermore, your reply regarding CO, prayer and the national lottery doesn't actually "say" anything useful.

You have effectively said "yeah, CO is wrong and prayer is right" but not provided any justification. All it gives you is an escape clause that says "if the prayer doesn't work, it isn't because I didn't want it enough, or do it right, it is just because that is God's way".

Or, as we like to say "confirmation bias"!

I did not seer peer review was bad, rather it is inadequate.

My point is essentially not to underestimate the importance of Faith. You can explain it away as confirmation bias, if you like. I could say that within the whole issue of confirmation bias there is entanglement between cause and effect.

In reality, in an absence of faith, confirmation bias would be correct, because there would be not have enough Faith for it to be due to Faith.

In the presence of Faith the results would be seen because of that Faith. These results would be persistently pursued, sought out, until success was achieved. The length of this process matters not.

^say. Typo.

So if you have faith, confirmation bias doesn't exist because faith explains what's happened, but if you don't have faith, the same thing is explained by confirmation bias?

Eh?

And you're not saying, are you, that peer review is inadequate because it doesn't take faith into account? Please tell me I've misunderstood you.....

techodad Knowing God's will takes a lifetime in the learning. This not an escape clause.

Matorina Yes that is what I am saying. However faith, in terms of my point, can be non religious belief, but would most usually be described as bias.