Quote

I've seen many studies done where "good" thoughts increase plant yield, friendly animals are healthier, and many other seemingly odd studies done about how we (humans) can affect things without actually "doing" anything.

"An amusing, if rather pathetic, case study in miracles is the Great
Prayer Experiment: does praying for patients help them recover?
Prayers are commonly offered for sick people, both privately and in
formal places of worship. Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the
first to analyse scientifically whether praying for people is
efficacious. He noted that every Sunday, in churches throughout
Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the health of the
royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared
with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and
dearest?* Galton looked into it, and found no statistical difference.
His intention may, in any case, have been satirical, as also when he
prayed over randomized plots of land to see if the plants would
grow any faster (they didn't)."

I was unable to find any legit studies showing that plants grow better when under prayer. I can only find some stuff done by a preacher which was not reproduced and when replicated, showed no actual results. So for that, I would look into it more if I were you. There have been numerous studies done on prayer which entirely contradict and show no confidence ratio that implies changes occurring are anything outside of chance, meaning that the prayer apparently does nothing.

In terms of changing things without doing things, there's a few things I'd address. First, I would be cautious if you are using the "observer effect" in this regard (you didn't say you were, but my experience of talking to people who think this leads me here, so I'll address it now just in case). I know plenty of folks, they tend to be English majors, who think things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that humans, simply by ‘observing’ or ‘thinking’ or ‘realizing’ or whatever can effect things. You may not think this, but in case you do I’m hitting it. That’s not how that principle works, and it has nothing to do with the observer effect and MORE to do with the method of observation on a subatomic particle (WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY BRO). So if that’s that, I’d look into that more too.

Otherwise, there is no record of humans changing things simply by being around APART FROM biological organisms like bacteria, or human refuse, etc. – but all of those ARE humans doing ‘something’, just not so actively. In terms of thought, prayer, psychic, etc. there is as of yet absolutely no proof that anything like that is effective, exists, or works. It has been tested, but so far all of these have failed – and as much as I’d want them to be true, I err on the side of experimentation; I refuse to believe in things unless they are proven (but then it’s not really belief I guess).

Otherwise, for a philosophical fun spot, you’ve always got Berkeley (yes, the guy who wrote the dialogues between Hylas and Philonous) who takes a stance that human observation (though later it becomes an all-observing god) is NECESSARY for things to exist, change, etc. Things must be observed/conceived else they aren’t really held together. So if you like that idea, you might consider reading some of him, since that’s sort of fun.

One thing I’d like for you to do, in general, is use something like google scholar and link the studies you’re referencing as proof so they can be examined – since that would provide their methodology, links to attempted reproductions of the works, etc. – Because the things you claimed I can’t seem to find any scholarly papers on. I can’t find any proof. And no proof = no go for me. So far all of the neuroscience and chemical examination of humans and their brains don’t show anything special in terms of extra-mental abiltiies or effectors, since all of our thoughts happen INSIDE of our minds (hence, to change them, we use things like neurotransmitter inhibiting drugs) and not outside; since the electric flares and all that fun stuff occur within the brain and don’t much reach oxygen (but then you’d need to find out how they can effect molecules outside of the body, what that causes in terms of chains of effects, and where that energy is produced and how dependent on the result).

Quote

2) I believe in a "God" though not anything that could be gleamed from any major religion. If anything, it would be closer to the idea of "Elder" Gods from Cthulu mythos. In that, if the universe has been claimed to be 16 billion years old, what the fuck was BEFORE the Universe? Basically, I encompass God to be the starting point of existence. I'd imagine this would lead to us "going down the wormhole" as both the scientific and philisophical ideas behind this would render us stoned for 24 days.

Have you considered the idea of the universe being ETERNAL – As in it never “didn’t” exist – Things like the ‘big crunch’, or a cycling big bang, or perhaps there wasn’t “nothing” before the big bang (Lawrence Krauss does some interesting lectures on this in his piece “Something from Nothing” and he’s a pretty good physicist – for some lecture stuff: [youtu.be] ).

To make sure I’m understanding this right though, you’re saying that you believe in an “elder god” type thing because “What was before the universe?” – MUST there be something before it? Can it be eternal? Could existence never have had to start? If it did ‘start’, is a god necessary? Can a god exist outside of existence?

You’re right it’s a deep philosophical and scientific idea, which is why I’m trying to be more specific and not be all ‘WELL WUT CAMED B4 GODXXXXX?’ and trying instead to get some more critical answers from you so I can understand it.

Quote

1) Karma, as in doing good deeds will lead to good things happening to you, is real (though not like My Name is Earl). I've found when I'm more of a "bad" person, I inevitably end up in "bad" situations, whereas when I am more of a "good" person I end up in "better" situations.

I think similarly, but not because of any sort of universal karma ideal. To me I’d put it more like this: “If you do smart/good things you’ll succeed more. If you do stupid/bad things you won’t succeed more”. Good meaning subjectively what is valued in a given culture/society in a certain time – since in a different society what was ‘good’ or what would benefit you would be entirely different. Then we get into the question of can altruism even be done – And I’m one of those dirty folks who sees altruism as philosophically impossible and non-existent, I’ve posted on it before and annoyed people, but yeah.

But I do think similarly. I mean, myself, I’m very boring. As vulgar as I sound and all that, if you met me in IRL you’d probably be all “Batman, do something more exciting”. I don’t drink, smoke, no drug stuff, I don’t drink sodas or any caffeine, I avoid heavy-sugar things and eat tons of protein, I read a lot of books and I work and I school. I don’t even party or anything. But these behaviors have benefitted me, and I have succeeded while watching many near me fail miserably. I don’t see this as karma. I see this as the consequence of actions in a given system.

Your energy paragraph is a bit of a leap for me – As in, if I can’t measure it, and I can’t see any results or proof of it (see Carl Sagan’s dragon for what I mean by proof: [www.godlessgeeks.com] ) then I refuse to really take a stance on it. I prefer a state of non-knowledge, naturalism, until proof is provided for something. I can see the appeal in some sort of after-death energy, but alas there is no proof for it yet (and I know I sound boring saying “proofproofproof” – but that’s how I roll). I am curious how you reason out that much about the energy without being able to measure it, and I don’t mean that to sound insulting. What is the chain of reason, I guess would be a way to put it.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the details. There’s a reason I read a lot of ancient weird book stuff, and I love hearing what people think – even if I disagree. So good job mister.