Theist lay out your evidence.
Offline 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
- Login to post comments
I was going to add that a sock gnome or leprechaun could have been hiding in the vicinity while he was praying for his grandmother's recovery and felt bad for them so it "healed" her. But my figurative speech is probably more annoying than cute.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
If it is God's will, then it is not technically random, unless you believe God determines the saved with a dice roll.
This kind of a religious doctrine is essentially a retreat from empiricism; your god concept avoids any evidence against a god but also any possible evidence for that god, until a universe with that god is indistinguishable from a universe without him. He might as well not exist.
Then why pray?
Why did you emphasize that people prayed before your grandmother got better?
What do you mean it is a statistical outlier? You mean you believe there was a low chance of your grandmother surviving, but she survived, so therefore, it was a miracle?
No, you're not being consistent with Occam's Razor at all. Again, all you're saying is, "I don't know how this happened. Therefore, God did it." That is a textbook God of the Gaps. You are punting to the Christian God because you want to believe in the Christian God. You couldn't care less about Occam's Razor. Generally, the fallacy doesn't depend on the theist believing there is no possible natural explanation, only not knowing of any specific natural explanation, even if there is one available.
A natural explanation is virtually always more probable than a supernatural explanation because supernatural explanations have to make the assumption that supernature exists. On top of that, you're assuming 1) A god exists. 2) That god is the Christian God i.e. assuming everything in the Bible. 3) God healed my grandmother. You are presupposing an entire religion to reach your conclusion. The naturalist wouldn't even have assume a specific cause, only that there was some unidentified natural cause.
And if you're going to assume a supernatural cause, why do you assume a God, specifically the Christian God, hmmmm? How do you know fairies didn't save your grandmother? Or a magical unicorn? Or aliens?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Lol, yeah, a sock gnome or leprechaun works too. There are infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. But, of course, the Christian would immediately punt to the Christian God, just like any follower of any religion would immediately punt to their religion.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Because he presupposes that they're not necessary to exist.
He's afairy
He's Aunicorn
He's Aalien.
He's a Discriminator
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
If statistical outliers were not rare, then they wouldn't be outliers. Their deviation from the given sample's norm is what makes the outliers.
Against odds to not mean that it does not happen, but rather that it is not likely to happen. My grandmother's cancer was advanced that the prognosis was that chemo might extend her life a few months for which she'd be sick from the chemo, so she opted not to be treated.
I don't presume that doctors know everything. It is possible that the doctor made a mistake, but I have no reason to think that he did.
This is an argument from ignorance and is often the counterpart to the purported "God of the Gaps" fallacy made by atheists...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
But this precludes divine causation as a possibility, that and it the cause for whatever caused the healing is what's being inferred, so an inference to natural causes is not any better off. I have not reason to believe that the inference I made was bad either, and insofar as I can tell it is the explanation that best fits the facts.
This is a red herring.
All things being equal, why is assuming that God exists a bad assumption? If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
For it to be anyone of those, I'd have to be praying to the Loch Ness Monster, Chewbacca, The Smurfs, or the ghost of Mary Pickford. It can't be evidence for any of these if I wasn't praying to them...
She was sick before we started praying. She opts not to be treated (that precludes the possibility that medicine cured her). We prayed and she went back to the doctor, who could find no cancer. These are the facts. The problem you have is with the inference to God. The inference is not included in the list of facts I gave. The facts do support that inference though.
This happened once... You tell me if the inference is bad: I had jar of pennies on a shelf. I left my house with a cat inside. When I come home, the jar is smashed and the pennies are all over the floor. I inferred that the cat knocked the jar off the shelf. But there are other possibilities too: someone could have broken in and smashed the jar without taking the pennies. There could have been an earthquake or tremor that knock it off the shelf. Given the set of facts, I make an inference to what caused the facts.
This happened last week. I had a headache. I took some Advil for my headache. My headache went away after an hour. I inferred that the Advil caused my headache to go away.
If I follow you logic, I cannot establish that any of these causes were what knocked the jar off the shelf or that the Advil caused my headache to go away, even if there is good evidence to make the inference.
I'm beginning to think that you really don't know what a post hoc fallacy is -- this particular fallacy is not about sequence of events, but rather an inference to an invalid cause.
If I have a way of understanding miracles in the context of other religions, I can permute your case that it evidence for other religions as evidence for Christianity. Likewise, the Hindu could to the same if he has an understanding for miracles in other religions. What Given that all religions can be false, but only one can be true, the evidence for supernatural entities should point to one true religion. In any case, it is always evidence against atheism.
I given you my rubric for understanding miracles in other religions, so I permute the evidence as more evidence for Christian theism. It makes my case weightier than before...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
A red herring is a something said for distraction, you simply did not like what I said because it has everything to do with your assumption and the topic at hand.
Assuming but not certain, one thing is certain at least, that you are not. You don't seem to be certain about how to progress your argument either, it keeps going back to the same place.
You stated earlier that you assume it's true because you think it is the best option, what makes you think it is the best option? What makes you think it's an option at all?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Volitions of one's will seem random, but I do not think they are random in the sense of random distribution in mathematics.
Statistical inferences that prayer is ineffective does not guarantee that God does not heal
That and the use of statistics as a reason not to pray is adding evidence rather than weighing it. The magnitude of a single miracles is compelling evidence in its own right. Statistically terrorist attacks from airplanes are rare occurrences. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were isolated incidences, but changed travel security world wide. The magnitude of these isolated incidences, even though statistically hijackings are rare, was enough to compel governments to change travel policies.
The correlation between pray and healing.
I'm not punting to God, I'm inferring that God did it and allowing for the possibility that I'm wrong (that is I am allowing for a natural cause). But even if I am, you'd be punting to ignorance, which is no better... in fact I'd contend it is worse because is denying the a possibility when there's good reason to believe it.
God is what I brought to the table -- For it to be a less probable explanation, you have to assume that it is likely that gods don't exist, that it is likely that the Christian does not exist, and that it unlikely that God that God performs miracles. I think you're reading your bias into god as a possibility if you say a natural explanation is "always more probable" But if I'm compelled to accept natural explanations some reason, I still do not have one.
The reason I preclude other entities from acting is because I was not praying to them... I was praying to the Christian God as were other people in this context..
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
"Assume" and "hope" these seem to be special key words to you but are they words of reason? Are you willing to bypass reason for hope and assumptions? I'm pretty sure that's the case and that would make this case closed.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
You need to check the post... That's not what it says... it says, "All things being equal, why is assuming that God exists a bad assumption? If you preclude that God does not exist, then no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise."
The distraction is the issue dealing with the other issues...that's off topic
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I don't have to assume or hope for anything relating to a miracle or a god that would have produced it, why do you?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
The so called "red herring" was directly related to the topic of miracles and why your grandmother got a miracle cure while so many other people did not. There are children starving to death and you consider the healing of one person to be miraculous while thousands of others die. The main topic here was miracles and it was directly related, explain how it was not. I don't like to be accused of silly carp unless I did it intentionally.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
This is what you said to Atheistextremist:
Your facts that prove a miracle occurred are a description of a sequence of events. Let's see what other sources have to say about that.
Not only is it a post hoc fallacy but it is a perfect example of a post hoc fallacy. It could be printed in a textbook. I'm glad your grandmother is well but I don't envy your position in this discussion because you're faced with a genuine dilemma here. If you claim to have evidence or reasons to believe this beyond the sequence of events then the claim becomes open to empirical scrutiny, and on empirical grounds your case is somewhere between jack and shit leaning heavily toward the shit side. If you don't then you will eventually learn or have to admit what a post hoc fallacy is, and that you are in error.
And to answer your question Advil has been tested in double blind studies and if the only reason you have to think your cat is responsible for the pennies is the temporal sequence of events then that's a post hoc fallacy too. A fallacy you seem to be quite fond of.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Which in turn means this discussion will eventually lead to the proposed existence of said god as I noted to him amidst his protest of such.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I dunno about evidence but DAMN that's an ugly ass dog...
You will surely go to unicorn hell if you talk smack about my dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdiND1kzSZ0
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
There's no evidence for that, so I have no reason to think that it is the case. To suggest this would be a conspiracy theory on the part of one of the other aforementioned entities.
You forgot this part:
I'm not basing it "solely" ore "merely" on the order of events. If I was doing that, I could not infer that the cat broke the jar or that the Advil helped my headache. I inferred the cats because they climb on furniture and knock things off of furniture. I infer Advil because it has been shown help alleviate pain. The inference to God is like this in that God is able to perform miracles. If God can perform miracles is in part the basis for the inference, not "solely" on the order of events. You have yet to show how the inference is bad either.
A perfect example would be something like this: A minute ago, I ate lunch. Now I'm posting on RRS. Therefore me eating lunch caused me to post on RRS.
Cats climb on shelves and can knock things off of furniture. If I know that cats can do this, then the inference to the cat knocking the jar of pennies off the shelf is not a bad inference. I fear you do not understand the fallacy, and are misapplying it. Maybe you do understand it and don't want to back down from your claim. In either case, I'm not committing it.
You don't seem to understand the permutation. I'm saying that if I permute the evidence, then it is even more evidence for Christianity, not for other the religions. In any case though, it is always evidence against atheism.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
There's no evidence for what you are saying either.
There's always an assumption implied with this fallacy. If you point a dowsing rod and find water and believe it was because of the rod, it's implied there was an assumption that a rod could find water. Your assumption that gods can heal grandmothers and cats can knock over penny jars doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.
But you clearly believe that if you assume lunch can cause posting here that means it's no longer a fallacy.
You are confused, but you seem to trust Wikipedia let's refer to them again:
But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education. So according to you the inference to young people being corrupted by their education is not bad inference and this is not a fallacy. Not only do I not understand the fallacy but neither does Wikipedia or S.Morris Engel who wrote a book about it apparently.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This is a red herring because it is looking at the why God won't perform X but will perform Y, not about what one uses to establishes his or her belief in a deity, and why it is a red herring.
I've tried to stay focused on the OP:
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
HUH
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The evidence is the facts I presented. Are you saying those facts don't exist?
If the diviner heard that the divining rod leads him to water, and find water while using a divining rod, his conclusion is not a post hoc fallcy because he based it on a belief about divining rods. It may be unsound for other reason though. You have to show how the inference is invalid, and you have not done so. Not for the cat, or my grandmothers healing.
If one premise said "eating lunch will cause one to post on RRS" then yes, I did not arrive at the conclusion based solely on the order of events. But believing that lunch caused me to post on RRS is non sequitur
(Never said I trusted or distrusted wikipedia...you posted it originally... I followed the link and posted a part you forgot to post)
There's no premise, stated or implied, that young people are corrupted by education. He's drawing his conclusion from the solely from the sequence of events, as Wikipedia define the fallacy. I've given you reasons why I think my argument is different from this concerning cats, Advil, and God.
I said the permutation is allowable in other religions, so the evidence would be equivocal evidence for one religion or another that allows for miracles to be performed in the context of other religions. So the truth of one religion or another has to be decided on other ground. I've said it before that I don't base my beliefs solely on miracles for this reason. But in any case, it's always evidence against atheism.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You didn't say it "seemed" random. You said it "is" random. Events that are determined by someone's will is, by definition, not random. Furthermore, if that entity's decisions are affected by any factors in observable reality, it will be testable.
Does your God have any objectively identifiable affect on reality? Yes or no? If yes, what is it? If no, then your belief is based on faith and this discussion is pointless. Note, if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable.
It guarantees that if a god exists, and if that god heals at all, he heals people very rarely and randomly, independent of their beliefs and actions or that there simply is no god.
No, it's not. Sorry.
Great, but you don't have a single miracle; that is the problem. You have something that you don't understand, so you assumed that it's a miracle because you want to believe that there are miracles and God exists. You don't have a single case of anything that ever occurred in the world that demonstrably could not have a natural explanation.
Also, praying >> got better, is certainly a post hoc. Asserting causality doesn't make a causality. If you're making the claim that it was most likely God, and you're attempting to justify it with the premise that God causes miracles, then you're just digging an even deeper hole by begging the question and using circular reasoning as well. You were the using case of your grandmother as evidence that God does miracles, so obviously, you cannot base this argument on the premise that God does miracles. Then, your argument is: God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles, I know this because >>> God healed my grandmother, I know this because >>> God does miracles.
So lame.
Okay, and how does this apply to the case of your grandmother?
Sure you are.
In other words, punting to God.
Btw, you're assuming, not inferring. Inferences are based on observations. Your observations don't support the conclusion that God did it.
That makes you more open-minded that many Christians. But, it would still be far more open-minded to not cling to an unjustified belief in the first place.
Saying "I don't know" is, by definition, always more rational than believing something without evidence. If you are ignorant, then punting to any arbitrary explanation is just intellectual dishonesty.
I am not denying the possibility. I simply don't believe because there is no good reason to believe it.
In other words, punting to God. You have no reason for preferring God over any other supernatural explanation other than your own bias.
No, it is less probable because there are natural causes for cancer patients getting better. Supernatural explanations are less probable by default because they immediately introduce many more unjustified assumption i.e. there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place. Punting to your Christian God introduces enough assumptions to fill a dictionary.
Don't make a mockery of the burden of proof. You hold the responsibility of demonstrating that your plethora of assumptions necessary to lead to the conclusion that your God did it are probable. They are all unjustified supernatural claims that are definitively unfalsifiable; in the same way that I do not have to disprove leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies in order to discount them, I do not have to disprove your God to discount him.
Exactly, god of the gaps. You do not know of a specific natural explanation, so you punt to your God.
Oh? Why would that preclude them?
That little fairy didn't care whether you prayed for it or not. It just felt sorry for your grandmother. Why do you choose to believe that God healed her when that cute fairy worked all night, using up her precious fairy energy to save her?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Don't be obtuse.
You have presented events that have occurred. Those are facts. He is not 'disputing' the events that occurred.
You are 'projecting' that this is/could be a miracle/supernatural event.
You have no basis to 'suspect' that those events are a 'miracle' anymore than spontaneous human combustion could be characterized as a 'miracle' simply because it's a statistical rarity.
The argument from incredulity, is a 'fool's paradise', and inextricable from a confirmation bias.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Sorry if I created confusion. I mean to say that they are not random in the same as in mathematical randomness.
"Objcetively identifiable" in what manner? If you presuppose that God cannot work... no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise, so why are we having this discussion then?
The only way statistics can guarantee anything is from a survey of an entire population. Do you have such information available to you?
Insisting it's one way without telling why is not very convincing.
Do you want to explain the resurrection of Jesus in natural terms? I'm all ears. If you want to destroy my faith in Christianity, do it on these grounds. I think this would be better left to another thread though.
Post hoc assumes I based it solely on the order of events, of which I did not do.
It's a type categorical syllogism, if you want to know the form. God performs miracles is a general statement, and the conclusion that it was a miracle was a miracle is a particular.
It would be if I was stating this in the context of Christianity, but I'm not. The argument looks like this: It is possible that God heals people >> my grandmother was healed >> it is possible that god healed my grandmother. Now, the facts that she had a grim prognosis, refused treatments, went back to the doctor who discovered no cancer, and the doctor had no natural explanation for it imply the probability that she was healed by natural means is against the odds. In other words, the probability that natural causes healed her is low.
It had to do with the weightiness of isolated incidences in spite that the probability for such instances is low.
I don't know how many times I said it, but I will say it again. I grant the possibility that it was caused by natural means. I'm not saying it "must" or was "necessarily" caused by God. That would be a punt.
How?
I feel I've justified in my belief...
The facts are the evidence on which I base my inference. Are you saying the facts don't exist? Punting to "I don't know" because the facts violate some presupposition you may have is intellectual dishonesty.
Per your statement earlier "if it requires that you presuppose the existence of your God and can be explained in other ways, then obviously, it's not objectively identifiable.", If I'm interpreting this right, I don't believe you're even open to the possibility.
My case in particular is in the context of the Christian God. But if this the case, then all forms of theism are equally valid along side atheism, and you have no reason to prefer atheism over any of them.
If you say, "there are no identifiable supernatural causes in the first place" then you do preclude the possibility. I have no reason to continue because your mind is closed to the matter.
It is falsifiable on 2 terms: You could show that we were praying to some sort of false deity or have the doctor produce a natural explanation for the the absence of cancer and show that the explanation is common.
I'm not insisting that there is no natural explanation, because I grant the possibility. And insofar as I can tell you're punting to ignorance, which is really no better.
Because I'm praying to the Christian God.
That's a conspiracy theory.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
No.
It's an alternate theory, which is equal in evidence, and viability, to yours.
Which is to say, none.
Whether you like it, or not...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I'm saying it's not evidence for what you believe.
You're leaving out an essential part. Without an explanation of how dowsing rods find water the cause is in doubt. I said that with your cat it would be a fallacy if that were the only reason to draw a causal connection. Without investigating and providing some explanation of the process it's still post hoc reasoning. Superstitions arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy because there isn't other evidence to establish a causal connection. What you've presented as facts are merely a sequence of events and your argument is a fallacy, your initial belief I suppose could have been adopted purely out of credulity but I suspect you believe it because people get better after praying sometimes. You're not addressing my point though that post hoc fallacies imply general beliefs about possibility and form conclusions about specific occurrences.
The causal connection between taking Advil and headache relief was established through double blind studies. I said people could be corrupted by education, not that they are. His conclusion that a group of people were corrupted by education implies a belief that people can be corrupted by education. That people can be corrupted by education is a well documented and known fact. According to your rationale that would make it not a fallacy. The reason it's a fallacy like your grandmother's miracle is that it's not accounting for all relevant details.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Until you show how the inference is bad, I have no reason to believe this.
But the relevant details are there, so its not post hoc concerning my cat or my God.
This is only true if I'm reasoning from a sequence of events. I'm not, and I've shown you how I'm not. For that I have no reason to think it post hoc. But it sounds like you're changing your story, trying to make it a matter of technicality, which seems to suggest that you realized your mistake.
The premise "But it is possible that one could be corrupted by their education." is neither stated or implied. If I'm missing it, show me where.
Now you're creating a straw man out of what I said, and validates my thinking that you're trying to make it a matter of technicality because I'm not "accounting for all the relevant details".
Now you're trying to make a red herring out of this matter.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You haven't made any scientific effort to eliminate all possible natural causes.
You have no 'reasoning', period.
So, you're reasoning that that see 'no reason' is completely predictable, and consistent.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I prayed to a tea kettle when I got sick and then I got better proves absolutley nothing unless I simply want it to be so. It is not objective proof for anything except what is in my own mind based on my own desire.
You could flip a coin and tell someone you are praying that the coin lands heads up, if it does so it is not evidence of anything unless you can repeat it reliably.
Prayer is proven to be far from reliable.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
We're you praying to a sentient being with the power to heal? I would reject the claim because tea kettles cannot possibly heal.
But if you want to assert that a tea kettle has these properties, go ahead. If you actually believed in such an entity, you wouldn't be an atheist any more, would you?
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I never suggested a god was any more real than a sentient tea kettle. This thread was looking for proof of a god via miracles, you seem to think the evidence you have laid out is enough but it would only be for someone who believe said god existed in the first place.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Neither were you.
There aren't any.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Please give us some logical counter claim that nullifies or defeats the reason many people reject a theism:
Eleven Non-Commandments
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
No I would be insane.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
That's debatable.
ciarin.com
Why would anyome pray to a tea kettle if the tea kettle is impotent?
The OP was asking why I believed, and I said miracles were in part, and I have an example of one.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
"No proof" in what manner?
And your "primative superstitions" is an appeal to novelty. They're as much modern "superstitions" as they are "primative" ones.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
With the cat it remains to be seen but with the god you can't rule out several other more plausible explanations, or explain the process, or establish any connection at all that's not anecdotal.
Well, you're trying to evade committing a post hoc fallacy by claiming that you drew the conclusion from a baseless assumption instead. I don't see why you think that's a better position to be in.
That it is possible is a known fact. By your reasoning one would need to be unaware of this to commit the fallacy.
I don't think I'm making a strawman of what you said. Did you ever consider that there are other explanations aside from miracles? To know what happened to your grandmother you would need to take all the relevant details into consideration. That would include other possible causes and the studies conducted on the effectiveness of prayer on treating illnesses. It's not a form of oppression, it's how people arrive at correct conclusions.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I grant that it does not necessarily create causal connection. I only proposed it as a possibility, and I have reason to believe that God healed my grandmother if it is possible for God to heal.
I was suggesting that it was circumstantial because it was inferred.
That, and I think that the miracle is most likely explanation for the cure but I cannot deny the other possibilities either so it's only a possible explanation.
To what "baseless assumption" are you referring? Even if it is a "baseless assumption", the inference was was not post hoc.
You're providing that premise for him, so now you're putting word in his mouth. But you need it for your straw man to work.
I did consider it these possibilities. I've said that my case is circumstantial and I've granted the possibility that it was entirely natural.
I didn't concede anything. I permuted it and turned it against you in that miracles in other religions serve as evidence against atheism.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
If they've evolved, then there not primitive then, are they?
And the allegation of "no proof" really isn't true either. The NT would be proof, but you're alleging it is fabricated or shaky.
Theodicy is off topic... If you want to talk about the problem of evil, start another thread.
And I don't buy Ontological Arguments. I think they are question begging. I pretty much agree with UbuntuAnyone's post on the matter. But that's off topic too.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I disagree. What reason is there to think god does heal people even if it is possible?
Studies show that it is not more likely than chance which is a more parsimonious explanation.
The assumption that god heals sick people has no basis in fact. If you think it does then provide some evidence.
You're approaching it with post hoc reasoning because the only facts that exist are that your grandmother prayed then got better, but you argue that it is not merely post hoc because you can establish a causal connection with the belief that god heals people. You can't rule out other more plausible explanations and you refuse to consider the evidence for how effective prayer is at healing sick people.
No, his conclusion wasn't that it's possible. That it is possible is a matter of fact. You just can't admit that.
If there were miracles yes. But they'd also be evidence against your own beliefs so the argument is self defeating.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
From your perspective, if I made myself believe something when I already know it's bogus I would be insane. You know you are breathing air but if you can convince yourself you are not then you too are insane.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
You may be genuinely sorry, but your belief system compels you to continue obfuscating.
What does "not random in the same as in mathematical randomness" mean? You are stating, statistically, they're not random? How?
Either we can observe God's effects on the world or we can't; that is the issue. Yes or no? If yes, how?
I don't understand the question. What kinds of "manners" are there? There's only one reality.
As in, do you have any phenomenon, even a single one, that could ONLY be explained by your God and not by any natural theory or other supernatural entity, including Gods of other religions? Or, do you have any phenomenon, even a single one, where you can show causality, not correlation, between prayer and healing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Do you have any sound argument or evidence that supports the existence of God? Yes or no?
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.
Samples of sufficient size are accurate enough to represent the entire population. That is what I meant.
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.
Lol, no, you have to demonstrate that a person named Jesus existed, that this person was the son of God, and that this person died and was resurrected. You don't get to make an argument from ignorance and assume the validity of the entire New Testament, then ask me to disprove it; that's not how it works.
I am disappointed. You are a more typical Christian than I thought you were. Had I known you would say something like this, I wouldn't have started this discussion with you.
You have asserted a source of causality, but it's not a plausible causal mechanism; it has never been demonstrated. So, it's based on the order of events and your unjustified beliefs; if that makes it technically not a post hoc, then sure, I'll grant you that. We know that cats can break jars and Advil can relieve some pain, but we have no indication that a god even exists. The fact that you can invoke praying + God in almost anything is what makes this really popular. I could pray that the sun will come up tomorrow, and if it does, according to you, that could be evidence that God made the sun come up for me.
I sense that there is also a base rate fallacy here. Namely, you feel that it is a significant that your grandmother was healed after being prayed for, but really the chance of the "praying" occurring before the healing is incredibly high. If you consider how often religious people pray when their loved ones are dangerously ill, it would be more of statistical anomaly for a Christian to get better when their family and friends didn't pray for them.
Sure you are.
See? You are presupposing that the Christian God exists. You don't get to say that. Here's how many assumptions you actually have to make.
- It is possible that a god exists.
- It is possible that this god is the Christian God. Meaning, you are assuming everything that is necessary to complete the concept of the Christian God.
- It is possible that God healed my grandmother.
And, you still don't have: it is more likely a supernatural explanation than a natural explanation, and it is more likely the Christian God than any other conceivable supernatural causal mechanism. You've got a long ways to go.
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.
Okay, how do you know that the probability of a supernatural cause is higher?
Again, you punted to your God as soon as supernatural was invoked.
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.
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.
You only have a post hoc. Presupposed an entire religion. Punting to God.
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.
Oh? How are you interpreting it? Perhaps your belief system prevents you from accurately interpreting my statement because your God belief cannot meet the standard that I have outlined.
I am always open to the possibility of any claim being true; to actually hold it as true, I just need evidence i.e. confirmation that the claim conforms to reality. If you have no objective evidence, then your belief is based on faith and is not shown to accurately match reality. So, clearly, in that case, I would not believe it.
Ah, but there is one very good reason to prefer atheism over any particular god belief. All forms of theism are positive claims; they are claiming that their particular god or gods exist. Atheism is not necessarily a positive claim. I can simply say I don't believe in anything that is not shown to be justified.
Consider this, suppose we have a person that believes in magical unicorns, a person that believes in Santa Claus, a person that believes in leprechauns, and a person that doesn't believe in any of those. Which of these four people has the most valid position and why?
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.
Lmao. So, how do I discern between true and false deities?
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.
I've already gone over this exact point. I'm not going to repeat myself.
And why does that preclude them?
Oh? And how do you know that? How do you know your explanation isn't a "conspiracy theory?" How do you know it wasn't Allah?
Watch:
P1 - It is possible that God heals people.
P2 - My grandmother was healed.
Conclusion - It is possible that god healed my grandmother.
Now, look:
P1 - It is possible that fairies heal people.
P2 - My grandmother was healed.
Conclusion - It is possible that fairies healed my grandmother.
---
P1 - It is possible that "P" heals people.
P2 - My grandmother was healed.
Conclusion - It is possible that "P" healed my grandmother.
You can put any of an infinite number of supernatural entities in "P."
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
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.
Don't be silly.
No, that's not how it works. Their prayers are designed to prevent the other gods from healing her, and being able to take the credit.
Miracle victories are serious business.
You can't have the other gods being more 'true' than your own.
Letting people's lives be saved by the wrong god would just be awful...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I prey to a pink unicorn that I think lives in the sky and my mom gets better. Does that prove a pink unicorn answered my prayer with a miracle? Does it even prove it was a miracle in the first place? This is an example such as wowz has given.
I rubbed my scratch off ticket up and down rather than side to side today and won 2$ does that mean rubbing it up and down will net me winnings each time? Now in this scenario we know you can indeed win money from a scratch off but does rubbing the parrafin like substance off up and down really make a difference?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin