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


beardedinlair
atheist
beardedinlair's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:...I rubbed my

robj101 wrote:
...

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?

that's an interesting question. do we have predestiny or can we affect our environment with our willpower? How do we measure the effectiveness of our willpower? Can my willpower affect my health? Can my willpower affect your health?


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

beardedinlair wrote:

that's an interesting question. do we have predestiny or can we affect our environment with our willpower? How do we measure the effectiveness of our willpower? Can my willpower affect my health? Can my willpower affect your health?

I'm all for theists, in some ways, actually.

They're easy to make part with their money.

It's like taking candy from a baby.

 

Skeptics are more difficult to exploit...

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
Gauche wrote:I disagree.

Gauche wrote:

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

The properties of the Christian God suggest that he is able to heal. That should be enough to grant it is a possibility. If that is possible, then it is also possible that my grandmother was healed by God. But without some way of mitigating the possibilities or other explanations, then its equivocal. The other facts I provided mitigate the probability that it was purely natural, pushing it more toward the realm of miracles

Gauche wrote:

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

What studies?

Gauche wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

Gauche wrote:

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.

The causal connection is the possibility that God can heal.

Gauche wrote:

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

The conclusion is not the issue -- the way he arrived at the conclusion is the issue.

Gauche wrote:

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

You obviously did not understand. It would be equivocal evidence for one religion or another. The only thing it is evidence against is 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
butterbattle wrote:You may

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

I was trying to clarify, not obfuscate as evidenced by my apology. If there's an apparent discrepancy or a typo, an intellectual honest person would seek clarity, not criticize one for obfuscating.

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

Volitions of the will, generally speaking, have a reason for acting. Mathematical randomness does not have such. I cannot assume that any given action performed by an agent with a will is random.

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

We should be able to, yes.

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

I was asking what you meant by "objectively identifiable".

butterbattle wrote:
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?

I tend to think that the resurrection of Jesus is a good candidate for this.

butterbattle wrote:
Do you have any sound argument or evidence that supports the existence of God? Yes or no?
I think I do, yes -- namely the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to talk about this, start another thread.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

If the evidence did exist, what would it look like?

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

Accurate, yes -- but not guaranteed, which is my point.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

I presented facts, and inferred something from the facts. No one has shown how the inference to God is invalid. The only substantial attempt has been made by Gauche via a post hoc fallacy, of which I believe I explained how it was not the case.

Wowzers1 wrote:
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.

To me this sounds like a dodge.

I would point you to N.T. Wrights work called The Resurrection of the Son of God . If you want to hash this out, I'm up to the challenge. We could table this discussion and talk about that for a while, then come back to this thread later on.

I don't believe it is an argument from ignorance, but a well substantiated historical fact. You say I have to make a case for it, but at the same time you cannot be so dismissive of it either without telling why and substantiating your reason. So until this discussion happens, the outcome of this cannot be decided, unless you want to fiat past that and grant that Jesus rose from the dead for arguments sake, then offer a natural explanation for how somebody who was brutally killed came back to life happened.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

What does being a "typical Christian" have to do with anything? Some kind of high-browed remark or genetic fallacy of sort? Why can't I say, "if I'd known you were a typical atheist, I wouldn't have started this discussion with you" ?

butterbattle wrote:
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.

A "plausible causal mechanism". What do you mean by that?

butterbattle wrote:
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. 

How does that constitute a base rate fallacy?

 

butterbattle wrote:

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 presupposing the possibility...that is not certain. If you preclude the possibility, then not only is there no evidence, but evidence is impossible. The claim to "no evidence" would be true, but the warrant for disbelief would not be "no evidence", but rather the impossibility of evidence. If this is the case, then I'm wasting my time. But the problem is not that I have no evidence...rather you have some a priori committment to what is and is not acceptable as possible causes.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

Looking for something and not finding it seems to suggest that it is not there... but that does not guarantee it is not there, and why I grant the possibility that there is a natural cure, albeit that cure is unknown. But even if he did find one, it still is rare that people with a cancer as advanced as my grandmother's who do not undergo treatment become cancer free. Miracles, as they are, are rare occurrence and are recognized because they go against normal experience.

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

If I have two possible causes, and I mitigate one, then this increases the probability that it is the other.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

This a red herring to the issue of weightiness.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

Until there is reason to believe that natural causes cure her, then I am, by your definition, "punting to God". I'd offer that "punting to God" is done when one says there is no other possible explanation.

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

As far as I can tell, you presuppose that God does not exist, so your presupposing atheism.

butterbattle wrote:
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.

I've asked over and over how the inference is bad, and all I've got was it is a post hoc fallacy, which states that causality is established by order of events. I'm not doing that. You seem to grant that if God is possible then the inference is valid (correct me if I'm wrong) so it seems you changed your story to suggest that I don't have what you call a "plausible causal mechanism". But this is not necessary if the causal source is identified. The inference that I made concerning my cat knocking the jar of pennies of the shelf establishes that the cat is the likely explanation. What you're asking for would be analogous to the exact time my cat knocked the pennies off the shelf and which appendage it used. In any case, these sort of details are not necessary.

You also suggest that I presuppose God too, which is not accurate... I'm presupposing the possibility of God. I was using a categorical syllogism that is granted as a possibility.

butterbattle wrote:
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 think that you're saying that not only is there no evidence, but evidence is impossible...

butterbattle wrote:

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.

You need evidence... okay. What should this evidence look like then?

butterbattle wrote:

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.

Reasonable. But when there's reason to believe that a particular form of theism is true, then it is unreasonable to adhere to atheism then. I think there's good reason and obviously you do not. So this is zero sum.

butterbattle wrote:

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?

Without fulling fleshing out each entity and understanding why the person believe in the respective entity, this is impossible to establish. But if I based it on what I already know about these entities,  then of the three aforementioned entities, Santa Claus has a basis in reality -- that is if all you mean by Santa Claus is the man St. Nicholas, not the fictional man who purportedly lives at the North Pole.

butterbattle wrote:

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.

First, what should  an "identifiable supernatural cause" look like?

I've said that I believe Jesus is the case for supernatural cause.

butterbattle wrote:

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

For this case, show me that the Christian God is a false deity, or at least give good reason to believe that the Christian God is a false deity.

butterbattle wrote:

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.

This is red herring. But I don't call headaches going away after I take Advil "miracles" either. I'm suggesting that God was working against normal natural mechanism rather than with them.

butterbattle wrote:

And why does that preclude them?

I have no reason to think they acted or are able to act.

butterbattle wrote:

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.

Are you going to grant the possibility that fairies or Allah acted then? If you want to make all things equal, you have to do this. I'm not suggesting this is the case.

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: Volitions

Wowzers1 wrote:
 Volitions of the will, generally speaking, have a reason for acting. Mathematical randomness does not have such.

Illnesses are natural phenomena, that come and go, naturally.

Wowzers1 wrote:
  I cannot assume that any given action performed by an agent with a will is random.  

Funny how your willingness to make assumptions, generally speaking, has a knack for coming and going, willy nilly.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 I tend to think that the resurrection of Jesus is a good candidate for this.

Ya, that's not 'punting to God'...

In any event, the legend of Jesus is just a myth, that's been debunked by numerous theologians, like Bart Erhman, and Tom Harpur, just to name a few.

Wowzers1 wrote:
If the evidence did exist, what would it look like? 

Something that could occur 100% predictably.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I presented facts, and inferred something from the facts. No one has shown how the inference to God is invalid.

Well then you're not very astute.

There are no claims of supernatural events that have ever been more than anecdotal.

Mother Teresa was in the 'business' of praying for miracles.

Even she had to finally admit that she never saw or heard anything from any gods.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 The only substantial attempt has been made by Gauche via a post hoc fallacy, of which I believe I explained how it was not the case.

No.

We all understand where your claims are exactly a case of a post hoc fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 What does being a "typical Christian" have to do with anything? Some kind of high-browed remark or genetic fallacy of sort?

Nothing genetic about it. The Christian dogma is to believe, believe, believe.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 But the problem is not that I have no evidence

Ya, it is, actually.

If someone regrew a lost limb, that would be 'unprecedented', and truly extraordinary.

Like I clearly demonstrated by a perfect parallel example, statistical rarities like spontaneous human combustion occur, and no one comes out admitting they 'wished' the person burst into flames.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 ...rather you have some a priori committment to what is and is not acceptable as possible causes.

No.

We just need to be able to predict outcomes accurately, and repeatedly.

That's the difference between being skeptical, and gullible.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 If I have two possible causes, and I mitigate one, then this increases the probability that it is the other.

Not necessarily, it doesn't.

Butter was right, you are a typical theist automaton.

 

You all buy into the logical fallacy of ontological and TAG type arguments, when they're not worth the paper they're written on.

Is there a 'push' on them by the church, or something?

We've been doing nothing but shred the stupidity of those arguments around here lately...

Wowzers1 wrote:
 You need evidence... okay. What should this evidence look like then?

Easy.

When you make a very specific prediction prior to the experiment, and the outcome is exactly as predicted.

And you have to be able to do this, repeatedly, without fail.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 First, what should  an "identifiable supernatural cause" look like?

It should look like 'magic'.

 

 

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
Suggesting that miracles

Suggesting that miracles occur because "god" exists has once again come down to "faith". There is no evidence anyone can present that would definitively prove a god exists to perform miracles.

The resurrection of jesus christ, a character of who's very existence is debatable and yet he tries to use this as an example of the miracle power of a god who he has not proven the existence of. Nothing tangible in christianity is real, it is an ideology and nothing more. Part of it's ideology claims miracles occur because people want them to.

If "god" were proven and real it would not longer be called a religion, it would be known as "reality".

It is called religion because you have to have "faith" in knowledge that is not substantiated.

He has not shown us a miracle he has shown us a chance happening and tried to use it as evidence for us but mainly to himself.

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
beardedinlair wrote:robj101

beardedinlair wrote:

robj101 wrote:
...

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?

that's an interesting question. do we have predestiny or can we affect our environment with our willpower? How do we measure the effectiveness of our willpower? Can my willpower affect my health? Can my willpower affect your health?

The lottery scratch off ticket is actually a very good example here.  As I noted you can win money and when you scratch it off you reveal what money you may or may not have won. Religion could be as a scratch off ticket, (assuming at least one of the gods is real) Did you pick the right one? In the end when you scratch it will it reveal that you have picked the right religion? Thats the biggest difference you know the odds of a lottery ticket are on the back and are generally somewhere around 1:5. It has nopt been proven that religion has such good odds.

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
(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)


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)


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

Wowzers1 wrote:
The properties of the Christian God suggest that he is able to heal. That should be enough to grant it is a possibility. If that is possible, then it is also possible that my grandmother was healed by God. But without some way of mitigating the possibilities or other explanations, then its equivocal. The other facts I provided mitigate the probability that it was purely natural, pushing it more toward the realm of miracles

The fact that your grandmother was sick then prayed then got better does not lessen the probability that there was a misdiagnosis or that it was chance. A miracle would still be the least plausible explanation.
Wowzers1 wrote:
What studies?

This is the largest and methodologically most accurate study ever conducted on intercessory prayer. Anyone with common sense knew the conclusion already though so it was a perfectly good waste of time and money.

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract

Quote:
Conclusions

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Wowzers1 wrote:
How does it have no basis in fact?

Not only is there no evidence that prayer works, there's evidence that it doesn't.
Wowzers1 wrote:
The causal connection is the possibility that God can heal.

That's circular.
Wowzers1 wrote:
The conclusion is not the issue -- the way he arrived at the conclusion is the issue.

He arrived at the conclusion with the implied knowledge that it was possible which according to you would make it not a fallacy.
Wowzers1 wrote:
You obviously did not understand. It would be equivocal evidence for one religion or another. The only thing it is evidence against is Atheism.

And according to you evidence for one religion is evidence against another and you're in the minority so it provides 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
Gauche wrote:The fact that

Gauche wrote:


The fact that your grandmother was sick then prayed then got better does not lessen the probability that there was a misdiagnosis or that it was chance. A miracle would still be the least plausible explanation.

Appealing to a misdiagnosis is an argument from silence...

And least plausible for what reason? You have not supplied a reason why this is the case.

Gauche wrote:


This is the largest and methodologically most accurate study ever conducted on intercessory prayer. Anyone with common sense knew the conclusion already though so it was a perfectly good waste of time and money.

Most accurate according to you?

Even so, the inference was from the possibility that can God heal. Even if there is no statistical advantage to prayer, one case that is weighty can be reason enough. That's the point I was making in with Butter concerning the statistical improbability of airplanes being hijacked, but a few incidences had implication because of the weightiness of the instances.

Gauche wrote:

Not only is there no evidence that prayer works, there's evidence that it doesn't.

"No evidence" or the is possibly no evidence.

Gauche wrote:

That's circular.

It is possible that God heals. My grandmother was healed. It is possible that God healed my grandmother.

This is a categorical syllogism. How is that circular?

Gauche wrote:

He arrived at the conclusion with the implied knowledge that it was possible which according to you would make it not a fallacy.

But you supplied the premise for him. Otherwise he committed the fallacy.

Gauche wrote:

And according to you evidence for one religion is evidence against another and you're in the minority so it provides more evidence against you.

Not if I permute the evidence. If the evidence is permuted, then it is all evidence for my case. You don't seem to get that though.

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


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.

repost in case it was missed. if it is just too stupid to reply to, then i drop it and live a life of simpleton confusion i guess. i hope it doesn't get a facepalm.

 


beardedinlair
atheist
beardedinlair's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:beardedinlair

robj101 wrote:

beardedinlair wrote:

robj101 wrote:
...

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?

that's an interesting question. do we have predestiny or can we affect our environment with our willpower? How do we measure the effectiveness of our willpower? Can my willpower affect my health? Can my willpower affect your health?

The lottery scratch off ticket is actually a very good example here.  As I noted you can win money and when you scratch it off you reveal what money you may or may not have won. Religion could be as a scratch off ticket, (assuming at least one of the gods is real) Did you pick the right one? In the end when you scratch it will it reveal that you have picked the right religion? Thats the biggest difference you know the odds of a lottery ticket are on the back and are generally somewhere around 1:5. It has nopt been proven that religion has such good odds.

thank you, but i'm not asking about lottery tickets. i understand the point about that and i appreciate the certainty behind it.

he prayed she would get better and she got better. that is human willpower at work, and please don't judge my viewpoint. there is a psychological effect if nothing else. i am not claiming magic.

if i tell my friend he is stupid for believing something and this makes him feel bad to the point he is thinking about that instead of...i dunno, how he is driving, has a wreck and gets hurt, how much blame can be applied to me? (totally hypothetical.)

did the grandmother know she was being prayed for?

edit to wowzer: if you took the bible and god out of it and prayed for her what does that mean to you? if an atheist prays for someone, does that have any calcuable affect?


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

Wowzers1 wrote:
 You have not supplied a reason why this is the case.

Look asshole, you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

The burden has always been yours, and you haven't done jack except to whine and insist that it 'could' be a miracle.

Your claim wouldn't even make the local 6 o'clock news.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Gauche wrote:

That's circular.

It is possible that God heals. My grandmother was healed. It is possible that God healed my grandmother.

This is a categorical syllogism. How is that circular?

Not only is it circular (God heals> God healed), it is stupid.

1- You nakedly assert that a god exists

2- You nakedly assert that your imaginary supernatural god heals the sick.

3- You nakedly assert that you grandmother was 'healed' instead of the illness simply stopping naturally.

 

And you have no evidence to support any of those claims, anymore than I do to assert that I had lunch with Megan Fox, yesterday.

Megan Fox has lunch with people

I had lunch yesterday with a beautiful dark haired woman

It is possible that Megan Fox had lunch with me yesterday

 

Depending on the circumstances, I might have a harder time trying to prove I didn't have lunch with Megan Fox, than proving I did.

 

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


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Magical

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

ROFL

This is the good stuff.

"If you think it has basis in fact then demonstrate it"

"How does it not have basis in fact?"

"What? That doesn't even make any sense. If you think it does then show the evidence"

"Well of course it does, I read it in the bible"

"What factual basis are you using to determine that the bible is factual?"

"God healed my grandmother, so of course it's fact"

"What? What the hell are you talking about?"

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:ROFL, I'm

marcusfish wrote:

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

Well, stupidity will.

It's entirely 'natural'. People are born ignorant.

 

These obnoxious tools fantasizing that their *cough* sophisticated (moronic) BS "I have a valid, internally consistent syllogism' is worthy as an equally valid countertheory to scientific theory, has long ago reached it's apex for absurdity.

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
redneF wrote:marcusfish

redneF wrote:

marcusfish wrote:

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

Well, stupidity will.

It's entirely 'natural'. People are born ignorant.

 

These obnoxious tools fantasizing that their *cough* sophisticated (moronic) BS "I have a valid, internally consistent syllogism' is worthy as an equally valid countertheory to scientific theory, has long ago reached it's apex for absurdity.

Yea it's a circle of stupid. I thought there might have been some hope for him initially when he seemed to conceed that his god was possibly not the cause but I see now he was just trying to save his ass and keep his god in the game.

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
marcusfish wrote:ROFLThis is

marcusfish wrote:
ROFL

This is the good stuff.

"If you think it has basis in fact then demonstrate it"

"How does it not have basis in fact?"

"What? That doesn't even make any sense. If you think it does then show the evidence"

"Well of course it does, I read it in the bible"

"What factual basis are you using to determine that the bible is factual?"

"God healed my grandmother, so of course it's fact"

"What? What the hell are you talking about?"

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

If you don't at least assume that God is possible, then evidence doesn't matter. The atheist's circle usually looks like this:

Athiest: God does not exist because there is no evidence

Theist: Here's some evidence

Atheist: That's not evidence because God does not exist.

My argument was assuming the possibility, and unless you  assume the the possibility, then you're doing something akin to the aforementioned circle. I fear that many more people other than Rednef are interpreting the word "can" (or other word that imply possibility rather than certainty) to mean "must".

 

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


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:It is

Wowzers1 wrote:

It is possible that God heals. My grandmother was healed. It is possible that God healed my grandmother.

This is a categorical syllogism. How is that circular?

Watch this:

[(It is possible that God heals.) ^ (My grandmother was healed.)] ⇒ [It is possible that God healed my grandmother.]

But also:

[It is possible that God healed my grandmother.] ⇒ [(It is possible that God heals.) ^ (My grandmother was healed.)]

You haven't really made a case, you've only demonstrated that if the premises are true, then the premises are true. And likewise with the implication, b/c either is/are implied by the other.


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

ctressle wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

It is possible that God heals. My grandmother was healed. It is possible that God healed my grandmother.

This is a categorical syllogism. How is that circular?

Watch this:

[(It is possible that God heals.) ^ (My grandmother was healed.)] ⇒ [It is possible that God healed my grandmother.]

But also:

[It is possible that God healed my grandmother.] ⇒ [(It is possible that God heals.) ^ (My grandmother was healed.)]

You haven't really made a case, you've only demonstrated that if the premises are true, then the premises are true. And likewise with the implication, b/c either is/are implied by the other.

If I use your form,

[(It is possible that Advil stops pain.) ^ (My headache stopped.)] ⇒ [It is possible that Advil stopped my headache]

But also:

[It is possible that Advil stopped my headache] ⇒ [(My headache stopped.) ^ (It is possible that Advil stops pain.)]

"It is possible that Advil stopped my headache" does not necessarily imply that "my headache stopped" any more than "It is possible that God healed my grandmother" neccessarily imply that "my grandmother was healed" because in either case one would be affirming the consequence, so they do not imply one another.

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


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:marcusfish

Wowzers1 wrote:

marcusfish wrote:
ROFL

This is the good stuff.

"If you think it has basis in fact then demonstrate it"

"How does it not have basis in fact?"

"What? That doesn't even make any sense. If you think it does then show the evidence"

"Well of course it does, I read it in the bible"

"What factual basis are you using to determine that the bible is factual?"

"God healed my grandmother, so of course it's fact"

"What? What the hell are you talking about?"

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

If you don't at least assume that God is possible, then evidence doesn't matter. The atheist's circle usually looks like this:

Athiest: God does not exist because there is no evidence

Theist: Here's some evidence

Atheist: That's not evidence because God does not exist.

My argument was assuming the possibility, and unless you  assume the the possibility, then you're doing something akin to the aforementioned circle. I fear that many more people other than Rednef are interpreting the word "can" (or other word that imply possibility rather than certainty) to mean "must".

Let's go back one quote, doing this for clarity:

marcusfish wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

ROFL

This is the good stuff.

"If you think it has basis in fact then demonstrate it"

"How does it not have basis in fact?"

"What? That doesn't even make any sense. If you think it does then show the evidence"

"Well of course it does, I read it in the bible"

"What factual basis are you using to determine that the bible is factual?"

"God healed my grandmother, so of course it's fact"

"What? What the hell are you talking about?"

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

Now back to the original quote, just to backtrack to the main gist of this particular line of dialogue:

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it. In which case it would no longer be necessary to consider it an assumption - you don't ever assume that which you are already convinced of is true, do you?

If there is a god going around healing sick people, then the only way to be persuaded of that hypothesis is if there is some evidence that has been substantiated for review and replication. Until there is a demonstration of it being the case, much less a strong inference, then even if it is true it should not be a part of anyone's model of the world.

Wowzers1 wrote:

How does it have no basis in fact?

If you are convinced it has basis in fact, then the burden is on you to provide evidence. Nothing has basis in fact, until it is demonstrated. For the trillionth time, the neutral default position is to not posit a god, much less any cause, that is doing any effect much less healing; the only causes to pull people from neutrality are those that have been demonstrated - you know, medicine, 'natural cause', etc...


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:If I use your

Wowzers1 wrote:

If I use your form,

[(It is possible that Advil stops pain.) ^ (My headache stopped.)] ⇒ [It is possible that Advil stopped my headache]

But also:

[It is possible that Advil stopped my headache] ⇒ [(My headache stopped.) ^ (It is possible that Advil stops pain.)]

"It is possible that Advil stopped my headache" does not necessarily imply that "my headache stopped" any more than "It is possible that God healed my grandmother" neccessarily imply that "my grandmother was healed" because in either case one would be affirming the consequence, so they do not imply one another.

Now if you said something to the effect, "It is possible that Advil can stop pain" then I'd agree with you. But you said, "...stopped my headache", "... healed my grandmother"; the grammar implies those things did indeed happen. That's why we'd choose words like that in the event that they did happen, under any consideration of a speculation for their cause.

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:No assumption

ctressle wrote:
No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it. In which case it would no longer be necessary to consider it an assumption - you don't eer assume that which you are already convinced of is true, do you?

So you're saying that nothing is possible until it shown to be necessarily true? But that would preclude that one cannot show anything to be true because it is not possible, and why bother with possibilities at all?

I said before, I'm not certain (as in 100%) that my beliefs about God are true beliefs. I'm convinced it is true though, so I affirmed it as true.

ctressle wrote:

If you are convinced it has basis in fact, then the burden is on you to provide evidence. Nothing has basis in fact, until it is demonstrated. For the trillionth time, the neutral default position is to not posit a god, much less any cause, that is doing any effect much less healing; the only causes to pull people from neutrality are those that have been demonstrated - you know, medicine, 'natural cause', etc...

I'm positing two possible positions: natural causes and divine cause. Why is the "neutral" position not to posit a god? Why can the neutral position be not to posit nature? If I a priori assert that all is contingent upon God, the default position is God. What I fear many atheists do is a priori assert it is natural, and God is contingent upon this.

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: I'm

Wowzers1 wrote:
Why is the "neutral" position not to posit a god?

Because it's impartial, duhhh...

Wowzers1 wrote:

 I'm convinced it is true though, so I affirmed it as true.

When your sole basis for the creation of an unfalsifiable assertion, is the simultaneous constriction, and expansion of your imagination, is when you've reached the apex of absurdity.

When you're absolutey married to the belief that authoring this assertion is infinitely greater than not having indulged in it, or having said nothing at all, is when you've reached the apex of stupidity.

 

Does this clown sound just like Mr_Metaphysics, or what?

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


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Why is this thread so long?

Why is this thread so long? Theists do not have evidence for their beliefs.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: Why is this

Ciarin wrote:
Why is this thread so long?

Because atheists aren't typically homicidal when they're challenged...

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


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:ctressle

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:
No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it. In which case it would no longer be necessary to    consider it an assumption - you don't ever assume that which you are already convinced of is true, do you?

So you're saying that nothing is possible until it shown to be necessarily true?

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

That's not what I'm saying. I'll grant god(s) is/are possible, even that they heal. I'll grant it's possible. Granting that, I'm not saying nothing is possible until such-and-such. What I am saying, is that there is no need to consider a given possibility a fact, until it has been demonstrated. Until one is convinced on something any one would reliably be convinced of - you know, science, evidence, etc... why should it be believed?

Wowzers1 wrote:

...until it shown to be necessarily true?

And demonstration is not necessarily saying that something is necessarily true, or needs to be perceived as necessarily true to be convinced of. In science, there are inferences and induction, that at best yield small margins of error and conclusions which are likely true. The more often an event is accurately predicted from this model/theory, the more confidence we can attribute to said mode/theory.

So, until you are persuaded to accept a given fact from mountains of evidence (i.e. that has been filtered through a peer reviewed process followed by years of replication and follow up experiments and observations), why else would you believe something to be fact?

I can't speak for Gauche, but if I'm not convinced of something being true, at best it is merely an assumption.

I'll say again: No 'assumption'... let's go with your word, possibility -  has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it.

Wowzers1 wrote:

But that would preclude that one cannot show anything to be true because it is not possible, and why bother with possibilities at all?

I'm not discounting possibilities in general - read above... I'm discounting them being accurate until I've been persuaded to believe those possibilities as fact from evidence or something equally or more substantial.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I said before, I'm not certain (as in 100%) that my beliefs about God are true beliefs. I'm convinced it is true though, so I affirmed it as true.

ctressle wrote:

If you are convinced it has basis in fact, then the burden is on you to provide evidence. Nothing has basis in fact, until it is demonstrated. For the trillionth time, the neutral default position is to not posit a god, much less any cause, that is doing any effect much less healing; the only causes to pull people from neutrality are those that have been demonstrated - you know, medicine, 'natural cause', etc...

I'm positing two possible positions: natural causes and divine cause. Why is the "neutral" position not to posit a god? Why can the neutral position be not to posit nature? If I a priori assert that all is contingent upon God, the default position is God. What I fear many atheists do is a priori assert it is natural, and God is contingent upon this.

The neutral position is to not posit anything, and if there is any possibility to posit in a lack of anything else, it should at least align with a range that has worked so far, which would be natural cause.

Many people's tendency to attribute a natural cause for a given event, is not necessarily an assumption to go on or some random axiom to go about their life, or as you put is, some 'a priori'; it is b/c of a huge history of not only what little knowledge of science they may have learned, but also in their personal life. If you are dealing with gossip or falling or brushing your teeth or walking or driving or sending car to mechanic to get it fixed or buying a product or going to see the doctor or calling a plumber to fix some pipes or etc... do you ever attribute anything of those phenomena to a god? Most people don't.

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

Do you have evidence? If it is fact, what in reality has convinced you of it being fact?


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

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Why is this thread so long?

Because atheists aren't typically homicidal when they're challenged...

 

Your answer is nonsensical.


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

Ciarin wrote:

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Why is this thread so long?

Because atheists aren't typically homicidal when they're challenged...

Your answer is nonsensical.

Your lack of ability to model, only confirms my observations.

Thanks for the compliment, too.

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


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

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Why is this thread so long?

Because atheists aren't typically homicidal when they're challenged...

Your answer is nonsensical.

Your lack of ability to model, only confirms my observations.

Thanks for the compliment, too.

 

Yea, still nonsensical. Maybe I can help. What do you actually think I'm talking about?


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:That's not

ctressle wrote:

That's not what I'm saying. I'll grant god(s) is/are possible, even that they heal. I'll grant it's possible. Granting that, I'm not saying nothing is possible until such-and-such. What I am saying, is that there is no need to consider a given possibility a fact, until it has been demonstrated. Until one is convinced on something any one would reliably be convinced of - you know, science, evidence, etc... why should it be believed?

If it is possible, then my syllogism is valid.

My inference to God being the cause is based on the high probability against natural explanation. I never precluded natural explanations as a possibility though.

ctressle wrote:

And demonstration is not necessarily saying that something is necessarily true, or needs to be perceived as necessarily true to be convinced of. In science, there are inferences and induction, that at best yield small margins of error and conclusions which are likely true. The more often an event is accurately predicted from this model/theory, the more confidence we can attribute to said mode/theory.

So, until you are persuaded to accept a given fact from mountains of evidence (i.e. that has been filtered through a peer reviewed process followed by years of replication and follow up experiments and observations), why else would you believe something to be fact?

I do not believe miracles can be evaluated on scientific grounds because they are not reproducible. Any such attempts then would be an abuse of science. I think they are best evaluated as historical events using historical methods. So, if you're looking for evidence for miracles in scientific journals, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at historical journals, and look at research on Jesus.

ctressle wrote:

I can't speak for Gauche, but if I'm not convinced of something being true, at best it is merely an assumption.

I'll say again: No 'assumption'... let's go with your word, possibility -  has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it.

Assumptions, or assumptions about possibilities... I'm confused here...

ctressle wrote:

If you are convinced it has basis in fact, then the burden is on you to provide evidence.

Nothing

has basis in fact, until it is demonstrated. For the trillionth time, the neutral default position is to not posit a god, much less any cause, that is doing any effect much less healing; the only causes to pull people from neutrality are those that have been demonstrated - you know, medicine, 'natural cause', etc...

The facts I gave for my grandmother are these: My grandmother had an advanced form of leukemia. The prognosis was grim. She opted not to be treated. She and others prayed to God for healing. She returned the doctor, who found no trace of cancer (nor did he have an explanation).

The healing was against the odds concerning normal natural experience and there was no natural explanation found. These mitigate the possibility that it was natural, but do not rule out the possibility it was natural.

The inference to God is based on the aforementioned facts and from my syllogism: It is possible that God can heal. My grandmother was healed. It is possible God healed my grandmother.

ctressle wrote:

The neutral position is to not posit anything, and if there is any possibility to posit in a lack of anything else, it should at least align with a range that has worked so far, which would be natural cause.

Many people's tendency to attribute a natural cause for a given event, is not necessarily an assumption to go on or some random axiom to go about their life, or as you put is, some 'a priori'; it is b/c of a huge history of not only what little knowledge of science they may have learned, but also in their personal life. If you are dealing with gossip or falling or brushing your teeth or walking or driving or sending car to mechanic to get it fixed or buying a product or going to see the doctor or calling a plumber to fix some pipes or etc... do you ever attribute anything of those phenomena to a god? Most people don't.

I agree the neutral position is to not posit anything -- which would include natural. My first inclination was to think it was natural because miracles are rare experiences, but given the mitigated probability of natural causes, I have reason to believe God did it. As I've said before -- I took an Advil for a headache. I did not attribute that to God as a miracle.

ctressle wrote:

Do you have evidence? If it is fact, what in reality has convinced you of it being fact?

I've given the facts already. The inference to God is based on these facts.

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
Ciarin wrote: Yea, still

Ciarin wrote:
Yea, still nonsensical.

I understand.

Ciarin wrote:
Maybe I can help.

Sure.

Learn to accept with grace, when someone finds you completely unappealing and uninteresting.

Ciarin wrote:
What do you actually think I'm talking about?

I don't care what you personally think.

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


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

Wowzers1 wrote:

If it is possible, then my syllogism is valid.

So was mine about the possibility of having lunch with Megan Fox.

I can make valid syllogisms all day long, that you could not disprove.

So fucking what?

 

What do want for your valid syllogism?

A coconut?

Two coconuts?

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


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

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Yea, still nonsensical.

I understand.

Ciarin wrote:
Maybe I can help.

Sure.

Learn to accept with grace, when someone finds you completely unappealing and uninteresting.

Ciarin wrote:
What do you actually think I'm talking about?

I don't care what you personally think.

 

Ah, so you're trolling. Duly noted, troll.


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

Ciarin wrote:

Why is this thread so long? Theists do not have evidence for their beliefs.

I did state in the op I didn't expect this thread to last long.

Bored and playing with his round and round cat and invisible mouse game I guess.

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
Wowzers1 wrote:marcusfish

Wowzers1 wrote:

marcusfish wrote:
ROFL

This is the good stuff.

"If you think it has basis in fact then demonstrate it"

"How does it not have basis in fact?"

"What? That doesn't even make any sense. If you think it does then show the evidence"

"Well of course it does, I read it in the bible"

"What factual basis are you using to determine that the bible is factual?"

"God healed my grandmother, so of course it's fact"

"What? What the hell are you talking about?"

ROFL, I'm getting the impression this will go on until the end of time.

If you don't at least assume that God is possible, then evidence doesn't matter. The atheist's circle usually looks like this:

Athiest: God does not exist because there is no evidence

Theist: Here's some evidence

Atheist: That's not evidence because God does not exist.

My argument was assuming the possibility, and unless you  assume the the possibility, then you're doing something akin to the aforementioned circle. I fear that many more people other than Rednef are interpreting the word "can" (or other word that imply possibility rather than certainty) to mean "must".

 

So what you are saying is that because god exists and he "can" perform miracles then he did perform this miracle. Damn you should get on cnn or fox with this shit.

You have three things to prove here and we atheists with our "circular logic" have none to prove.

You also need to look up the definition for the term "atheist". I am certain the biblical god does not exist so I don't really assume anything about it. If you believe he exists you can assume anything you want about him. He could hate black people, he could hate gays, he could hate the jews, he could prefer chocolate icecream it's whatever you like and want to "assume".

 

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
Ciarin wrote: Ah, so you're

Ciarin wrote:
Ah, so you're trolling. Duly noted, troll.

No.

I'm trying to be more subtle than just outright telling you I think you're a fucking cunt.

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


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

redneF wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Ah, so you're trolling. Duly noted, troll.

No.

I'm trying to be more subtle than just outright telling you I think you're a fucking cunt.

 

We get it. You're a troll. No need to labor the point.


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:ctressle

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

That's not what I'm saying. I'll grant god(s) is/are possible, even that they heal. I'll grant it's possible. Granting that, I'm not saying nothing is possible until such-and-such. What I am saying, is that there is no need to consider a given possibility a fact, until it has been demonstrated. Until one is convinced on something any one would reliably be convinced of - you know, science, evidence, etc... why should it be believed?

If it is possible, then my syllogism is valid.

Before I address that, did you at least understand that's not what I was saying? Yes it's valid but first:

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

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

How does it have no basis in fact?

No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it. In which case it would no longer be necessary to consider it an assumption - you don't ever assume that which you are already convinced of is true, do you?

So you're saying that nothing is possible until it shown to be necessarily true? But that would preclude that one cannot show anything to be true because it is not possible, and why bother with possibilities at all?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Do you understand I never said, 'nothing is possible until necessarily true'?

I said, if it hasn't been demonstrated, then at best it is an assumption. If I was convinced of something, I wouldn't merely 'assume' it.

I didn't say anything about 'possible' or 'necessarily true' in this particular dialogue except to reply to you, ok?

I never said it wasn't possible.

"nothing is possible until it shown to be necessarily true" is NOT equivalent to what I responded:

I'll say it again a 3rd time in this response alone (not counting before this newest response):

ctressle wrote:

That's not what I'm saying. I'll grant god(s) is/are possible, even that they heal. I'll grant it's possible. Granting that, I'm not saying nothing is possible until such-and-such. What I am saying, is that there is no need to consider a given possibility a fact, until it has been demonstrated. Until one is convinced on something any one would reliably be convinced of - you know, science, evidence, etc... why should it be believed?

That was the first use of 'possible' in this dialogue with you, though I may have used it in the other dialogue about circular reasoning.

Are you attempting to respond to both our dialogues with this one? (the other one, where I was pointing out how your syllogism is circular) OK then:

I never said it wasn't possible, and I never said your syllogism wasn't valid. A ⇒ A is valid, it may even contain a valid syllogism when the 1st A is expanded out, but it is still circular.

Wowzers1 wrote:

My inference to God being the cause is based on the high probability against natural explanation. I never precluded natural explanations as a possibility though.

What is god being the high probability based on? How did you know you didn't preclude an infinite number of other possibilities, or did you eliminate all of them already?

Wowzers1 wrote:

I do not believe miracles can be evaluated on scientific grounds because they are not reproducible. Any such attempts then would be an abuse of science. I think they are best evaluated as historical events using historical methods. So, if you're looking for evidence for miracles in scientific journals, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at historical journals, and look at research on Jesus.

As far as I understood, there isn't much on Jesus, if anything at all. Yes you have what's in the bible, which is translation of translation of translation (how many more times?) of what was decided to be a book in the good book by early councils (rule of constatine? can't remember details) from first recordings decades after he allegedly died. I'm not an expert on the bible but that is the gist of what I constantly hear, after this I will not dispute the historicity of Jesus with you as I am not a historian. If you have historical evidence, share it with Rook Hawkins(?) and others on this site who are more adept at assessing such claims.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

I can't speak for Gauche, but if I'm not convinced of something being true, at best it is merely an assumption.

I'll say again: No 'assumption'... let's go with your word, possibility -  has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it.

Assumptions, or assumptions about possibilities... I'm confused here...

I apologize, but you did enter the phrase 'possible' in this dialogue. When it was mentioned that 'god healing grandmother' was an assumption, that implied it was considered a possibility.

Either way, it's a sound statement:

No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for what is being assumed.

No possibility has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it.

Wowzers1 wrote:

The facts I gave for my grandmother are these: My grandmother had an advanced form of leukemia. The prognosis was grim. She opted not to be treated. She and others prayed to God for healing. She returned the doctor, who found no trace of cancer (nor did he have an explanation).

The healing was against the odds concerning normal natural experience and there was no natural explanation found.

I'll grant what's so far, but for future reference no skeptic has to take anecdotal evidence. You should really train yourself to not only not expect people to buy these stories, even if they are fact, but to critique yourself in evaluating such phenomenon in the way you think about them, in the following:

Wowzers1 wrote:

These mitigate the possibility that it was natural, but do not rule out the possibility it was natural.

If by 'mitigate' you mean, make it seem less likely, then no it doesn't. Just b/c no natural explanation was found, does not mean it was less likely to be natural. It only means, our ability to investigate this phenomenon is hampered, either by subtlety or something we haven't discovered yet or beyond our technological means or experimental means or etc...

Millions of people are diagnosed with cancer throughout the years... rare events are likely with big numbers (physicist Lawrence Krauss says it better). Again, 'against the odds' does not make it less likely.

Wowzers1 wrote:

The inference to God is based on the aforementioned facts and from my syllogism: It is possible that God can heal. My grandmother was healed. It is possible God healed my grandmother.

It being possible doesn't make it likely, again you forget other possibilities.

It is possible that unknown natural events (une) can heal. Your grandmother was healed. It is possible une healed your grandmother.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I agree the neutral position is to not posit anything -- which would include natural. My first inclination was to think it was natural because miracles are rare experiences, but given the mitigated probability of natural causes, I have reason to believe God did it. As I've said before -- I took an Advil for a headache. I did not attribute that to God as a miracle.

ctressle wrote:

Do you have evidence? If it is fact, what in reality has convinced you of it being fact?

I've given the facts already. The inference to God is based on these facts.

I'll put it another way: track record.

Track record.

Track record.

The scientific method has a good track record of not only discovering natural causes, not only discovering natural causes where there used to be assumed supernatural causes, but also making accurate predictions that supernatural hypotheses can not make.

Granting the facts you mentioned, you must understand that others will doubt your understanding of critical thinking and inference skills in assessing unexplainable situations you come across.

So your grandmother's cancer cure was unexplainable by doctors. So you all prayed for her, and happen to be Christian with its not-unusual bias of the Christian god.

What evidence do you have, it was any god?

If you're going to hash it up to history of miracles, which can't be reproduced, why bother praying in a vein attempt at getting something that can't be reproduced? B/c, you know, by 'reproduce results', one usually means, replicating them with intent... isn't that what all Christian families would be doing with sick relatives? Reproducing results ...ahem... praying to get healed?


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:No, that's

ctressle wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Do you understand I never said, 'nothing is possible until necessarily true'?

I said, if it hasn't been demonstrated, then at best it is an assumption. If I was convinced of something, I wouldn't merely 'assume' it.

I didn't say anything about 'possible' or 'necessarily true' in this particular dialogue except to reply to you, ok?

I never said it wasn't possible.

"nothing is possible until it shown to be necessarily true" is NOT equivalent to what I responded:

I'll say it again a 3rd time in this response alone (not counting before this newest response):

I think we agree... I wasn't sure how to take -- as a response or something as a statement... I thought you meant it as a rebuttal.

ctressle wrote:

I never said it wasn't possible, and I never said your syllogism wasn't valid. A ⇒ A is valid, it may even contain a valid syllogism when the 1st A is expanded out, but it is still circular.

A circular argument is not valid... that's called question begging.

I don't think it is circular on the grounds that possibilities do not imply things that are necessarily true. I cannot say "It is possible that x" implies "x".

ctressle wrote:

What is god being the high probability based on? How did you know you didn't preclude an infinite number of other possibilities, or did you eliminate all of them already?

Insofar as I have argued, there are two possibilities: God and natural causes. Mitigating the probability of natural causes increases the probability of God.

I precluded the teapots and unicorns possibilities because I don't assume that unicorns and teapots can heal.

ctressle wrote:

As far as I understood, there isn't much on Jesus, if anything at all. Yes you have what's in the bible, which is translation of translation of translation (how many more times?) of what was decided to be a book in the good book by early councils (rule of constatine? can't remember details) from first recordings decades after he allegedly died. I'm not an expert on the bible but that is the gist of what I constantly hear, after this I will not dispute the historicity of Jesus with you as I am not a historian. If you have historical evidence, share it with Rook Hawkins(?) and others on this site who are more adept at assessing such claims.

It's not translations -- rather copies of copies of copies, so it's alleged. What is available is a plethora of source documents -- thousands of them. Through careful analysis of these documents, we can ascertain with a high level of confidence what the original documents contained. That the science of textual criticism. The canon was not decided on arbitrarily. The council was more or less affirming formally what had already been informally canonized. I'm willing to discuss these matters. So far, no one has taken me up on this. I'm not saying that people are chicken or anything like that because such discussions are long and drawn out, and cannot be reduced to sounds bytes.

ctressle wrote:

I apologize, but you did enter the phrase 'possible' in this dialogue. When it was mentioned that 'god healing grandmother' was an assumption, that implied it was considered a possibility.

Either way, it's a sound statement:

No assumption has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for what is being assumed.

No possibility has any basis in fact, until there is evidence for it.

Okay... better. I think we agree.

ctressle wrote:

I'll grant what's so far, but for future reference no skeptic has to take anecdotal evidence. You should really train yourself to not only not expect people to buy these stories, even if they are fact, but to critique yourself in evaluating such phenomenon in the way you think about them, in the following:

Wowzers1 wrote:

These mitigate the possibility that it was natural, but do not rule out the possibility it was natural.

If by 'mitigate' you mean, make it seem less likely, then no it doesn't. Just b/c no natural explanation was found, does not mean it was less likely to be natural. It only means, our ability to investigate this phenomenon is hampered, either by subtlety or something we haven't discovered yet or beyond our technological means or experimental means or etc...

Millions of people are diagnosed with cancer throughout the years... rare events are likely with big numbers (physicist Lawrence Krauss says it better). Again, 'against the odds' does not make it less likely.

It makes it less likely that the cause was natural.

I think Krauss is saying Doing something over and over again would increase the likelihood of "revelation"  and this "revelation" is the product of chance. But I think that precludes that it could very well be revelation, nor does it change the probability of the matter.

ctressle wrote:

It being possible doesn't make it likely, again you forget other possibilities.

It is possible that unknown natural events (une) can heal. Your grandmother was healed. It is possible une healed your grandmother.

I granted that it was possible that a natural explanation was the cause. I just don't think it is the most probable.

ctressle wrote:

I'll put it another way: track record.

Track record.

Track record.

The scientific method has a good track record of not only discovering natural causes, not only discovering natural causes where there used to be assumed supernatural causes, but also making accurate predictions that supernatural hypotheses can not make.

I do not think that miracles can be studied using a scientific method because they are not reproducible. If that is the case, any such attempts to do this will result in a misuse of science. I think that they can be approached historically though.

ctressle wrote:

Granting the facts you mentioned, you must understand that others will doubt your understanding of critical thinking and inference skills in assessing unexplainable situations you come across.

I granted that it is circumstantial. I do not think this is enough to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity. But even if it is circumstantial, it would still be evidence nevertheless. Given that, the claim "there is no evidence" is not true.

ctressle wrote:

So your grandmother's cancer cure was unexplainable by doctors. So you all prayed for her, and happen to be Christian with its not-unusual bias of the Christian god.

What evidence do you have, it was any god?

We were praying to the Christian God. If I was praying to the Christian God and some other God healed her I would still have reason to believe the Christian God was the one who healed her. But we would have a Gettier problem on our hands. This problem is not unique to this case...

ctressle wrote:

If you're going to hash it up to history of miracles, which can't be reproduced, why bother praying in a vein attempt at getting something that can't be reproduced? B/c, you know, by 'reproduce results', one usually means, replicating them with intent... isn't that what all Christian families would be doing with sick relatives? Reproducing results ...ahem... praying to get healed?

Reproducible in the scientific sense of reproducibility, not that miracles can't happen again. I cannot recreate the circumstances for my grandmother over and over again. Scientific research needs this kind of reproducibility to produce the kind of results it is known for. There have been studies done on prayer and the effects of prayer on healing, but none that I know of about anomalous cure to advanced stages of leukemia.

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
If you're going to casually

If you're going to casually wave off the most rigorous scientific study ever conducted on the subject then it's hard for me to take you seriously. I don't care if you discount what I say as uninformed and biased but your grandmother's anecdotal case doesn't account for more than all the evidence that has been compiled.

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


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
Gauche wrote:If you're going

Gauche wrote:

If you're going to casually wave off the most rigorous scientific study ever conducted on the subject then it's hard for me to take you seriously. I don't care if you discount what I say as uninformed and biased but your grandmother's anecdotal case doesn't account for more than all the evidence that has been compiled.

The "most rigorous scientific study ever conducted on the subject" according to who? You?

But even so, I think it is a trivial objection at best, probably irrelevant. The inference was from the possibility that can God heal.

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
If you want to make it about

If you want to make it about me that's fine. I can see it's irrelevant to you that's why I'm not interested in discussing it further.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm losing interest in this

I'm losing interest in this discussion. I started it because I judged you as open-minded, but you're really not. Discussions like this will never be resolved because someone like you will simply never admit that they're wrong.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I was trying to clarify, not obfuscate as evidenced by my apology. If there's an apparent discrepancy or a typo, an intellectual honest person would seek clarity, not criticize one for obfuscating.

I don't want you to "try" to not obfuscate; I want you to actually not obfuscate. You're still obfuscating.

I have been seeking clarity the whole time. I always do, but it is fruitless anyways. There will never be clarity in religious apologetics because the entire purpose is to obfuscate. The only productive thing left to do is ridicule.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Volitions of the will, generally speaking, have a reason for acting. Mathematical randomness does not have such. I cannot assume that any given action performed by an agent with a will is random.

Duh. I just said that actions performed by agents are, by definition, not random. I am not going to allow you to prance around and avoid the subject.

Is it possible to observe a pattern (i.e. not random) to God healing people that almost certainly could not be produced by natural causes? Yes or no?

If you can observe a pattern, what is the pattern? On what basis does God heal people?

butterbattle wrote:
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:
We should be able to, yes.

Good, now answer the next question. If yes, how?

Wowzers1 wrote:
I think I do, yes -- namely the resurrection of Jesus. If you want to talk about this, start another thread.

Okay, but I don't want to start another thread until we can resolve this one. Judging by what you're posting, I'm guessing not.

Are you basing your belief that your grandmother was healed on your previous belief in miracles, Jesus, and/or Christianity?

Wowzers1 wrote:
If the evidence did exist, what would it look like?

Ah, the last refuge of all who have no evidence. Asking "what is evidence."

Evidence is information from reality that is used to demonstrate the truth of a claim. If you want to show that your grandmother was healed by a miracle, you need to define what a 'miracle' is and refer to reality to show that she was indeed saved by a miracle. You have not. Here's what you've done so far.

- It is possible that supernature exists.

- It is possible that a supernatural god exists. 

   - i.e. It is possible that a supernatural intelligent entity exists + everything else that is needed to complete a concept of god.

- And it is possible that this god is the Christian God.

   - i.e. It is possible that this god has all the characteristics that is needed to complete the concept of the Christian God.

Lol, you're not showing any bias at all. Nope. < /sarcasm>

- My grandmother got better.

- The doctor didn't know how my grandmother got better; therefore a supernatural cause is more likely than a natural cause. This is a complete non sequitur.

- Her family and friends prayed to the Christian God. Therefore, if it's a supernatural cause, it's the Christian God!

I find your last premise to be hilarious and the most indicative of your way of thinking. Apparently, you're assuming that supernatural entities wouldn't heal people unless they were prayed for. You prayed to the Christian God, so according to you, therefore, the Christian God must have healed your grandmother. I believe that deserves a *facepalm* from Kapkao.  

Wowzers1 wrote:
Accurate, yes -- but not guaranteed, which is my point.

If you understood my position at all, you would know that I don't make absolute claims like that. When I say "guaranteed," I am not asserting 100% certainty. Statistical studies that are rigorous and contain enough samples are sufficient to be considered a true summary of the entire population for all practical purposes. Highlighting the difference between that and absolute certainty is a useless exercise.

So, your "point" is to peck at petty semantics while dodging the statement I'm actually making in an effort to feel like you're actually correcting me on something. You have the burden of proof of showing that prayer works. Sucks to be you.   

Wowzers1 wrote:
I presented facts, and inferred something from the facts. No one has shown how the inference to God is invalid.

 

No, that's not how it works. You have to show that your argument is sound. We don't have to show that it's unsound, although I've already shown that it is unsound in multiple ways.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The only substantial attempt has been made by Gauche via a post hoc fallacy, of which I believe I explained how it was not the case.

Lol, all you did was structure your argument differently so that you were making other logical fallacies instead of a post hoc.

Wowzers1 wrote:
To me this sounds like a dodge.

Pointing out that you hold the burden of proof is a dodge?

Wowzers1 wrote:
You say I have to make a case for it, but at the same time you cannot be so dismissive of it either without telling why and substantiating your reason.

Sure I can. I have not observed evidence that the Bible is anything other than religious scripture written by ancient desert goat herders; everything in it, including morals, knowledge of reality, ideas about society, etc. is horribly outdated. Therefore, I'm certainly not going to believe the additional unjustified supernatural claims.

Wowzers1 wrote:
What does being a "typical Christian" have to do with anything? Some kind of high-browed remark or genetic fallacy of sort?

You're closed-minded, and you always punt to God. That is all.

Wowzers1 wrote:
A "plausible causal mechanism". What do you mean by that?

 

The cat broke the jar is plausible. Aliens that hate jars shooting it with their disintegrator is not. Possible doesn't equal probable; I don't think you realize that even establishing that God healed your grandmother is possible doesn't amount to anything.

butterbattle wrote:
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:
How does that constitute a base rate fallacy?

I just explained it to you. You imply that it's rare for "getting better" to occur after praying, but it's not. Religious people almost always pray in this kind of situation. Using your standards, God would be healing a ton of people every year.

Wowzers1 wrote:
But the problem is not that I have no evidence...rather you have some a priori committment to what is and is not acceptable as possible causes.

That strawman is pretty worn out. I think you need to stop hitting it.

Again, it is possible, but my fairy is also possible. All you did was a play some word games, commit a couple fallacies, and turn your "possible" into a punt to God. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
Looking for something and not finding it seems to suggest that it is not there... but that does not guarantee it is not there, and why I grant the possibility that there is a natural cure, albeit that cure is unknown. But even if he did find one, it still is rare that people with a cancer as advanced as my grandmother's who do not undergo treatment become cancer free. Miracles, as they are, are rare occurrence and are recognized because they go against normal experience.

Miracles are not "rare." They're not shown to exist, at all. If your belief in miracles is based on something prior to your grandmother, then most of this discussion is actually meaningless, and you're just being dishonest.

If looking for something and not finding it suggests that it is not there, then the one thing that is most suggested to not be there is the supernatural. The doctor didn't identify a specific natural cause. Did you identify a supernatural cause? Huh? Did you? No, of course not, you can't find anything supernatural, period. You just punted to God. You are not even internally consistent. You never try to identify a supernatural cause; when you can't identify a natural cause, you just punt to supernatural and then God by default. God...of...the...gaps.

We can find natural causes. We cannot find supernatural causes. So, by the criterion you just stated, the most likely cause would be a specific natural cause that the doctor didn't identify.

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

Wowzers1 wrote:
If I have two possible causes, and I mitigate one, then this increases the probability that it is the other.

Okay, so, by how much did their respective probabilities change?

How about the fact that we can't explain supernatural causes by definition? Doesn't that mitigate that probability?

butterbattle wrote:
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:
This a red herring to the issue of weightiness.

It makes your "issue of weightiness" irrelevant to the conversation. Again, I suppose you just want to feel like you're correcting me on something.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Until there is reason to believe that natural causes cure her, then I am, by your definition, "punting to God". I'd offer that "punting to God" is done when one says there is no other possible explanation.

Oh, it's good that you admit that, even though I think you just misread what I wrote.

Wowzers1 wrote:
As far as I can tell, you presuppose that God does not exist, so your presupposing atheism.

Lol, do you 'presuppose' that fairies don't exist? By default, I don't believe in things that are not shown to exist.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I've asked over and over how the inference is bad, and all I've got was it is a post hoc fallacy, which states that causality is established by order of events.

Well, you structured your argument so that you're committing other fallacies instead, so don't worry about the post hoc anymore.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You seem to grant that if God is possible then the inference is valid (correct me if I'm wrong)

No, it's not valid. It's not an inference, btw. Inferences are based on observation.

Wowzers1 wrote:
so it seems you changed your story to suggest that I don't have what you call a "plausible causal mechanism". But this is not necessary if the causal source is identified.

Lol, wut? If you've identified the cause, then of course that is the cause; that is a tautology. The point is that you haven't identified a cause. You just have a God of the Gaps.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The inference that I made concerning my cat knocking the jar of pennies of the shelf establishes that the cat is the likely explanation.

That is plausible because we know that cats exist, that cats can break jars, and that your cat was near the jar. That doesn't apply to your case. To be accurate, the analogy would have to be more like: there are possibly creatures called cats that exist, it is possible that cats can break jars, and I possibly have a cat that was possibly near the jar. I don't know how the jar was broken; therefore, my cat broke it! Lmao.

This would be the same as if you replaced 'cat' with 'unicorn.'

Wowzers1 wrote:
What you're asking for would be analogous to the exact time my cat knocked the pennies off the shelf and which appendage it used.

No, I don't need the details of how your God healed your grandmother, just evidence that he did.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I think that you're saying that not only is there no evidence, but evidence is impossible...

You're just stalling. If you have evidence, present your evidence.

Rest of it in a bit.

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


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:A circular

Wowzers1 wrote:

A circular argument is not valid... that's called question begging.

I don't think it is circular on the grounds that possibilities do not imply things that are necessarily true. I cannot say "It is possible that x" implies "x".

Actually, a tautology is valid, in the sense that yes indeed the conclusion follows from the premises. If you have A, then A follows. It's just useless in making an argument of whether or not A is true. That doesn't make it not valid.

And I didn't get the impression you were making a necessarily true statement. From what I gathered, you have:

"it is possible that x" and "y" therefore "it is possible that x contains/subsumes/includes the definite y". Which if you read carefully, is tautologous.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

What is god being the high probability based on? How did you know you didn't preclude an infinite number of other possibilities, or did you eliminate all of them already?

Insofar as I have argued, there are two possibilities: God and natural causes. Mitigating the probability of natural causes increases the probability of God.

I precluded the teapots and unicorns possibilities because I don't assume that unicorns and teapots can heal.

Then I must apologize for my lack of research, I didn't know you had eliminated all other potential plausible causes in this thread so far.

No, I would not posit teapots and unicorns as causes. However, I'm not convinced that 'god' and 'natural cause' are the only options. My inability to imagine what others could be doesn't make them less so. Besides that, if you were born only a mere 500 years ago, you'd more often attribute god to what we now know as natural cause. More for this in my next response (so if you want to respond to both of these, as I'm making them into one point and also to condense the dialogueSmiling

Wowzers1 wrote:

It makes it less likely that the cause was natural.

I think Krauss is saying Doing something over and over again would increase the likelihood of "revelation"  and this "revelation" is the product of chance. But I think that precludes that it could very well be revelation, nor does it change the probability of the matter.

If a natural cause is unknowable or not prone to research for a given phenomenon, that alone doesn't make it less likely.

If a rare event occurs among a huge sample, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

If you practice your religion in the context of a rare event, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

The combination of these still does not make an event less likely to be caused naturally.

Are there any other "mitigation factors" I'm missing here?

More specifically, even if 'god' and nature are the only two options, saying 'god did it' is actually a non-explanation, in that you could say 'god did it' to anything, in the sense you could not test your hypothesis or more importantly test mechanisms or make predictions or falsify. The only decent reason to suggest nature to anything, is not to throw in a catch-all phrase reminiscent of 'god did it', but again b/c of a track record. And how easy human brains are capable of fooling themselves especially in light of a lack of understanding of the power of demonstration in a competetive market of ideas as the scientific enterprise. And b/c a mechanism can be proposed and tested against.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I granted that it is circumstantial. I do not think this is enough to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity. But even if it is circumstantial, it would still be evidence nevertheless. Given that, the claim "there is no evidence" is not true.

It actually might be true that there was not evidence, but maybe not for the reason you would think, or not the reason you think I would be getting at. More:

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

If you're going to hash it up to history of miracles, which can't be reproduced, why bother praying in a vein attempt at getting something that can't be reproduced? B/c, you know, by 'reproduce results', one usually means, replicating them with intent... isn't that what all Christian families would be doing with sick relatives? Reproducing results ...ahem... praying to get healed?

Reproducible in the scientific sense of reproducibility, not that miracles can't happen again. I cannot recreate the circumstances for my grandmother over and over again. Scientific research needs this kind of reproducibility to produce the kind of results it is known for. There have been studies done on prayer and the effects of prayer on healing, but none that I know of about anomalous cure to advanced stages of leukemia.

No, it doesn't need that kind of reproducibility. Which is why you misunderstand science and evidence.

No one can recreate the circumstances of a particular lightning strike, and even if we can't predict it, we could still make inferences of its nature and test hypothetical mechanisms. For example, given the ubiquity of electrical equipment, we can still measure electromagnetic effects of a lightning strike. You're not necessarily expected to recreate particular circumstances, but at least observe or if possible recreate similar circumstances. In the cases of astronomy or sickness, as examples, you have observations of circumstances. And from those observations other effects may be measured that could add confidence to a given model, or falsify another.

If you have a vague model such as, 'god did it', then what can you infer or predict from such a model? How could you go about falsifying it in 'the field', where studies have been done? If you can't even hypothesize a mechanism or link from 'untangible supreme intelligence', to 'my relative healed up from a sickness she wasn't likely to live from', then that is considered not having evidence. That in conjunction with prayer is nothing to make any statistical inference from.

That doctors and medical researchers can't research a given phenomenon is not a form of evidence. If anything, it is a lack thereof.

That you have a rare event among a sample, is nothing more than one piece of data, and is only evidence of that event, not of anything you would like to hypothesize or infer from it.

That you prayed, and coincidentally your relative was no longer sick, is not evidence that prayer helped her but is one data point.

You do not have evidence to support the claim that your god healed anybody, you only have one data of circumstance.

At the very least, what do you think of the study in Gauche's link? How do their findings jive with your particular conviction of your circumstance? (unless you're willing to dish out $31, there are only a few paragraphs to read).


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Screw it. I'll follow

Screw it. I'll follow Gauche's lead. I'm done here too. You don't have to reply. It's not like you'll ever admit that you're wrong about anything.

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


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

butterbattle wrote:

Screw it. I'll follow Gauche's lead. I'm done here too. You don't have to reply. It's not like you'll ever admit that you're wrong about anything.

Ditto, he has nothing but the same rhetoric, coated in promises of objectivity which strangely enough turns in on himself.

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well how about this, Rob?

 

The only open minded theist is the deconverted theist, right?

I became a theist because as a preacher's kid that was the template of reality I grew up with. And what a wretched reality it was. There are other fundy raised kids here who deconverted and they may have had different experiences but I must say that the entire focus of the christian faith is richly deserved torture and death and trying to escape from this much considered fate.

It's an odd thing, I know, but when you're pumped full of end times stories and jesus on the cross dying so your disgusting worthless self won't be tortured from the age of 5 or 6, it's impossible not to be fixated on death and on punishment. We know what the message of calvary is after all. Jesus is murdered in order to save us from being tortured eternally by a god who 'loves' us but hates us exercising independent thought.

So as a theist you are presented with a picture of death and torture which you deserve to suffer because you are the scum of the earth. It's like boot camp for brains. Destroy a child's sense of self worth and just when they are about to commit suicide with self hatred present them with jesus, who loves them so much he was prepared to be murdered so they don't need to spend eternity in Auschwitz. The psychology is fairly basic if you think about it. I can recall after being harangued with this evil doctrine at christian camps that whole groups of kids would come to the front to be saved, all crying.

The cognitive dissonance created by wanting to be saved blots out the fact jesus is the one who also wants to kill you. By the time of conversion your head is so full of your own vileness and so in awe that some one would be prepared to be murdered for such a worthless person as you (who secretly still feels like the centre of their own universe) that you'll be prepared to say and do pretty much anything to get to heaven. You'll even sing rounds of "We are Climbing Jacob's Ladder" without wondering whether the ladder was an A frame, resting on the lip of heaven's porch or just a bunch of complete bullshit.

So there you go. I believe most people come to christ through having their sense of worth annihilated. Once mentally paralysed by self hatred they are offered a rescue package by the good cop jesus and they seize on this for all they are worth. If they fell prey to christianity early, this core breach in their self esteem is never rebuilt. They simply cannot be worth anything without jesus. 

I think it's for this reason that people who have a frail or challenged sense of self esteem are particularly vulnerable to christian doctrine. It's not that christianity rebuilds their self esteem but that christianity completely destroys what's left of it, confirming their own biases against themselves and leaving them emotionally reliant on their abusive new best friend and lover, jesus.

Personally, I find a self esteem harmed by early exposure to christianity the hardest thing for me to recover as an atheist. There's no doubt in my mind that the central tenets of christianity do constitute child abuse and have a measurable deletorious effect for the course of the victim's life. Nevertheless, exercising personal integrity is still better than being a christian.

 

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
That and stupid people that

That and stupid people that want an answer right now. It's such an easy answer, so easy you can make it up as you go and as science makes progress the god of the gaps gets smaller but he is still there, waiting for the insecure and the impatient.

This guy argued like a common theist: There is a ball. The ball bounces because it is a ball, the ball floats because it is a ball, the ball can heal you because it's a ball, the ball can know your thoughts because it's a ball, the ball had a baby ball and sacrificed him for your future sins because it is a loving ball. etc

Big suppositions for making a square piece of crap fit in a round hole.

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