For Those Who Believe in God:

EdwardNortonFan
Posts: 34
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
For Those Who Believe in God:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
For logic to be valid, it

For logic to be valid, it only requires

1. That we can identify unique entities in reality ( 'Law of identity' );

2. That we can distinguish each such entity from the rest of reality ( A is distinct from not A, ie 'Law of non-contradiction' );

Any reality not meeting such criteria would be a formless void or fog.

So a 'reality' meeting the basic criteria for logic to apply would be a pre-requisite for any entity to exist, whatever its nature.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So you would argue

 

Given god doesn't seem to meet normally distinguishable criteria, that you can't use logic to prove its existence given our inability to first define what it is we are proving in the first place?

And is this position supported by the first rule of deduction being bound by the need for a rightness in the base principle before the logical process or deduction takes place?

Or am I off sideways?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic by itself cannot prove

Logic by itself cannot prove anything in reality, it can only show whether or not one proposition is consistent with another. The basic 'truth' of any proposition that is input to a logical analysis can only be determined empirically, ie, as a probability by how well it fits in with all other propositions.

The most successful model of reality, which is all we can ultimately have, can only be judged by things like Bayes Theorem, which helps us rigorously apply assessed probabilities, and Occam's Razor, which suggests that the model with the fewest arbitrary assumptions is going to be the most useful, ie, easiest to apply and refine.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It is an inherently

Quote:
It is an inherently futile task, which has really made little progress in a couple of thousand years, discussing ultimately empty concepts (God, omni- attributes ), unlike the task of firing up the LHC. 

Until you can map the propositions to something real, it is all empty waffle.

The God hypothesis only raises new questions, and answers none, in any discernible way. None of its attributes even make sense as extrapolations of anything we have observed in reality, so it is pure empty ignorant speculation.

Without getting too far off topic...

 You are forgetting one very important thing - science is in the realm of hypothesis, which, by your own statement, would make it "empty waffle". You can't have your cake and eat it too, Bob.

Quote:
is it right to say logic on its own is insufficient proof of god? Would a logical proof require logic to be older than god or demand god act at its behest, so to speak?

To use an analogy, logic is like a lever, or a spanner. It can pry open or tighten concepts etc. It performs a function, but is not indicative of the machine it is used to fix.

Quote:
And is logic - and let's get this straight given the earlier discussion - is human logic - the master of god? Or is god beyond logic?

Hmmm, I have absolutely no idea. Anyone who tries to give you an answer is BS'ing, or a God themselves.

Quote:
Finally - if god is beyond human logic - and let's face it he's well beyond my logic - can we conceive him logically at all?

I think the short answer is yes. The problem is, language is a relative tool itself. There are two ways you can interpret the word "can". Relative to a monkey, I can speak Finnish. Relative to someone who speaks Finnish, I cannot. So when I say we can conceive of God, it does not necessarily mean we can. Eye-wink

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:It is

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
It is an inherently futile task, which has really made little progress in a couple of thousand years, discussing ultimately empty concepts (God, omni- attributes ), unlike the task of firing up the LHC. 

Until you can map the propositions to something real, it is all empty waffle.

The God hypothesis only raises new questions, and answers none, in any discernible way. None of its attributes even make sense as extrapolations of anything we have observed in reality, so it is pure empty ignorant speculation.

Without getting too far off topic...

 You are forgetting one very important thing - science is in the realm of hypothesis, which, by your own statement, would make it "empty waffle". You can't have your cake and eat it too, Bob.

You are ignoring the fundamental point that unlike the other inherently futile tasks I was referring to, Science is NOT "in the realm of hypothesis". It employs hypotheses as a way of coming up with new ideas, but does not stop there.

New theories start as a hypothesis, but then go into the next phase, that of empirical testing against reality, and are discarded if they do not pass this this vital process. Which is precisely what distinguishes Science from those other 'disciplines', which is why they remain pointless waffle. Do you really not see that? The 'testing' in most of those 'disciplines' amounts to little more than 'it feels right'.

Science does not consider a hypothesis as truth, even as anything close to it, until it passes the testing phase.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Science employs

Quote:
Science employs hypotheses as a way of coming up with new ideas, but does not stop there.

I think you put the horse before the cart there. A hypothesis isn't employed to come up with new ideas, the hypothesis is the new idea, with observations and testing making it a (semi-permenant) fact. You even say this yourself:

Quote:
New theories start as a hypothesis, but then go into the next phase, that of empirical testing against reality, and are discarded if they do not pass this this vital process.

Empirical testing? What happens when empirical testing needs empirical testing? All measuring tools - such as distance and time - are relative, to the point they are chronically inanccurate at the quatum level; rendering something as elementary as the electron, problematic at best. There are no quarantees in science, therefore we are left with hypothesis.

Quote:
Do you really not see that? The 'testing' in most of those 'disciplines' amounts to little more than 'it feels right'.

Was it you that said "If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it hurts - no matter what you believe"?

I agree, "It feels right", for better or worse.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Empirical

jumbo1410 wrote:
Empirical testing? What happens when empirical testing needs empirical testing? All measuring tools - such as distance and time - are relative, to the point they are chronically inanccurate at the quatum level; rendering something as elementary as the electron, problematic at best. There are no quarantees in science, therefore we are left with hypothesis.

It is almost all inductive, but that doesn't mean we are always left with a hypothesis. We don't have to "prove" or "guarantee" something to reach a scientific conclusion. A claim can be more likely or less likely to be true. Also, measurements such as distance and time are accurate and predictable at the macro level. That's good enough.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Science employs hypotheses as a way of coming up with new ideas, but does not stop there.

I think you put the horse before the cart there. A hypothesis isn't employed to come up with new ideas, the hypothesis is the new idea, with observations and testing making it a (semi-permenant) fact. You even say this yourself:

Quote:
New theories start as a hypothesis, but then go into the next phase, that of empirical testing against reality, and are discarded if they do not pass this this vital process.

Empirical testing? What happens when empirical testing needs empirical testing? All measuring tools - such as distance and time - are relative, to the point they are chronically inanccurate at the quatum level; rendering something as elementary as the electron, problematic at best. There are no quarantees in science, therefore we are left with hypothesis.

Quote:
Do you really not see that? The 'testing' in most of those 'disciplines' amounts to little more than 'it feels right'.

Was it you that said "If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it hurts - no matter what you believe"?

I agree, "It feels right", for better or worse.

I don't recall saying anything like that about a hammer.

Some set of existing ideas or observations may lead someone to form a hypothesis, typically involving some new inspiration, which is played around with and 'tweaked' into a more formally expressed idea which is then suitable for testing. It is these more formally organized ideas as the result of the process which I was referring to.

Forming a hypothesis is a process of juggling various more elemental ideas and observations to find a plausible way of interconnecting them into a larger concept.

Science does not take "it feels right" as remotely adequate for accepting an idea or belief as actually true. Modern science has come up with several ideas, such as Quantum Theory and Relativity, which to most people, including many scientists, don't "feel right" in an informal sense, yet they have passed many rigorous tests which typically consist of using the theory to predict what we should measure in some specific test or observation, in which older theories predict something significantly different.

The testing itself requires no justification, beyond accepting the idea that we prefer models of reality (which is all any theory, scientific or not, can be), which seem to most closely match reality as we perceive it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jumbo,"It (god-belief) feels

Jumbo,

"It (god-belief) feels right" is where it begins and ends.

Adding on "so the God of the Bible is the true and living God" falsifies the statement.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jumbo,"It (god-belief)

Quote:
Jumbo,

"It (god-belief) feels right" is where it begins and ends.

Adding on "so the God of the Bible is the true and living God" falsifies the statement.

"It feels right" was a bit ambiguous. I was actually invoking more of a moral compass than something as specific as God belief. I believe that we are first and foremost, human. We are entirely responsible for our own actions collectively as humans, regardless of belief. I wasn't quite sure how to respond to Bob's last point, " The 'testing' in most of those 'disciplines' amounts to little more than 'it feels right'".

IMO, all one can reasonably expect is to follow what they think is the right thing to do (what "feels right" to them) - whether that be curing cancer or praying for a cure. "Right/wrong" arguments are very slippery, so maybe this is a topic for another thread, as much, much more can be said.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Good example of what I meant

Good example of what I meant - the non-scientific approach would base the decision on whether prayer or treatment 'feels right' for treating cancer, whereas science would point out we have tested those options, and prayer fails in the vast majority of cases.

The rates of 'cure' when only prayer is employed are well within the rates of spontaneous remission, ie when nothing is done. Some illnesses actually get worse when the patients are aware people are praying for them, as they feel guilty in some way if they don't seem to be getting better.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
HMMM Gods nature


Christian_Apologist wrote:

EdwardNortonFan wrote:

I have some questions I would like for you to answer, and maybe we can change your beliefs. I'll start with one:

Do you think that god is omnipotent and omniscient? I'll wait while you look those up on Google...

 

He is.

There is nothing that God cannot do except that which goes against His nature. God alone has the power to conquer sin and death. He even created Satan who disobeyed and fell, therefore, He has power over him. He promised to give us the power to overcome he that is in the world.

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog13.htm

God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. He knows when we do things for the wrong reasons and when we do things for the right reasons.

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm

 

 

WHAT IS GOD'S NATURE if he has one

and btw if god is omnipotent and omniscient it is the logical contradiction


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred

 

 

        Where have you been hidding and why  don't you come around more often?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Wonkles
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-04-17
User is offlineOffline
"and btw if god

"and btw if god is omnipotent and omniscient it is the logical contradiction"

Why?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Do we really have to start this all over again?

Wonkles wrote:

"and btw if god is omnipotent and omniscient it is the logical contradiction"

Why?

 

Wonkles - what does a theist believe omnipotence actually is? Would you say it's the capability to do anything a creator could logically be expected to do that doesn't make him look silly?

Things like eating his cake and having it, too?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Good example of what I

Quote:
Good example of what I meant - the non-scientific approach would base the decision on whether prayer or treatment 'feels right' for treating cancer, whereas science would point out we have tested those options, and prayer fails in the vast majority of cases.

The rates of 'cure' when only prayer is employed are well within the rates of spontaneous remission, ie when nothing is done. Some illnesses actually get worse when the patients are aware people are praying for them, as they feel guilty in some way if they don't seem to be getting better.

I still don't think you get my point. Firstly, we are human, and when it comes to cancer, I think we would do anything humanly possible to rid ourselves of  it. You seem to indicate that prayer and treatment are mutually exclusive. IMO, this is quite a juvenile position to take.

Whether treatment succeeds or fails, I really don't think you or I are qualified to say whether praying is the right or wrong thing to do in any given situation. Are you actually implying that you would tell a terminal cancer patient not to pray?

To my knowledge, this issue represents the contemporary debate between culture/religion and medicine/science. There is a book by Rachels specifically dealing with the application of "right and wrong" in the context of ethical theory. Also, Foot has a good paper on Euthanasia. In fact, the majority of my studies are in this field. It's heavy going, and neither side (liberal/conservative etc) really "wins".

 

To continue discussing it with you, I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine, or ethics in general. I am comfortable with either a formal or informal argument, no pressure either way.

 

EDIT: I just thought of something else. If you are saying prayer doesn't work, how are you using the argument? Against Gods existence? If so, be prepared for a long and boring discussion on Plantinga, lol.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:Good

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Good example of what I meant - the non-scientific approach would base the decision on whether prayer or treatment 'feels right' for treating cancer, whereas science would point out we have tested those options, and prayer fails in the vast majority of cases.

The rates of 'cure' when only prayer is employed are well within the rates of spontaneous remission, ie when nothing is done. Some illnesses actually get worse when the patients are aware people are praying for them, as they feel guilty in some way if they don't seem to be getting better.

I still don't think you get my point. Firstly, we are human, and when it comes to cancer, I think we would do anything humanly possible to rid ourselves of  it. You seem to indicate that prayer and treatment are mutually exclusive. IMO, this is quite a juvenile position to take.

Whether treatment succeeds or fails, I really don't think you or I are qualified to say whether praying is the right or wrong thing to do in any given situation. Are you actually implying that you would tell a terminal cancer patient not to pray?

To my knowledge, this issue represents the contemporary debate between culture/religion and medicine/science. There is a book by Rachels specifically dealing with the application of "right and wrong" in the context of ethical theory. Also, Foot has a good paper on Euthanasia. In fact, the majority of my studies are in this field. It's heavy going, and neither side (liberal/conservative etc) really "wins".

 

To continue discussing it with you, I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine, or ethics in general. I am comfortable with either a formal or informal argument, no pressure either way.

 

EDIT: I just thought of something else. If you are saying prayer doesn't work, how are you using the argument? Against Gods existence? If so, be prepared for a long and boring discussion on Plantinga, lol.

1. It is an established fact that prayer doesn't work, in terms of some external effect, ie, apart from making the person praying feel a little better.

2. There are people who do treat prayer and treatment as exclusive alternate options, mainly among those who are skeptical of mainstream medicine.

3. I have no real problem with people praying in medical situations, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting real treatment. I was referring to a large scale study of prayer where groups of patients were prayed for by prayer groups. In accordance with proper experimental design, some groups were not prayed for, some were informed that people were praying for them, and some weren't.

There was no detectable positive correlation of being prayed for and recovery rates, in fact there was a slight negative correlation in certain classes of patients when they knew they were being prayed for. 

Whether that is something to take into account in real situations, probably not, although perhaps it should affect the way anxious friends and relatives speak to the afflicted individual.

I wouldn't bother taking the ineffectiveness of prayer as evidence against the existence of God, they are far too many ways to 'explain' that away by making various assumptions about God's motives, and a possible refusal to be 'tested', etc.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. It is an

Quote:
1. It is an established fact that prayer doesn't work, in terms of some external effect, ie, apart from making the person praying feel a little better.

Since we are discussing what "Feels right", feeling a little better makes praying the right thing to do for those people, yes?

 I'm not arguing about what works, so your first point is irrelevant. When a Jehova's Witness refuses a blood transfusion and dies, they are doing what "feels right". That is the point in contention, irrespective of what "works" in your opinion. To the second point (which deals with the obvious objections to the first point):

Quote:
2. There are people who do treat prayer and treatment as exclusive alternate options, mainly among those who are skeptical of mainstream medicine.

The intuitive inference would be that I find these people juveniles. I am really not qualified to say, as I know nothing about the reasoning behind their decisions.

Quote:
3. I have no real problem with people praying in medical situations, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting real treatment.

It is upsetting when someone does not seek help for religious reasons, and dies. The question is, should we force them to seek help, or not? I was dead serious (excuse the pun) when I said "for better or worse" and "right/wrong arguments are slippery".

Quote:
I was referring to a large scale study of prayer where groups of patients were prayed for by prayer groups. In accordance with proper experimental design, some groups were not prayed for, some were informed that people were praying for them, and some weren't.

I am aware of the study.

Quote:
I wouldn't bother taking the ineffectiveness of prayer as evidence against the existence of God, they are far too many ways to 'explain' that away by making various assumptions about God's motives, and a possible refusal to be 'tested', etc.

Good. I really dislike these debates, which is ironic.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:1. It

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
1. It is an established fact that prayer doesn't work, in terms of some external effect, ie, apart from making the person praying feel a little better.

Since we are discussing what "Feels right", feeling a little better makes praying the right thing to do for those people, yes?

 I'm not arguing about what works, so your first point is irrelevant. When a Jehova's Witness refuses a blood transfusion and dies, they are doing what "feels right". That is the point in contention, irrespective of what "works" in your opinion. To the second point (which deals with the obvious objections to the first point):

Actually, this is specifically in response to your post which included the request "I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine", so it was not so much about what "feels right". "Medicine" seems to involve whether it works.

And I am sure you realize I was referring to more than just people who were just praying to "feel better" personally - I included the words "in terms of some external effect", to emphasize what I had in mind. I should have included the qualification "incidentally" in referring to it making someone "feel better", to make it clearer that I was considering the cases where someone was praying for the real health or survival of someone, which could be the person praying. But specifically something more concrete than just "feeling better", which is in the same domain as other placebos. 

Jehovah's Witnesses position on blood transfusion is just another example of the fallacy of basing actions purely on what "feels right", especially if such feelings are mainly based on the teachings of some faith or other.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

        Where have you been hidding and why  don't you come around more often?

 

Hey i lost my internet but now its back glad to be back

btw how do you multiple quote ?

 

how can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent.

All knowing? where does free will come in?
 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Actually, this is

Quote:
Actually, this is specifically in response to your post which included the request "I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine", so it was not so much about what "feels right". "Medicine" seems to involve whether it works.

I don't think you fully understand what I am driving at:

Quote:
Whether treatment succeeds or fails, I really don't think you or I are qualified to say whether praying is the right or wrong thing to do in any given situation.

Quote:
Since we are discussing what "Feels right", feeling a little better makes praying the right thing to do for those people, yes?

Quote:
It is upsetting when someone does not seek help for religious reasons, and dies. The question is, should we force them to seek help, or not? I was dead serious (excuse the pun) when I said "for better or worse" and "right/wrong arguments are slippery".

Quote:
I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine

The pattern here is what you think the right and wrong thing to do actually is. I am sorry if it looked as if I was contrasting medicine and religion with each other, but I did say:

Quote:
I think we would do anything humanly possible to rid ourselves of  it

Quote:
You seem to indicate that prayer and treatment are mutually exclusive. IMO, this is quite a juvenile position to take

IOW, I believe medicine and prayer/religion are compatible. Furthermore, the majority of christian, to my knowledge hold the same belief.

I am not arguing with the stats on what works.

Running out of time, will post more later.

 

EDIT:

Ok, back again.

Quote:
And I am sure you realize I was referring to more than just people who were just praying to "feel better" personally

Yes I do/did realise that... I was expecting a meta-ethical dialogue, perhaps a little beyond the layman. Maybe you avoided it on purpose, who knows.


Wonkles
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-04-17
User is offlineOffline
"Can God create a rock so

"Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent."

Can God giggle flam door jam whitehouse red grange pin.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Actually, this is specifically in response to your post which included the request "I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine", so it was not so much about what "feels right". "Medicine" seems to involve whether it works.

I don't think you fully understand what I am driving at:

<...>

IOW, I believe medicine and prayer/religion are compatible. Furthermore, the majority of christian, to my knowledge hold the same belief.

I am not arguing with the stats on what works.

Running out of time, will post more later.

In what sense do my previous words

Quote:

3. I have no real problem with people praying in medical situations, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting real treatment. 

convey the impression that I believe medicine and prayer/religion are "incompatible"?

Quote:
 

EDIT:

Ok, back again.

Quote:
And I am sure you realize I was referring to more than just people who were just praying to "feel better" personally

Yes I do/did realise that... I was expecting a meta-ethical dialogue, perhaps a little beyond the layman. Maybe you avoided it on purpose, who knows.

OK, if you want to go there, which, as usual, you failed to make clear. I may appear less responsive to indirect 'hints' as to what sort of response you are after, precisely because I am very aware of the wide range of expectations/assumptions about other people that individuals can hold.

The feeling that something is "right" is the basis of moral/ethical behavior, of course.

The problem is that we now live in an environment, especially in nominally 'advanced' countries, where the largely instinctive, evolved reactions to circumstance, which tend to strongly influence such feelings, are not always appropriate.

Except maybe in some, more psychological problems, prayer is, at best, irrelevant, and shouldn't be a problem.

It could be a problem in an emergency situation where it may distract from active intervention, a bit like the recent air crash where there is some evidence that the pilot took time to pray which would have been far better spent trying to actually control the plane..

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Try this.

Adventfred wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

        Where have you been hidding and why  don't you come around more often?

 

Hey i lost my internet but now its back glad to be back

btw how do you multiple quote ?

 

how can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent.

All knowing? where does free will come in?
 

 

 

           The lower left hand--- sub lineal--  corner and where it says reply/ quote ;   hit the quote .    If that doesn't help then do what I do,   grab the nearest 10 year old,  and twist their little arm untill  they explain it to you;  in DETAIL.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Adventfred1 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Adventfred


Jeffrick wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

        Where have you been hidding and why  don't you come around more often?

 

Hey i lost my internet but now its back glad to be back

btw how do you multiple quote ?

 

how can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent.

All knowing? where does free will come in?
 

 

 

           The lower left hand--- sub lineal--  corner and where it says reply/ quote ;   hit the quote .    If that doesn't help then do what I do,   grab the nearest 10 year old,  and twist their little arm untill  they explain it to you;  in DETAIL.

 

hey thanks ill try that