Theist lay out your evidence.

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Theist lay out your evidence.

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end. I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I was going to add that a

I was going to add that a sock gnome or leprechaun could have been hiding in the vicinity while he was praying for his grandmother's recovery and felt bad for them so it "healed" her. But my figurative speech is probably more annoying than cute.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Miracles do

Wowzers1 wrote:
Miracles do seem to be random -- they are volitions of the will of the one performing the miracle.

If it is God's will, then it is not technically random, unless you believe God determines the saved with a dice roll.

This kind of a religious doctrine is essentially a retreat from empiricism; your god concept avoids any evidence against a god but also any possible evidence for that god, until a universe with that god is indistinguishable from a universe without him. He might as well not exist.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You could use statistics to show that there's no statistical significance from prayer.

Then why pray?

Why did you emphasize that people prayed before your grandmother got better?

Wowzers1 wrote:
But when there is a case like this, it is a statistical outlier, which only bolsters the case for it being a miracle, as a miracle seems to be a violation of normal experiences.

What do you mean it is a statistical outlier? You mean you believe there was a low chance of your grandmother surviving, but she survived, so therefore, it was a miracle? 

Wowzers1 wrote:
God of the gaps is used to criticize theist when theists posit that there is no other possible natural explanation. I granted that a natural explanation was possible, but it is against the odds. Now, a highly improbable cure of which there is a possible natural explanation that was not found, or a cure by divine agency -- the simpler explanation is the divine agency. I'm being consistent with Occam's Razor and not punting to God because there is no other possible explanation.

No, you're not being consistent with Occam's Razor at all. Again, all you're saying is, "I don't know how this happened. Therefore, God did it." That is a textbook God of the Gaps. You are punting to the Christian God because you want to believe in the Christian God. You couldn't care less about Occam's Razor. Generally, the fallacy doesn't depend on the theist believing there is no possible natural explanation, only not knowing of any specific natural explanation, even if there is one available.

A natural explanation is virtually always more probable than a supernatural explanation because supernatural explanations have to make the assumption that supernature exists. On top of that, you're assuming 1) A god exists. 2) That god is the Christian God i.e. assuming everything in the Bible. 3) God healed my grandmother. You are presupposing an entire religion to reach your conclusion. The naturalist wouldn't even have assume a specific cause, only that there was some unidentified natural cause. 

And if you're going to assume a supernatural cause, why do you assume a God, specifically the Christian God, hmmmm? How do you know fairies didn't save your grandmother? Or a magical unicorn? Or aliens?

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I was going to

robj101 wrote:
I was going to add that a sock gnome or leprechaun could have been hiding in the vicinity while he was praying for his grandmother's recovery and felt bad for them so it "healed" her. But my figurative speech is probably more annoying than cute.

Lol, yeah, a sock gnome or leprechaun works too. There are infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. But, of course, the Christian would immediately punt to the Christian God, just like any follower of any religion would immediately punt to their religion.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:And if

butterbattle wrote:

And if you're going to assume a supernatural cause, why do you assume a God, specifically the Christian God, hmmmm? How do you know fairies didn't save your grandmother? Or a magical unicorn? Or aliens?

Because he presupposes that they're not necessary to exist.

He's afairy

He's Aunicorn

He's Aalien.

 

He's a Discriminator

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hmmmm.... miracles sounds kind of like chance. Chance does seem to be random. By its very nature, statistics are always full of statistical outliers. Statistical outliers are not rare. 

If statistical outliers were not rare, then they wouldn't be outliers. Their deviation from the given sample's norm is what makes the outliers.

Beyond Saving wrote:


Implicit in your assumption is that if something is "against the odds" is that it doesn't happen. Saying something is "against the odds" implies that it IS possible. The odds might be very long. One in a billion, one in a trillion etc. It is still possible, without the need of divine intervention. And in the case of your particular story, I suspect the odds are far better than that. My mother recently went through having cervical cancer.

Against odds to not mean that it does not happen, but rather that it is not likely to happen. My grandmother's cancer was advanced that the prognosis was that chemo might extend her life a few months for which she'd be sick from the chemo, so she opted not to be treated.

Beyond Saving wrote:

When the doctors made their first diagnosis they were convinced it was stage four and it was too late. They told my mother she was extremely likely to die. Further tests revealed that it was only stage two, giving my mother a very good chance at surviving, and so far she has. I know other people who have been diagnosed with "terminal" cancer and have survived to tell the tale. So what conclusion can we draw? Doctors don't know everything. The human body is extremely complex and medicine is an increasingly complex field. Doctors can make mistakes, or simply not know enough to always be right. If the odds of such a thing happening were say 10,000 to 1, that means that particular doctor may have seen several thousand people in the same situation die. So the doctor draws on their experience and prepares you for the worst because it is what they can reasonably expect. 

I don't presume that doctors know everything. It is possible that the doctor made a mistake, but I have no reason to think that he did.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is much simpler and far more likely that we don't fully understand the human body. Which we KNOW we don't. We are still trying to find a cure for cancer. No doubt, current techniques will be considered only a slight step up from leeches in another hundred years. So you are NOT being consistent with Occam's Razor. Although, I doubt you actually care about that. 

This is an argument from ignorance and is often the counterpart to the purported "God of the Gaps" fallacy made by atheists...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:If you had

robj101 wrote:

If you had proven "god" was performing miracles this would work, you have not so it does not.

But this precludes divine causation as a possibility, that and it the cause for whatever caused the healing is what's being inferred, so an inference to natural causes is not any better off. I have not reason to believe that the inference I made was bad either, and insofar as I can tell it is the explanation that best fits the facts.

robj101 wrote:

Not really, You have to first assume such a god exists in the first place and that he chose for some reason to "heal" your grandmother while children starve to death in africa, while a catholic priest was raping a boy, while a hundred other people succumbed to cancer etc etc.

This is a red herring.

All things being equal, why is assuming that God exists a bad assumption? If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:It could also

Gauche wrote:

It could also be explained perfectly by the Loch Ness Monster, Chewbacca, The Smurfs, or the ghost of Mary Pickford. Hell, maybe they all did it together. It could have been a conspiracy. There's just as much evidence for that as what you are claiming.

For it to be anyone of those, I'd have to be praying to the Loch Ness Monster, Chewbacca, The Smurfs, or the ghost of Mary Pickford. It can't be evidence for any of these if I wasn't praying to them...

Gauche wrote:

There's no evidence or facts other than that your grandmother got well after praying. A miracle could be possible, comform perfectly with the facts, and even be true but it's still a post hoc fallacy if that's all there is to establish a causal connection.

She was sick before we started praying. She opts not to be treated (that precludes the possibility that medicine cured her). We prayed and she went back to the doctor, who could find no cancer. These are the facts. The problem you have is with the inference to God. The inference is not included in the list of facts I gave. The facts do support that inference though.

Gauche wrote:

Under any rubric. The only thing an eye witness narrative could establish is the temporal succession of events and to believe that implies a causal relationship between the events is exactly what a post hoc fallacy is.

This happened once... You tell me if the inference is bad: I had jar of pennies on a shelf. I left my house with a cat inside. When I come home, the jar is smashed and the pennies are all over the floor. I inferred that the cat knocked the jar off the shelf. But there are other possibilities too: someone could have broken in and smashed the jar without taking the pennies. There could have been an earthquake or tremor that knock it off the shelf. Given the set of facts, I make an inference to what caused the facts.

This happened last week. I had a headache. I took some Advil for my headache. My headache went away after an hour. I inferred that the Advil caused my headache to go away.

If I follow you logic, I cannot establish that any of these causes were what knocked the jar off the shelf or that the Advil caused my headache to go away, even if there is good evidence to make the inference.

I'm beginning to think that you really don't know what a post hoc fallacy is -- this particular fallacy is not about sequence of events, but rather an inference to an invalid cause.

Gauche wrote:

What difference does that make to you? You don't care about the weight of evidence. If you did, you'd stop being a Christian because you just admitted that what you consider to be valid inference provides more evidence against your religion than for it.

If I have a way of understanding miracles in the context of other religions, I can permute your case that it evidence for other religions as evidence for Christianity. Likewise, the Hindu could to the same if he has an understanding for miracles in other religions. What Given that all religions can be false, but only one can be true, the evidence for supernatural entities should point to one true religion. In any case, it is always evidence against atheism.

Gauche wrote:

You claimed that you don't assume anything is true or false until given a good reason. Either that was a lie or you don't consider the weight of evidence to be a good reason.

I given you my rubric for understanding miracles in other religions, so I permute the evidence as more evidence for Christian theism. It makes my case weightier than before...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: But I do

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

But I do assumes the existence of God as a possibility, not as a certainty. If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise.

A red herring is a something said for distraction, you simply did not like what I said because it has everything to do with your assumption and the topic at hand.

Assuming but not certain, one thing is certain at least, that you are not. You don't seem to be certain about how to progress your argument either, it keeps going back to the same place.

You stated earlier that you assume it's true because you think it is the best option, what makes you think it is the best option? What makes you think it's an option at all?

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:If it is

butterbattle wrote:

If it is God's will, then it is not technically random, unless you believe God determines the saved with a dice roll.

This kind of a religious doctrine is essentially a retreat from empiricism; your god concept avoids any evidence against a god but also any possible evidence for that god, until a universe with that god is indistinguishable from a universe without him. He might as well not exist.

Volitions of one's will seem random, but I do not think they are random in the sense of random distribution in mathematics.

butterbattle wrote:

Then why pray?

Why did you emphasize that people prayed before your grandmother got better?

Statistical inferences that prayer is ineffective does not guarantee that God does not heal

That and the use of statistics as a reason not to pray is adding evidence rather than weighing it. The magnitude of a single miracles is compelling evidence in its own right. Statistically terrorist attacks from airplanes are rare occurrences. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were isolated incidences, but changed travel security world wide. The magnitude of these isolated incidences, even though statistically hijackings are rare, was enough to compel governments to change travel policies.

butterbattle wrote:

What do you mean it is a statistical outlier? You mean you believe there was a low chance of your grandmother surviving, but she survived, so therefore, it was a miracle? 

The correlation between pray and healing.

butterbattle wrote:

No, you're not being consistent with Occam's Razor at all. Again, all you're saying is, "I don't know how this happened. Therefore, God did it." That is a textbook God of the Gaps. You are punting to the Christian God because you want to believe in the Christian God. You couldn't care less about Occam's Razor. Generally, the fallacy doesn't depend on the theist believing there is no possible natural explanation, only not knowing of any specific natural explanation, even if there is one available.

I'm not punting to God, I'm inferring that God did it and allowing for the possibility that I'm wrong (that is I am allowing for a natural cause). But even if I am, you'd be punting to ignorance, which is no better... in fact I'd contend it is worse because is denying the a possibility when there's good reason to believe it.

butterbattle wrote:

A natural explanation is virtually always more probable than a supernatural explanation because supernatural explanations have to make the assumption that supernature exists. On top of that, you're assuming 1) A god exists. 2) That god is the Christian God i.e. assuming everything in the Bible. 3) God healed my grandmother. You are presupposing an entire religion to reach your conclusion. The naturalist wouldn't even have assume a specific cause, only that there was some unidentified natural cause. 

And if you're going to assume a supernatural cause, why do you assume a God, specifically the Christian God, hmmmm? How do you know fairies didn't save your grandmother? Or a magical unicorn? Or aliens?

God is what I brought to the table -- For it to be a less probable explanation, you have to assume that it is likely that gods don't exist, that it is likely that the Christian does not exist, and that it unlikely that God that God performs miracles. I think you're reading your bias into god as a possibility if you say a natural explanation is "always more probable" But if I'm compelled to accept natural explanations some reason, I still do not have one.

The reason I preclude other entities from acting is because I was not praying to them... I was praying to the Christian God as were other people in this context..

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
"Assume" and "hope" these

"Assume" and "hope" these seem to be special key words to you but are they words of reason? Are you willing to bypass reason for hope and assumptions? I'm pretty sure that's the case and that would make this case closed.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Wowzers1

robj101 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

But I do assumes the existence of God as a possibility, not as a certainty. If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise.

A red herring is a something said for distraction, you simply did not like what I said because it has everything to do with your assumption and the topic at hand.

Assuming but not certain, one thing is certain at least, that you are not. You don't seem to be certain about how to progress your argument either, it keeps going back to the same place.

You stated earlier that you assume it's true because you think it is the best option, what makes you think it is the best option? What makes you think it's an option at all?

 

You need to check the post... That's not what it says... it says, "All things being equal, why is assuming that God exists a bad assumption? If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise."

The distraction is the issue dealing with the other issues...that's off topic

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

But I do assumes the existence of God as a possibility, not as a certainty. If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise.

A red herring is a something said for distraction, you simply did not like what I said because it has everything to do with your assumption and the topic at hand.

Assuming but not certain, one thing is certain at least, that you are not. You don't seem to be certain about how to progress your argument either, it keeps going back to the same place.

You stated earlier that you assume it's true because you think it is the best option, what makes you think it is the best option? What makes you think it's an option at all?

 

You need to check the post... That's not what it says... it says, "All things being equal, why is assuming that God exists a bad assumption? If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise."

The distraction is the issue dealing with the other issues...that's off topic

 I don't have to assume or hope for anything relating to a miracle or a god that would have produced it, why do you?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The so called "red

The so called "red herring" was directly related to the topic of miracles and why your grandmother got a miracle cure while so many other people did not. There are children starving to death and you consider the healing of one person to be miraculous while thousands of others die. The main topic here was miracles and it was directly related, explain how it was not. I don't like to be accused of silly carp unless I did it intentionally.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:For it to be

Wowzers1 wrote:
For it to be anyone of those, I'd have to be praying to the Loch Ness Monster, Chewbacca, The Smurfs, or the ghost of Mary Pickford. It can't be evidence for any of these if I wasn't praying to them...
It could have been unsolicited so it very much could be  any of those things and there's just as much reason to believe it was.

Wowzers1 wrote:
She was sick before we started praying. She opts not to be treated (that precludes the possibility that medicine cured her). We prayed and she went back to the doctor, who could find no cancer. These are the facts. The problem you have is with the inference to God. The inference is not included in the list of facts I gave. The facts do support that inference though.
So, what you consider to be "the facts" is the sequence of events where praying came before your grandmother got well. Sequences, like correlation do not equal causation. That's why it's a post hoc fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I'm beginning to think that you really don't know what a post hoc fallacy is -- this particular fallacy is not about sequence of events, but rather an inference to an invalid cause.
I'm glad you accused me of not knowing what a post hoc fallacy is because that is an issue that can be cleared up easily.

This is what you said to Atheistextremist:
Wowzers1 wrote:
Here are the facts: My grandmother is terminally ill with cancer. The prognosis is bad. She and others pray for healing. She returns to the doctor and there is no trace of cancer in a her body.


Your facts that prove a miracle occurred are a description of a sequence of events. Let's see what other sources have to say about that.

Wikipedia wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

        * A occurred, then B occurred.
        * Therefore, A caused B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc


philosophy.lander.edu wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  (literally after this, therefore because of this) the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html


Not only is it a post hoc fallacy but it is a perfect example of a post hoc fallacy. It could be printed in a textbook. I'm glad your grandmother is well but I don't envy your position in this discussion because you're faced with a genuine dilemma here. If you claim to have evidence or reasons to believe this beyond the sequence of events then the claim becomes open to empirical scrutiny, and on empirical grounds your case is somewhere between jack and shit leaning heavily toward the shit side. If you don't then you will eventually learn or have to admit what a post hoc fallacy is, and that you are in error.

And to answer your question Advil has been tested in double blind studies and if the only reason you have to think your cat is responsible for the pennies is the temporal sequence of events then that's a post hoc fallacy too. A fallacy you seem to be quite fond of.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I given you my rubric for understanding miracles in other religions, so I permute the evidence as more evidence for Christian theism. It makes my case weightier than before...
You're kidding right? You even admit that people in other religions can do the same thing so there'd still be more evidence against Christianity. That's not even a philosophical question it's a matter of simple math.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
I was going to add that a sock gnome or leprechaun could have been hiding in the vicinity while he was praying for his grandmother's recovery and felt bad for them so it "healed" her. But my figurative speech is probably more annoying than cute.

Lol, yeah, a sock gnome or leprechaun works too. There are infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. But, of course, the Christian would immediately punt to the Christian God, just like any follower of any religion would immediately punt to their religion.

 

Which in turn means this discussion will eventually lead to the proposed existence of said god as I noted to him amidst his protest of such.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
 I dunno about evidence but

 

I dunno about evidence but DAMN that's an ugly ass dog...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: I dunno about

Kapkao wrote:

 

I dunno about evidence but DAMN that's an ugly ass dog...

 

You will surely go to unicorn hell if you talk smack about my dog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdiND1kzSZ0

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:It could have

Gauche wrote:

It could have been unsolicited so it very much could be  any of those things and there's just as much reason to believe it was.

There's no evidence for that, so I have no reason to think that it is the case.  To suggest this would be a conspiracy theory on the part of one of the other aforementioned entities.

Gauche wrote:
Your facts that prove a miracle occurred are a description of a sequence of events. Let's see what other sources have to say about that.

You forgot this part:

Wikipedia wrote:
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

philosophy.lander.edu wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  (literally after this, therefore because of this) the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.

I'm not basing it "solely" ore "merely" on the order of events. If I was doing that, I could not infer that the cat broke the jar or that the Advil helped my headache. I inferred the cats because they climb on furniture and knock things off of furniture. I infer Advil because it has been shown help alleviate pain. The inference to God is like this in that God is able to perform miracles. If God can perform miracles is in part the basis for the inference, not "solely" on the order of events. You have yet to show how the inference is bad either.

Gauche wrote:
Not only is it a post hoc fallacy but it is a perfect example of a post hoc fallacy. It could be printed in a textbook. I'm glad your grandmother is well but I don't envy your position in this discussion because you're faced with a genuine dilemma here. If you claim to have evidence or reasons to believe this beyond the sequence of events then the claim becomes open to empirical scrutiny, and on empirical grounds your case is somewhere between jack and shit leaning heavily toward the shit side. If you don't then you will eventually learn or have to admit what a post hoc fallacy is, and that you are in error.

A perfect example would be something like this: A minute ago, I ate lunch. Now I'm posting on RRS. Therefore me eating lunch caused me to post on RRS.

Gauche wrote:
And to answer your question Advil has been tested in double blind studies and if the only reason you have to think your cat is responsible for the pennies is the temporal sequence of events then that's a post hoc fallacy too. A fallacy you seem to be quite fond of.

Cats climb on shelves and can knock things off of furniture. If I know that cats can do this, then the inference to the cat knocking the jar of pennies off the shelf is not a bad inference. I fear you do not understand the fallacy, and are misapplying it. Maybe you do understand it and don't want to back down from your claim. In either case, I'm not committing it.

Gauche wrote:
You're kidding right? You even admit that people in other religions can do the same thing so there'd still be more evidence against Christianity. That's not even a philosophical question it's a matter of simple math.

You don't seem to understand the permutation. I'm saying that if I permute the evidence, then it is even more evidence for Christianity, not for other the religions. In any case though, it is always evidence against atheism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Gauche

Wowzers1 wrote:

Gauche wrote:

It could have been unsolicited so it very much could be  any of those things and there's just as much reason to believe it was.

There's no evidence for that, so I have no reason to think that it is the case.  To suggest this would be a conspiracy theory on the part of one of the other aforementioned entities.

There's no evidence for what you are saying either.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I'm not basing it "solely" ore "merely" on the order of events. If I was doing that, I could not infer that the cat broke the jar or that the Advil helped my headache. I inferred the cats because they climb on furniture and knock things off of furniture. I infer Advil because it has been shown help alleviate pain. The inference to God is like this in that God is able to perform miracles. If God can perform miracles is in part the basis for the inference, not "solely" on the order of events. You have yet to show how the inference is bad either.

There's always an assumption implied with this fallacy. If you point a dowsing rod and find water and believe it was because of the rod, it's implied there was an assumption that a rod could find water. Your assumption that gods can heal grandmothers and cats can knock over penny jars doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:

A perfect example would be something like this: A minute ago, I ate lunch. Now I'm posting on RRS. Therefore me eating lunch caused me to post on RRS.

But you clearly believe that if you assume lunch can cause posting here that means it's no longer a fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Cats climb on shelves and can knock things off of furniture. If I know that cats can do this, then the inference to the cat knocking the jar of pennies off the shelf is not a bad inference. I fear you do not understand the fallacy, and are misapplying it.

You are confused, but you seem to trust Wikipedia let's refer to them again:

Wikipedia wrote:

From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel:[2]

More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education. So according to you the inference to young people being corrupted by their education is not bad inference and this is not a fallacy. Not only do I not understand the fallacy but neither does Wikipedia or S.Morris Engel who wrote a book about it apparently.

Wowzers1 wrote:

You don't seem to understand the permutation. I'm saying that if I permute the evidence, then it is even more evidence for Christianity, not for other the religions. In any case though, it is always evidence against atheism.

And people of other religions by your own admission can do the same thing so there would still be more evidence against you.

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The so called

robj101 wrote:

The so called "red herring" was directly related to the topic of miracles and why your grandmother got a miracle cure while so many other people did not. There are children starving to death and you consider the healing of one person to be miraculous while thousands of others die. The main topic here was miracles and it was directly related, explain how it was not. I don't like to be accused of silly carp unless I did it intentionally.

This is a red herring because it is looking at the why God won't perform X but will perform Y, not about what one uses to establishes his or her belief in a deity, and why it is a red herring.

I've tried to stay focused on the OP:

robj101 wrote:

I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

 

I dunno about evidence but DAMN that's an ugly ass dog...

 

You will surely go to unicorn hell if you talk smack about my dog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdiND1kzSZ0

 

HUH

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:There's no

Gauche wrote:

There's no evidence for that, so I have no reason to think that it is the case.  To suggest this would be a conspiracy theory on the part of one of the other aforementioned entities.

There's no evidence for what you are saying either.

The evidence is the facts I presented. Are you saying those facts don't exist?

Gauche wrote:

There's always an assumption implied with this fallacy. If you point a dowsing rod and find water and believe it was because of the rod, it's implied there was an assumption that a rod could find water. Your assumption that gods can heal grandmothers and cats can knock over penny jars doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

If the diviner heard that the divining rod leads him to water, and find water while using a divining rod, his conclusion is not a post hoc fallcy because he based it on a belief about divining rods. It may be unsound for other reason though. You have to show how the inference is invalid, and you have not done so. Not for the cat, or my grandmothers healing.

Gauche wrote:

But you clearly believe that if you assume lunch can cause posting here that means it's no longer a fallacy.

If one premise said "eating lunch will cause one to post on RRS" then yes, I did not arrive at the conclusion based solely on the order of events. But believing that lunch caused me to post on RRS is non sequitur

Gauche wrote:

You are confused, but you seem to trust Wikipedia refer to them again:

Wikipedia wrote:

From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel:[2]

More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.

But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education. So according to you the inference to young people being corrupted by their education is not bad inference and this is not a fallacy. Not only do I not understand the fallacy but neither does Wikipedia or S.Morris Engel who wrote a book about it apparently.

(Never said I trusted or distrusted wikipedia...you posted it originally... I followed the link and posted a part you forgot to post)

There's no premise, stated or implied, that young people are corrupted by education. He's drawing his conclusion from the solely from the sequence of events, as Wikipedia define the fallacy. I've given you reasons why I think my argument is different from this concerning cats, Advil, and God.

Gauche wrote:

And people of other religions by your own admission can do the same thing so there would still be more evidence against you.

I said the permutation  is allowable in other religions, so the evidence would be equivocal evidence for one religion or another that allows for miracles to be performed in the context of other religions. So the truth of one religion or another has to be decided on other ground. I've said it before that I don't base my beliefs solely on miracles for this reason. But in any case, it's always evidence against atheism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Volitions of

Wowzers1 wrote:
Volitions of one's will seem random, but I do not think they are random in the sense of random distribution in mathematics.

You didn't say it "seemed" random. You said it "is" random. Events that are determined by someone's will is, by definition, not random. Furthermore, if that entity's decisions are affected by any factors in observable reality, it will be testable.

Does your God have any objectively identifiable affect on reality? Yes or no? If yes, what is it? If no, then your belief is based on faith and this discussion is pointless. Note, if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
Statistical inferences that prayer is ineffective does not guarantee that God does not heal

It guarantees that if a god exists, and if that god heals at all, he heals people very rarely and randomly, independent of their beliefs and actions or that there simply is no god.

Wowzers1 wrote:
That and the use of statistics as a reason not to pray is adding evidence rather than weighing it.

No, it's not. Sorry. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
The magnitude of a single miracles is compelling evidence in its own right.

Great, but you don't have a single miracle; that is the problem. You have something that you don't understand, so you assumed that it's a miracle because you want to believe that there are miracles and God exists. You don't have a single case of anything that ever occurred in the world that demonstrably could not have a natural explanation.

Also, praying >> got better, is certainly a post hoc. Asserting causality doesn't make a causality. If you're making the claim that it was most likely God, and you're attempting to justify it with the premise that God causes miracles, then you're just digging an even deeper hole by begging the question and using circular reasoning as well. You were the using case of your grandmother as evidence that God does miracles, so obviously, you cannot base this argument on the premise that God does miracles. Then, your argument is: God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles, I know this because >>> God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles.

So lame.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Statistically terrorist attacks from airplanes are rare occurrences. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were isolated incidences, but changed travel security world wide. The magnitude of these isolated incidences, even though statistically hijackings are rare, was enough to compel governments to change travel policies.

Okay, and how does this apply to the case of your grandmother?

Wowzers1 wrote:
I'm not punting to God,

Sure you are.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I'm inferring that God did it

In other words, punting to God.

Btw, you're assuming, not inferring. Inferences are based on observations. Your observations don't support the conclusion that God did it.

Wowzers1 wrote:
and allowing for the possibility that I'm wrong (that is I am allowing for a natural cause).

That makes you more open-minded that many Christians. But, it would still be far more open-minded to not cling to an unjustified belief in the first place.

Wowzers1 wrote:
But even if I am, you'd be punting to ignorance, which is no better...

Saying "I don't know" is, by definition, always more rational than believing something without evidence. If you are ignorant, then punting to any arbitrary explanation is just intellectual dishonesty.

Wowzers1 wrote:
in fact I'd contend it is worse because is denying the a possibility when there's good reason to believe it.

I am not denying the possibility. I simply don't believe because there is no good reason to believe it.   

Wowzers1 wrote:
God is what I brought to the table --

In other words, punting to God. You have no reason for preferring God over any other supernatural explanation other than your own bias.

Wowzers1 wrote:
For it to be a less probable explanation, you have to assume that it is likely that gods don't exist, that it is likely that the Christian does not exist, and that it unlikely that God that God performs miracles.

 

No, it is less probable because there are natural causes for cancer patients getting better. Supernatural explanations are less probable by default because they immediately introduce many more unjustified assumption i.e. there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place. Punting to your Christian God introduces enough assumptions to fill a dictionary.

Don't make a mockery of the burden of proof. You hold the responsibility of demonstrating that your plethora of assumptions necessary to lead to the conclusion that your God did it are probable. They are all unjustified supernatural claims that are definitively unfalsifiable; in the same way that I do not have to disprove leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies in order to discount them, I do not have to disprove your God to discount him.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I think you're reading your bias into god as a possibility if you say a natural explanation is "always more probable" But if I'm compelled to accept natural explanations some reason, I still do not have one.

Exactly, god of the gaps. You do not know of a specific natural explanation, so you punt to your God.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The reason I preclude other entities from acting is because I was not praying to them... I was praying to the Christian God as were other people in this context..

Oh? Why would that preclude them?

That little fairy didn't care whether you prayed for it or not. It just felt sorry for your grandmother. Why do you choose to believe that God healed her when that cute fairy worked all night, using up her precious fairy energy to save her?

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Gauche

Wowzers1 wrote:

Gauche wrote:

There's no evidence for that, so I have no reason to think that it is the case.  To suggest this would be a conspiracy theory on the part of one of the other aforementioned entities.

There's no evidence for what you are saying either.

The evidence is the facts I presented. Are you saying those facts don't exist?

Don't be obtuse.

You have presented events that have occurred. Those are facts. He is not 'disputing' the events that occurred.

You are 'projecting' that this is/could be a miracle/supernatural event.

You have no basis to 'suspect' that those events are a 'miracle' anymore than spontaneous human combustion could be characterized as a 'miracle' simply because it's a statistical rarity.

The argument from incredulity, is a 'fool's paradise', and inextricable from a confirmation bias.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You

butterbattle wrote:

You didn't say it "seemed" random. You said it "is" random. Events that are determined by someone's will is, by definition, not random. Furthermore, if that entity's decisions are affected by any factors in observable reality, it will be testable.

Sorry if I created confusion. I mean to say that they are not random in the same as in mathematical randomness.

butterbattle wrote:

Does your God have any objectively identifiable affect on reality? Yes or no? If yes, what is it? If no, then your belief is based on faith and this discussion is pointless. Note, if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable.

"Objcetively identifiable" in what manner? If you presuppose that God cannot work... no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise, so why are we having this discussion then?

butterbattle wrote:

It guarantees that if a god exists, and if that god heals at all, he heals people very rarely and randomly, independent of their beliefs and actions or that there simply is no god.

The only way statistics can guarantee anything is from a survey of an entire population. Do you have such information available to you?

butterbattle wrote:

No, it's not. Sorry.

Insisting it's one way without telling why is not very convincing.

butterbattle wrote:

Great, but you don't have a single miracle; that is the problem. You have something that you don't understand, so you assumed that it's a miracle because you want to believe that there are miracles and God exists. You don't have a single case of anything that ever occurred in the world that demonstrably could not have a natural explanation.

Do you want to explain the resurrection of Jesus in natural terms? I'm all ears. If you want to destroy my faith in Christianity, do it on these grounds. I think this would be better left to another thread though.

butterbattle wrote:

Also, praying >> got better, is certainly a post hoc.

Post hoc assumes I based it solely on the order of events, of which I did not do.

butterbattle wrote:

Asserting causality doesn't make a causality. If you're making the claim that it was most likely God, and you're attempting to justify it with the premise that God causes miracles, then you're just digging an even deeper hole by begging the question and using circular reasoning as well.

It's a type categorical syllogism, if you want to know the form. God performs miracles is a general statement, and the conclusion that it was a miracle was a miracle is a particular.

butterbattle wrote:

You were the using case of your grandmother as evidence that God does miracles, so obviously, you cannot base this argument on the premise that God does miracles. Then, your argument is: God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles, I know this because >>> God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles.

It would be if I was stating this in the context of Christianity, but I'm not. The argument looks like this: It is possible that God heals people >> my grandmother was healed >> it is possible that god healed my grandmother. Now, the facts that she had a grim prognosis, refused treatments, went back to the doctor who discovered no cancer, and the doctor had no natural explanation for it  imply the probability that she was healed by natural means is against the odds. In other words, the probability that natural causes healed her is low.

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, and how does this apply to the case of your grandmother?

It had to do with the weightiness of isolated incidences in spite that the probability for such instances is low.

butterbattle wrote:
Sure you are...In other words, punting to God.

I don't know how many times I said it, but I will say it again. I grant the possibility that it was caused by natural means. I'm not saying it "must" or was "necessarily" caused by God. That would  be a punt.

butterbattle wrote:

Btw, you're assuming, not inferring. Inferences are based on observations. Your observations don't support the conclusion that God did it.

How?

butterbattle wrote:

That makes you more open-minded that many Christians. But, it would still be far more open-minded to not cling to an unjustified belief in the first place.

I feel I've justified in my belief...

butterbattle wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is, by definition, always more rational than believing something without evidence. If you are ignorant, then punting to any arbitrary explanation is just intellectual dishonesty.

The facts are the evidence on which I base my inference. Are you saying the facts don't exist? Punting to "I don't know" because the facts violate some presupposition you may have is intellectual dishonesty.

butterbattle wrote:

I am not denying the possibility. I simply don't believe because there is no good reason to believe it.

Per your statement earlier "if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable.", If I'm interpreting this right, I don't believe you're even open to the possibility.

butterbattle wrote:

In other words, punting to God. You have no reason for preferring God over any other supernatural explanation other than your own bias.

My case in particular is in the context of the Christian God. But if this the case, then all forms of theism are equally valid along side atheism, and you have no reason to prefer atheism over any of them.

butterbattle wrote:

No, it is less probable because there are natural causes for cancer patients getting better. Supernatural explanations are less probable by default because they immediately introduce many more unjustified assumption i.e. there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place. Punting to your Christian God introduces enough assumptions to fill a dictionary.

If you say, "there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place" then you do preclude the possibility. I have no reason to continue because your mind is closed to the matter.

butterbattle wrote:

Don't make a mockery of the burden of proof. You hold the responsibility of demonstrating that your plethora of assumptions necessary to lead to the conclusion that your God did it are probable. They are all unjustified supernatural claims that are definitively unfalsifiable; in the same way that I do not have to disprove leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies in order to discount them, I do not have to disprove your God to discount him.

It is falsifiable on 2 terms: You could show that we were praying to some sort of false deity or have the doctor produce a natural explanation for the the absence of cancer and show that the explanation is common.

butterbattle wrote:

Exactly, god of the gaps. You do not know of a specific natural explanation, so you punt to your God.

I'm not insisting that there is no natural explanation, because I grant the possibility. And insofar as I can tell you're punting to ignorance, which is really no better.

butterbattle wrote:

Oh? Why would that preclude them?

Because I'm praying to the Christian God.

butterbattle wrote:

That little fairy didn't care whether you prayed for it or not. It just felt sorry for your grandmother. Why do you choose to believe that God healed her when that cute fairy worked all night, using up her precious fairy energy to save her?

That's a conspiracy theory.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:butterbattle

Wowzers1 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

That little fairy didn't care whether you prayed for it or not. It just felt sorry for your grandmother. Why do you choose to believe that God healed her when that cute fairy worked all night, using up her precious fairy energy to save her?

That's a conspiracy theory.

No.

It's an alternate theory, which is equal in evidence, and viability, to yours.

Which is to say, none.

Whether you like it, or not...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:The evidence

Wowzers1 wrote:


The evidence is the facts I presented. Are you saying those facts don't exist?


I'm saying it's not evidence for what you believe.

Wowzers1 wrote:

If the diviner heard that the divining rod leads him to water, and find water while using a divining rod, his conclusion is not a post hoc fallcy because he based it on a belief about divining rods. It may be unsound for other reason though. You have to show how the inference is invalid, and you have not done so. Not for the cat, or my grandmothers healing.

You're leaving out an essential part. Without an explanation of how dowsing rods find water the cause is in doubt. I said that with your cat it would be a fallacy if that were the only reason to draw a causal connection. Without investigating and providing some explanation of the process it's still post hoc reasoning.  Superstitions arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy because there isn't other evidence to establish a causal connection. What you've presented as facts are merely a sequence of events and your argument is a fallacy, your initial belief I suppose could have been adopted purely out of credulity but I suspect you believe it because people get better after praying sometimes. You're not addressing my point though that post hoc fallacies imply general beliefs about possibility and form conclusions about specific occurrences. 


Wowzers1 wrote:
Gauche wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:


From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel:[2]

    More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.



But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education. So according to you the inference to young people being corrupted by their education is not bad inference and this is not a fallacy. Not only do I not understand the fallacy but neither does Wikipedia or S.Morris Engel who wrote a book about it apparently.



(Never said I trusted or distrusted wikipedia...you posted it originally... I followed the link and posted a part you forgot to post)

There's no premise, stated or implied, that young people are corrupted by education. He's drawing his conclusion from the solely from the sequence of events, as Wikipedia define the fallacy. I've given you reasons why I think my argument is different from this concerning cats, Advil, and God.


The causal connection between taking Advil and headache relief was established through double blind studies. I said people could be corrupted by education, not that they are. His conclusion that a group of people were corrupted by education implies a belief that people can be corrupted by education. That people can be corrupted by education is a well documented and known fact. According to your rationale that would make it not a fallacy. The reason it's a fallacy like your grandmother's miracle is that it's not accounting for all relevant details.


Wowzers1 wrote:
I said the permutation  is allowable in other religions, so the evidence would be equivocal evidence for one religion or another that allows for miracles to be performed in the context of other religions. So the truth of one religion or another has to be decided on other ground. I've said it before that I don't base my beliefs solely on miracles for this reason. But in any case, it's always evidence against atheism.
It would be evidence against atheism if it were valid inference but I don't see how that concerns you. What should concern you is the inconsistency of using that as evidence that other religions are wrong when it provides more evidence against your own beliefs.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I'm saying it's

Gauche wrote:

I'm saying it's not evidence for what you believe.

Until you show how the inference is bad, I have no reason to believe this.

Gauche wrote:

You're leaving out an essential part. Without an explanation of how dowsing rods find water the cause is in doubt. I said that with your cat it would be a fallacy if that were the only reason to draw a causal connection. Without investigating and accounting for relevant details it's still post hoc reasoning.

But the relevant details are there, so its not post hoc concerning my cat or my God.

Gauche wrote:

Superstitions arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy because there isn't other evidence to establish a causal connection. What you've presented as facts are merely a sequence of events and your argument is a fallacy, your initial belief I suppose could have been adopted purely out of credulity but I suspect you believe it because people get better after praying sometimes. You're not addressing my point though that post hoc fallacies imply general beliefs about possibility and form conclusions about specific occurrences. 

This is only true if I'm reasoning from a sequence of events. I'm not, and I've shown you how I'm not. For that I have no reason to think it post hoc. But it sounds like you're changing your story, trying to make it a matter of technicality, which seems to suggest that you realized your mistake.

Gauche wrote:

But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education. So according to you the inference to young people being corrupted by their education is not bad inference and this is not a fallacy. Not only do I not understand the fallacy but neither does Wikipedia or S.Morris Engel who wrote a book about it apparently.

The premise "But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education." is neither stated or implied. If I'm missing it, show me where.

Gauche wrote:


The causal connection between taking Advil and headache relief was established through double blind studies. I said people could be corrupted by education, not that they are. His conclusion that a group of people were corrupted by education implies a belief that people can be corrupted by education. That people can be corrupted by education is a well documented and known fact. According to your rationale that would make it not a fallacy. The reason it's a fallacy like your grandmother's miracle is that it's not accounting for all relevant details.

Now you're creating a straw man out of what I said, and validates my thinking that you're trying to make it a matter of technicality because I'm not "accounting for all the relevant details".

Gauche wrote:

It would be evidence against atheism if it were valid inference but I don't see how that concerns you. What should concern you is the inconsistency of using that as evidence that other religions are wrong when it provides more evidence against your own beliefs.

Now you're trying to make a red herring out of this matter.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Gauche

Wowzers1 wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I'm saying it's not evidence for what you believe.

Until you show how the inference is bad

You haven't made any scientific effort to eliminate all possible natural causes.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I have no reason to believe this.

You have no 'reasoning', period.

So, you're reasoning that that see 'no reason' is completely predictable, and consistent.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Gauche

Wowzers1 wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I'm saying it's not evidence for what you believe.

Until you show how the inference is bad, I have no reason to believe this.

 

I prayed to a tea kettle when I got sick and then I got better proves absolutley nothing unless I simply want it to be so. It is not objective proof for anything except what is in my own mind based on my own desire.

You could flip a coin and tell someone you are praying that the coin lands heads up, if it does so it is not evidence of anything unless you can repeat it reliably.

Prayer is proven to be far from reliable.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I prayed to a

robj101 wrote:

I prayed to a tea kettle when I got sick and then I got better proves absolutley nothing unless I simply want it to be so. It is not objective proof for anything except what is in my own mind based on my own desire.

You could flip a coin and tell someone you are praying that the coin lands heads up, if it does so it is not evidence of anything unless you can repeat it reliably.

Prayer is proven to be far from reliable.

We're you praying to a sentient being with the power to heal? I would reject the claim because tea kettles cannot possibly heal.

But if you want to assert that a tea kettle has these properties, go ahead. If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I prayed to a tea kettle when I got sick and then I got better proves absolutley nothing unless I simply want it to be so. It is not objective proof for anything except what is in my own mind based on my own desire.

You could flip a coin and tell someone you are praying that the coin lands heads up, if it does so it is not evidence of anything unless you can repeat it reliably.

Prayer is proven to be far from reliable.

We're you praying to a sentient being with the power to heal?

If you want to assert that a tea kettle has these properties, go ahead.

I never suggested a god was any more real than a sentient tea kettle. This thread was looking for proof of a god via miracles, you seem to think the evidence you have laid out is enough but it would only be for someone who believe said god existed in the first place.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:We're you

Wowzers1 wrote:

We're you praying to a sentient being with the power to heal?

Neither were you.

There aren't any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I prayed to a tea kettle when I got sick and then I got better proves absolutley nothing unless I simply want it to be so. It is not objective proof for anything except what is in my own mind based on my own desire.

You could flip a coin and tell someone you are praying that the coin lands heads up, if it does so it is not evidence of anything unless you can repeat it reliably.

Prayer is proven to be far from reliable.

We're you praying to a sentient being with the power to heal? I would reject the claim because tea kettles cannot possibly heal.

But if you want to assert that a tea kettle has these properties, go ahead. If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?

 

I think the point is that you are asserting a thing that you claim has  the power to heal but has no more proof than that of the tea kettle.  The only reason that a god is proposed is based upon primative superstitions that have a much history as the IIliad and Oddesy  and its mythic content. We would not even consider a plausiblity of a god if it were not for ancient stories that were passed from generation to generation as real but are in fact all mythic as much a Native American religions, Greek and Roman religions etc.; There is simply no reason to believe ancient stories have much or any history in them.

Please give us some logical counter claim that nullifies or defeats the reason many people reject a theism:

Eleven Non-Commandments

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: If you

Wowzers1 wrote:

 If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?

 

No I would be insane.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Wowzers1

robj101 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

 If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?

 

No I would be insane.

 

That's debatable.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I never

robj101 wrote:
I never suggested a god was any more real than a sentient tea kettle. This thread was looking for proof of a god via miracles, you seem to think the evidence you have laid out is enough but it would only be for someone who believe said god existed in the first place.

Why would anyome pray to a tea kettle if the tea kettle is impotent?

The OP was asking why I believed, and I said miracles were in part, and I have an example of one.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think the

TGBaker wrote:

I think the point is that you are asserting a thing that you claim has  the power to heal but has no more proof than that of the tea kettle.  The only reason that a god is proposed is based upon primative superstitions that have a much history as the IIliad and Oddesy  and its mythic content.

"No proof" in what manner?

And your "primative superstitions" is an appeal to novelty. They're as much modern "superstitions" as they are "primative" ones.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Until you

Wowzers1 wrote:

Until you show how the inference is bad, I have no reason to believe this.

The assumption that god grants miracles doesn't establish a causal connection between praying and your grandmother's medical condition. It's just a belief.

Wowzers1 wrote:
But the relevant details are there, so its not post hoc concerning my cat or my God.

With the cat it remains to be seen but with the god you can't rule out several other more plausible explanations, or explain the process, or establish any connection at all that's not anecdotal.

Wowzers1 wrote:
This is only true if I'm reasoning from a sequence of events. I'm not, and I've shown you how I'm not. For that I have no reason to think it post hoc. But it sounds like you're changing your story, trying to make it a matter of technicality, which seems to suggest that you realized your mistake.

Well, you're trying to evade committing a post hoc fallacy by claiming that you drew the conclusion from a baseless assumption instead. I don't see why you think that's a better position to be in.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The premise "But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education." is neither stated or implied. If I'm missing it, show me where.

That it is possible is a known fact. By your reasoning one would need to be unaware of this to commit the fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Now you're creating a straw man out of what I said, and validates my thinking that you're trying to make it a matter of technicality because I'm not "accounting for all the relevant details".

I don't think I'm making a strawman of what you said. Did you ever consider that there are other explanations aside from miracles? To know what happened to your grandmother you would need to take all the relevant details into consideration. That would include other possible causes and the studies conducted on the effectiveness of prayer on treating illnesses. It's not a form of oppression, it's how people arrive at correct conclusions.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Now you're trying to make a red herring out of this matter.

You already conceded the matter so I won't belabor it.

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think the point is that you are asserting a thing that you claim has  the power to heal but has no more proof than that of the tea kettle.  The only reason that a god is proposed is based upon primative superstitions that have a much history as the IIliad and Oddesy  and its mythic content.

"No proof" in what manner?

And your "primative superstitions" is an appeal to novelty. They're as much modern "superstitions" as they are "primative" ones.

They are primitive superstitions that continue evolve and be reworked from one generation to another. as Catholic, protestant, Orthodox etc.;  One would not have any proof apart from a literary tradition in which the belief is based. Those writings especially the New Testament can be demonstrated as fabricated altered and reworked again from one decade to the next until being canonized.Do you have a response to the Theodicy issued laid out logically? It is certainly more campatible with the actual world than a theistic god. It does not rule out some type of superior being but it does the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god. Whereas an ontological argument for y9our view of god goes no where.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The assumption

Gauche wrote:
The assumption that god grants miracles doesn't establish a causal connection between praying and your grandmother's medical condition. It's just a belief.

I grant that it does not necessarily create causal connection. I only proposed it as a possibility, and I have reason to believe that God healed my grandmother if it is possible for God to heal.

Gauche wrote:

With the cat it remains to be seen but with the god you can't rule out several other more plausible explanations, or explain the process, or establish any connection at all that's not anecdotal.

I was suggesting that it was circumstantial because it was inferred.

That, and I think that the miracle is most likely explanation for the cure but I cannot deny the other possibilities either so it's only a possible explanation.

Gauche wrote:

Well, you're trying to evade committing a post hoc fallacy by claiming that you drew the conclusion from a baseless assumption instead. I don't see why you think that's a better position to be in.

To what "baseless assumption" are you referring? Even if it is a "baseless assumption", the inference was was not post hoc.

Gauche wrote:

That it is possible is a known fact. By your reasoning one would need to be unaware of this to commit the fallacy.

You're providing that premise for him, so now you're putting word in his mouth. But you need it for your straw man to work.

Gauche wrote:

I don't think I'm making a strawman of what you said. Did you ever consider that there are other explanations aside from miracles? To know what happened to your grandmother you would need to take all the relevant details into consideration. That would include other possible causes and the studies conducted on the effectiveness of prayer on treating illnesses. It's not a form of oppression, it's how people arrive at correct conclusions.

I did consider it these possibilities. I've said that my case is circumstantial and I've granted the possibility that it was entirely natural.

Gauche wrote:

You already conceded the matter so I won't belabor it.

I didn't concede anything. I permuted it and turned it against you in that miracles in other religions serve as evidence against atheism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:They are

TGBaker wrote:

They are primitive superstitions that continue evolve and be reworked from one generation to another. as Catholic, protestant, Orthodox etc.;  One would not have any proof apart from a literary tradition in which the belief is based. Those writings especially the New Testament can be demonstrated as fabricated altered and reworked again from one decade to the next until being canonized.Do you have a response to the Theodicy issued laid out logically? It is certainly more campatible with the actual world than a theistic god. It does not rule out some type of superior being but it does the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god. Whereas an ontological argument for y9our view of god goes no where.

If they've evolved, then there not primitive then, are they?

And the allegation of "no proof" really isn't true either. The NT would be proof, but you're alleging it is fabricated or shaky.

Theodicy is off topic... If you want to talk about the problem of evil, start another thread.

And I don't buy Ontological Arguments. I think they are question begging. I pretty much agree with UbuntuAnyone's post on the matter. But that's off topic too.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

They are primitive superstitions that continue evolve and be reworked from one generation to another. as Catholic, protestant, Orthodox etc.;  One would not have any proof apart from a literary tradition in which the belief is based. Those writings especially the New Testament can be demonstrated as fabricated altered and reworked again from one decade to the next until being canonized.Do you have a response to the Theodicy issued laid out logically? It is certainly more campatible with the actual world than a theistic god. It does not rule out some type of superior being but it does the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god. Whereas an ontological argument for your view of god goes no where.

If they've evolved, then there not primitive then, are they?

And the allegation of "no proof" really isn't true either. The NT would be proof, but you're alleging it is fabricated or shaky.

Theodicy is off topic... If you want to talk about the problem of evil, start another thread.

And I don't buy Ontological Arguments. I think they are question begging. I pretty much agree with UbuntuAnyone's post on the matter. But that's off topic too.

Well theodicy is NOT off topic since it has to do with whether there is a God or not that obtains to a classic or Christian theism. Theodicy is a problem found by christians and remains the pitfall of the classical theistic god. That is the nature of the thread. That they are evolved does not mean they are not primitive...they are simply reinterpreted.   I do think that the ontological  arguments do make discussions about god rational though they are question begging. The question of Jesus as it relates to The Genesis account is revisioned from generation to generation based upon the culture of the times but NOT THE TEXT.  In the case of the gospels we can see how the chuches theology changed from Mark to Matthew , Luke to finally a high theology of John.  The question of the historical Jesus goes to  a specific theism ( or trinity) is on topic whether the gospels are reliable or not.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I grant that

Wowzers1 wrote:

I grant that it does not necessarily create causal connection. I only proposed it as a possibility, and I have reason to believe that God healed my grandmother if it is possible for God to heal.

I disagree. What reason is there to think god does heal people even if it is possible?

 

Wowzers1 wrote:
I was suggesting that it was circumstantial because it was inferred.

That, and I think that the miracle is most likely explanation for the cure but I cannot deny the other possibilities either so it's only a possible explanation.

Studies show that it is not more likely than chance which is a more parsimonious explanation.

Wowzers1 wrote:
To what "baseless assumption" are you referring? Even if it is a "baseless assumption", the inference was was not post hoc.

The assumption that god heals sick people has no basis in fact. If you think it does then provide some evidence.

You're approaching it with post hoc reasoning because the only facts that exist are that your grandmother prayed then got better, but you argue that it is not merely post hoc because you can establish a causal connection with the belief that god heals people. You can't rule out other more plausible explanations and you refuse to consider the evidence for how effective prayer is at healing sick people.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You're providing that premise for him, so now you're putting word in his mouth. But you need it for your straw man to work.

No, his conclusion wasn't that it's possible. That it is possible is a matter of fact. You just can't admit that.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I didn't concede anything. I permuted it and turned it against you in that miracles in other religions serve as evidence against atheism.

If there were miracles yes. But they'd also be evidence against your own beliefs so the argument is self defeating.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:robj101

Ciarin wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

 If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?

 

No I would be insane.

 

That's debatable.

From your perspective, if I made myself believe something when I already know it's bogus I would be insane. You know you are breathing air but if you can convince yourself you are not then you too are insane.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Sorry if I

Wowzers1 wrote:
Sorry if I created confusion. I mean to say that they are not random in the same as in mathematical randomness.

You may be genuinely sorry, but your belief system compels you to continue obfuscating.

What does "not random in the same as in mathematical randomness" mean? You are stating, statistically, they're not random? How?

Either we can observe God's effects on the world or we can't; that is the issue. Yes or no? If yes, how?

Wowzers1 wrote:
"Objcetively identifiable" in what manner?

I don't understand the question. What kinds of "manners" are there? There's only one reality.

As in, do you have any phenomenon, even a single one, that could ONLY be explained by your God and not by any natural theory or other supernatural entity, including Gods of other religions? Or, do you have any phenomenon, even a single one, where you can show causality, not correlation, between prayer and healing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Do you have any sound argument or evidence that supports the existence of God? Yes or no?

Wowzers1 wrote:
If you presuppose that God cannot work... no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise, so why are we having this discussion then?

No, I don't presuppose that "God" "cannot work." There is no evidence, so I don't believe. If you have evidence, present your evidence. Your grandmother being healed is not evidence; it is wishful thinking.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The only way statistics can guarantee anything is from a survey of an entire population. Do you have such information available to you?

Samples of sufficient size are accurate enough to represent the entire population. That is what I meant.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Insisting it's one way without telling why is not very convincing.

You made your counterinductive, unsupported, positive assertion first. My support is already implicit in what you just wrote; if there's no statistical evidence that prayer works, then you hold the burden of proof of showing that it works. Your assertion that using statistics as a reason to not pray actually supports the assertion that prayer works is just incoherent.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Do you want to explain the resurrection of Jesus in natural terms? I'm all ears. If you want to destroy my faith in Christianity, do it on these grounds. I think this would be better left to another thread though.

Lol, no, you have to demonstrate that a person named Jesus existed, that this person was the son of God, and that this person died and was resurrected. You don't get to make an argument from ignorance and assume the validity of the entire New Testament, then ask me to disprove it; that's not how it works. 

I am disappointed. You are a more typical Christian than I thought you were. Had I known you would say something like this, I wouldn't have started this discussion with you.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Post hoc assumes I based it solely on the order of events, of which I did not do.

You have asserted a source of causality, but it's not a plausible causal mechanism; it has never been demonstrated. So, it's based on the order of events and your unjustified beliefs; if that makes it technically not a post hoc, then sure, I'll grant you that. We know that cats can break jars and Advil can relieve some pain, but we have no indication that a god even exists. The fact that you can invoke praying + God in almost anything is what makes this really popular. I could pray that the sun will come up tomorrow, and if it does, according to you, that could be evidence that God made the sun come up for me.

I sense that there is also a base rate fallacy here. Namely, you feel that it is a significant that your grandmother was healed after being prayed for, but really the chance of the "praying" occurring before the healing is incredibly high. If you consider how often religious people pray when their loved ones are dangerously ill, it would be more of statistical anomaly for a Christian to get better when their family and friends didn't pray for them.  

Wowzers1 wrote:
It would be if I was stating this in the context of Christianity, but I'm not.

Sure you are.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The argument looks like this: It is possible that God heals people

See? You are presupposing that the Christian God exists. You don't get to say that. Here's how many assumptions you actually have to make.

- It is possible that a god exists.

- It is possible that this god is the Christian God. Meaning, you are assuming everything that is necessary to complete the concept of the Christian God.

- It is possible that God healed my grandmother.

And, you still don't have: it is more likely a supernatural explanation than a natural explanation, and it is more likely the Christian God than any other conceivable supernatural causal mechanism. You've got a long ways to go.

Wowzers1 wrote:
doctor had no natural explanation for it  imply the probability that she was healed by natural means is against the odds.

Imply? Against the odds? Just because the doctor didn't know doesn't mean it's less likely to be a natural cause; it would just be more likely to be a natural cause that the doctor didn't identify.

Wowzers1 wrote:
In other words, the probability that natural causes healed her is low.

Okay, how do you know that the probability of a supernatural cause is higher?

Again, you punted to your God as soon as supernatural was invoked.

Wowzers1 wrote:
It had to do with the weightiness of isolated incidences in spite that the probability for such instances is low.

Well, you have to show that instances where people are prayed for and then healed are more likely to be miracles in the first place, so the analogy is kind of moot.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I don't know how many times I said it, but I will say it again. I grant the possibility that it was caused by natural means. I'm not saying it "must" or was "necessarily" caused by God. That would  be a punt.

You seem to be uncomfortable with the phrase, so I'm going to define "punting to God" as believing that God did it instead of any other conceivable natural or supernatural cause for no good reason and continue using it.

Wowzers1 wrote:
How?

You only have a post hoc. Presupposed an entire religion. Punting to God. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
The facts are the evidence on which I base my inference. Are you saying the facts don't exist? Punting to "I don't know" because the facts violate some presupposition you may have is intellectual dishonesty.

Now you're just being disingenuous. Facts are true descriptions of reality by definition. So, of course the facts "exist" in the sense that they are true. The available facts simply don't support your conclusion that God did it.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Per your statement earlier "if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable.", If I'm interpreting this right, I don't believe you're even open to the possibility.

Oh? How are you interpreting it? Perhaps your belief system prevents you from accurately interpreting my statement because your God belief cannot meet the standard that I have outlined.

 

I am always open to the possibility of any claim being true; to actually hold it as true, I just need evidence i.e. confirmation that the claim conforms to reality. If you have no objective evidence, then your belief is based on faith and is not shown to accurately match reality. So, clearly, in that case, I would not believe it.

Wowzers1 wrote:
My case in particular is in the context of the Christian God. But if this the case, then all forms of theism are equally valid along side atheism, and you have no reason to prefer atheism over any of them.

Ah, but there is one very good reason to prefer atheism over any particular god belief. All forms of theism are positive claims; they are claiming that their particular god or gods exist. Atheism is not necessarily a positive claim. I can simply say I don't believe in anything that is not shown to be justified.

Consider this, suppose we have a person that believes in magical unicorns, a person that believes in Santa Claus, a person that believes in leprechauns, and a person that doesn't believe in any of those. Which of these four people has the most valid position and why?

Wowzers1 wrote:
If you say, "there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place" then you do preclude the possibility. I have no reason to continue because your mind is closed to the matter.

I'm not dismissing it. It's just a statement of fact. There are no identifiable supernatural causes. If you have one, then show me.

Wowzers1 wrote:
It is falsifiable on 2 terms: You could show that we were praying to some sort of false deity

Lmao. So, how do I discern between true and false deities?

Wowzers1 wrote:
or have the doctor produce a natural explanation for the the absence of cancer and show that the explanation is common.

Showing a natural explanation doesn't actually disprove that a God was involved. You can simply say that God caused the natural mechanism to go into affect because it's definitively impossible to test for his involvement. Christians do this all the time. Theistic evolutionists always say that God "guides" evolution.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I'm not insisting that there is no natural explanation, because I grant the possibility. And insofar as I can tell you're punting to ignorance, which is really no better.

I've already gone over this exact point. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Because I'm praying to the Christian God.

And why does that preclude them?

butterbattle wrote:
That little fairy didn't care whether you prayed for it or not. It just felt sorry for your grandmother. Why do you choose to believe that God healed her when that cute fairy worked all night, using up her precious fairy energy to save her?

Wowzers1 wrote:
That's a conspiracy theory.

Oh? And how do you know that? How do you know your explanation isn't a "conspiracy theory?" How do you know it wasn't Allah?

Watch:

P1 - It is possible that God heals people.

P2 - My grandmother was healed.

Conclusion - It is possible that god healed my grandmother.

Now, look:

P1 - It is possible that fairies heal people.

P2 - My grandmother was healed.

Conclusion - It is possible that fairies healed my grandmother.

---

P1 - It is possible that "P" heals people.

P2 - My grandmother was healed.

Conclusion - It is possible that "P" healed my grandmother.

You can put any of an infinite number of supernatural entities in "P."

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


beardedinlair
atheist
beardedinlair's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Lots of big words here, I

Lots of big words here, I can barely understand. Maybe this has been answered, if so, I apologize, but in plain english please:
a jar is knocked off a shelf. a cat is in your house. you infer the cat did it. fair enough.

you pray your grandmother is healed, she gets better. where is the cat? i mean god. where is the god? if god was in the room, then yes, it could be infered he healed her. i don't see god in her room. you can show me your cat. i'm asking you to show me your god.

otherwise, it is simply a personal experience, and magic.

edit for more thoughts: personal experience is fine, but can't be shared or proven. and i'm not arguing that she wasn't healed by prayer, i believe in the power of positive thought, especially psychologically. if she knew she was being prayed for, she probably felt better, and it helped her get better.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:P1 - It

butterbattle wrote:

P1 - It is possible that "P" heals people.

P2 - My grandmother was healed.

Conclusion - It is possible that "P" healed my grandmother.

You can put any of an infinite number of supernatural entities in "P."

Don't be silly.

No, that's not how it works. Their prayers are designed to prevent the other gods from healing her, and being able to take the credit.

Miracle victories are serious business.

You can't have the other gods being more 'true' than your own.

Letting people's lives be saved by the wrong god would just be awful...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I prey to a pink unicorn

I prey to a pink unicorn that I think lives in the sky and my mom gets better. Does that prove a pink unicorn answered my prayer with a miracle? Does it even prove it was a miracle in the first place? This is an example such as wowz has given.

 

I rubbed my scratch off ticket up and down rather than side to side today and won 2$ does that mean rubbing it up and down will net me winnings each time? Now in this scenario we know you can indeed win money from a scratch off but does rubbing the parrafin like substance off up and down really make a difference?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin