|
Author
|
Topic: If prayers go unanswered....?
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 61 of 201 (196375)
04-03-2005 9:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
04-03-2005 9:11 AM
|
|
Re: God answers all prayers
You're trying to put the hits in with the misses Shraff. The things I wish for seldom happen, unless I pray to God, according to how Christ said pray. One thing you misse way back in this thread, is where I told the true nature of prayer, and how the world has it backwards, (like it does with everything, because satan rules it). Think. God says have faith and that we should praye according to his will. Society thinks he should end poordom and cater to every whim or he doesn't exist (your will) God says we are created. Society says we are chance. You're still looking at prayer from a perspective of "all faiths". But you won't understand OUR prayers untill you look at it from our perspective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:11 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Sorry, I'd need outside verification for that claim. Self-reports in these cases are notoriously heavily biased. quote:
Hah. SO I'm a liar. Oh no, I know Shraff, I know already I just don't say.
No, you are human, and therefore, prone to all sorts of bias. We all are. That's why I don't immediately believe every single thing anyone tells me, or that I experience. I need outside verification for lots of things. Please stop being overdramatic.
quote:
I know I know, our memories seldom tell us accurately what actually happened and people have confirmation bias and post-hoc.
Right. It's not because you are dishonest or anything. It's because you are human.
quote:
I listen to all of you, I really do. But what you don't realise is that these incidents outweigh all of these things you teach me.
How so? Upon what evidence do you base this claim? (Lemme guess...your own self-reports, right?)
Which is more likely, the above list which is clearly observed and documented and everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can agree on, or that your God is sometimes healing people quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes a kind of medium speed, sometimes not at all? quote:
Does the list include the blind seeing?
Sure. Tell me more about blind people being healed from their blindness through prayer. Names, dates, doctor reports, scientific papers, etc. Funny I haven't seen anything about it in the papers...
quote:
Why would it if I said that experiments bring doubt and that God won't play lab-rat for Shraff?
So, I have to believe before I will believe, right? Sorry, my bullshit detector won't allow me to do that.
quote:
Which is more likely, that my prayer was answered and I was healed in ten seconds, (as I declared), for each symptom, by Christ whom I believe in, according to the scriptures, OR that it was what chance allowed for AND my own immune system AND my own memory and confirmation bias AND another god.
That's not a fair comparison. My list was not dependent upon ALL of the items being included, but yours is. Here's what I wrote:
Or, people heal at different rates because of various biological and environmental factors, like individual immune system variations, nutrition and hydration, type of virus, amount of sleep they get, stress, exposure to pollution, etc. etc, etc. Which is more likely, the above list which is clearly observed and documented and everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can agree on, or that your God is sometimes healing people quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes a kind of medium speed, sometimes not at all? Try again.
quote:
Notice how many unecessary entities you induce in order to explain the situation,
Sorry, read what I wrote more carefully. It is you who are twisting what I said to change the analogy. Now, please answer the question: Which is more likely?
quote:
yet you in no way and NEVER EVER suggest that God answered my prayer, despite this being the simplest explanation and answering for the inexplicable nature of the events?
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! It frustrates me to no end when you continue to misuse this concept, and I am begining to think you ARE a liar because I have explained this to you many times. The "simplest" explanation is the one which answers the question using the fewest unsupported assumptions. The fact that you make the gargantuan unsupported assumption that your particular God is healing you, even though there are many mundane factors which could also explain the phenomena, means that your explanation is very, very complicated. It is the opposite of "simple". It is NOT the simplest explanation. It is S I M P L I S T I C. It explains every possible outcome. Therefore, it explains nothing at all. You say that the explanation of "God healed me" is the simlpest explanation? OK. Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell? See how simple, and useful, your "explanation" is?
And that is the source of our conflict. You think you "know", when you actually "believe" without reliable evidence. quote:
But Shraff I know that I can know things without evidence. I know that cake tastes good,
You have evidence for that, and we can perform tests to show that the pleasure centers of your brain are being activated.
quote:
but another person says it doesn't according to his taste buds.
Right, and we can do the same tests on this person.
quote:
I know that I am saying words in my mind but people only believe I am because they also feel this.
...and we can do the same kinds of tests which will show activation in the verbal areas of your brain.
quote:
And don't distract me Shraff, I'm not talking about brain waves proving it, because I never needed evidence to "know" I was talking in my mind.
Let's imagine that "talking to oneself inside one's mind" is something that only a few people say they can do. You tell lots of people that you "know" you can do it, but none of them believe you. You then take them into a lab where there is a FMRI machine, and you show them that there is activation in the language areas of your brain when you are "talking to yourself inside your mind". This would be some powerful evidence that you are doing what you say you are doing, and those other people would be more likely to believe you. Your problem is that you simply want other people to believe that you have had fantastic experiences based upon nothing but on your word alone. Furthermore, you have admitted that you are completely non-skeptical regarding these experiences; you have no doubt whatsoever.
quote:
So Shraff, I do know my prayers are answered specifically, and any chump could know that a specific occurence of strange request cannot be accounted for by chance.
What occurence? How specific? Also, who said anything about chance? There could have been many factors making the liklihood of that occurrence greater.
quote:
What do I have to put up? Evidence? This is F&B, and it was YOU who wanted to get into this whole prayer experiment thing, which is science.
Nope. You tool it out of F&B when you claimed that prayer works in the natural world. Anything in nature is fair game to science. also, I'd really like an answer to this part of my last post:
...except that you have ignored all of the factors which are not "God" or supernatural at all in deciding if your prayers were answered or not. quote:
That's because there are no other factors.
Are you sure? The things you prayed for could not possibly have come about except by the intervention of your particular God? How do you determine that this is the case? What mundane factors could have influenced the outcome? If you come up with a hit rate greater than chance would suggest, then I would say that there is something to this prayer. quote:
But what is this chance? How do I know what chance would allow?
It's MATH mike. MATHEMATICS. PROBABILITY. ODDS. Take a statistics course and you will understand better. I found this site on this site on calculating basic probability Of course, it deals with extremely clear cut cases, such as the odds of pulling a red or a blue marble out of a bag. The problems with prayer requests is that they are generally much more susceptible to interpretation after the fact, because they are not anywhere near specific enough. quote:
That's because my specific prayers have been answered which shows that God is infact answering them,
No, it doesn't show that. It shows that something is affecting the outcome. See, you cannot define or detect or show anyone this God that you say you are praying to. We have no way of knowing what is making the things happen, only that they are happening. quote:
and my perception of God is that he answers my prayers according to how the bible says he would.
Hmmm, "according to how the Bible said he would"? That phrase send up a red flag to me because we all know how vague and open to interpretation the Bible is. What, exactly, do you mean by "and my perception of God is that he answers my prayers according to how the bible says he would"? How, exactly, should God be anwering your prayers? This explanation should be as precise and specific as possible, otherwise we are heading into rationalization and post hoc reasoniong land. You make complaints about "prayer effects investigation not being good science", yet you completely ignored all of the science-based investigative questions I asked you in my last message! Prayer effects are a very good place to use scientific investigative techniques. That you avoid all scientific investigation into your claim speaks volumes about your fears, I think.
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
|
|
Message 63 of 201 (196380)
04-03-2005 10:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
04-02-2005 9:00 AM
|
|
prayer. medicine, and stats
Ah now, unless the mathematical tools that you esteem have been used on believers and in this particular situation such that a consensus of data can be perused, then your assumption of error is preconceived. Well, this essentially has been done a few times, analyzing the "power of prayer" on disease outcomes. Basically, no significant effect of prayer has been found in these studies, with a couple of exceptions - but take note; those "couple of exceptions" were later shown to be incorrect due to misuse and misanalysis of the data. I believe in one recent case involving cardiac outcomes there was an investigation and reprimand (if not firing) of researchers since it appeared they deliberately misused their data to support the hypothesis that prayer improves outcome. Here is an excerpt from a review regarding this subject:
The latest reported clinical trial of intercessory prayer is a three year study of 750 patients in nine hospitals and 12 prayer groups from around the world, including lay and monastic Christians, Sufi Muslims, and Buddhist monks. Prayers were even emailed to Jerusalem and placed in the Wailing Wall. Patients awaiting angioplasty for coronary artery obstruction were selected at random by computer and sent to the 12 prayer groups. The prayer groups prayed for complete recovery of patients. The clinical trial was double blind; neither the hospital staff nor the patients knew who was being prayed for. The findings were reported at the American College of Cardiology's second annual conference on the integration of complementary medicine into cardiology and showed no significant differences in the recovery and health between the two groups...
Other studies are mentioned, including some problematic ones.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Monk, posted 04-02-2005 9:00 AM | | Monk has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Monk, posted 04-03-2005 7:32 PM | | pink sasquatch has replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
take 100 mg of obecalp and call me in the morning...
Which is more likely, that my prayer was answered and I was healed in ten seconds, (as I declared), for each symptom, by Christ whom I believe in, according to the scriptures, OR that it was what chance allowed for AND my own immune system AND my own memory and confirmation bias AND another god. I think schraf missed an important factor on her list (which you seem to have misinterpreted anyway)... Have you ever heard of the "placebo effect"? People have reported being cured or having their symptoms alleviated after given a drug by their doctor - however, what their doctor really had given them was an empty pill without any bioactivity. The strong link of mental/emotional and physical health reveals itself in the placebo effect - people are psychologically convinced they will get better because of the "drug" they are given and their health (or perception of their health) improves. You had a situation where you prayed and quickly felt better - how do we know that this wasn't a self-induced placebo effect? Perhaps you were psychologically (rather than spiritually) convinced that you would get better, and so you did. I'm not trying to belittle your spirituality here - I'm simply asking how you or the anyone else would know the difference. There have been reports that religious activity improves health (specifically praying for one's own health alone or with others, and attending religious services). Though these studies might seem to support your position, once controlled for other factors, religion as a significant factor falls away. It turns out what really helps people get better is a sense of family, community, support, belonging, and self-reflection. It doesn't seem to matter whether these are religious/spiritual or secular when it comes to patient outcomes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2005 6:55 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 65 of 201 (196398)
04-03-2005 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
04-03-2005 10:05 AM
|
|
Prayer effects are a very good place to use scientific investigative techniques. No they're not. Because;
Sure. Tell me more about blind people being healed from their blindness through prayer. Names, dates, doctor reports, scientific papers, etc. Funny I haven't seen anything about it in the papers... LOL! The papers. Do you think God is going to turn up in the papers? Ahahahaha, I never found any truth in those papers Shraff. Oh dear girly!  Hey Shraff, You're being impossible because you haven't fully understood the true nature of what we're dealing with. Science arrives with doubt, which according to God is exactly what you don't need, and infact is the core element of disbelief in God. Jesus could do no miracles in his home town because of doubt. His disciples couldn't force out a demon when without Jesus. Also, you don't look for instances in which faith-events would produce miracles. I've seen photographic proof of miracles. Names and adresses? WHy would I collect them when watching this stuff on tv? That's why you ask, because it would be difficuilt to find these evidences.
Sorry, my bullshit detector won't allow me to do that. Well, that's fair enough. I can understand why you won't want to be thought of as gullible. EVen the bible teaches to be on guard for false prophets.
It is NOT the simplest explanation. It is. Also, u have ignored my logical truths in this topic. I say that misses are bad but you're inconsistent. You will suggest anything in order to answer fro hits. Like multiple big-bangs, invoking answers, whereas the answer is clearly biblical because it SHOWS me how to be healed, I followed that path and so we now know the witness is true.
It explains every possible outcome. Therefore, it explains nothing at all. If an explanation meets all the evidence and explains everything, then it's a good one, as, well, it explains it. Or are you saying that evolution isn't a good explanation? This is your own methodo scientifico probably. Your fear is that I am correct! If it explains it then it's the best explanation with the least entities. I've read the principle of parsimony before you told me anything SHraffy so I'm not lying. I read it, and I can see that God is not simplistic, but rather the true and simplest explanation. I'm not dumb enough to buy into the whole, "God is more complicated" scenario. I'll leave that for other people to fall for. Or is he simplistic? Hmmmm.
How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? That's my little scientist.
and we can do the same kinds of tests which will show activation in the verbal areas of your brain. SSHHHHHRAAAAAAAFFFFFFFFFFF> You're not obtuse, don't pretend to be!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said that I KNOW, (I have the knowledge) that I speak in my mind BEFORE and WITHOUT any evidence or science tests. It doesn't matter if you prove cakes taste good, or that I talk in my mind, because it's too late, I already have the knowledge.
Your problem is that you simply want other people to believe that you have had fantastic experiences based upon nothing but on your word alone. More accurately, I would say I reserve the right to say whether my own experiences were beyond chance and confirmation hoc and post bias,,blrrrr.....yawns, dies.  Hah!
Prayer effects are a very good place to use scientific investigative techniques. That you avoid all scientific investigation into your claim speaks volumes about your fears, I think. I fear God above all else, and him breaking out upon me if I draw near to gaze. You look at this objectively. Well done but it won't work. That's why I'm here telling you it. Prayer, according to what you think it is - is not real prayer. That's my whole point in this topic. Go back and read my first few posts for an explanation of some of these things. Bye for now Shraffy. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2005 11:16 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 10:05 AM | | nator has replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
simple use of a complicated explanation
LOL! The papers. Do you think God is going to turn up in the papers? Ahahahaha, I never found any truth in those papers Shraff. Oh dear girly! Since there are peer-reviewed papers showing the power of prayer in healing, you shouldn't be so ridiculing (not to mention condescending, my dear little boy).
I'm not dumb enough to buy into the whole, "God is more complicated" scenario. I'll leave that for other people to fall for. Mike - I'm not sure why you don't see that "God" is the most complicated explanation that can be given for a scenario. I stub my toe; two of the explanations I come up with: 1) I wasn't paying enough attention to notice someone had moved the coffee table. 2) An infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnicient, undetectable being caused me to stub my toe. Which explanation appears more complicated to you? I think you see "Goddidit" as a non-complicated explanation because it is short, sweet, and can explain everything. But that explanation really ends up explaining nothing, and predicting nothing. What causes AIDS? Goddidit. Why did Frank develop cancer? Goddidit. Why do only some people die from pneumonia? Goddidit. What caused my diarrhea this morning? Goddidit. Why do smokers die younger than non-smokers? Goddidit. You see mike, your God explanation is simple in that it can answer any question. However, it is so complicated that it really answers none of them. If we "simply" used your "complicated" explanation the entire field of medicine would not exist, and our life expectancies would probably be half of what they are today.
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: simple use of a complicated explanation
Hi Pink. Good to see we're sparring again. Hey - no really, I don't say "Goddidit" to everything. I think the "Goddidit" is a strawman Shraff has landed on me on many occasions at the forum. If an explanation meets all the evidence and explains everything, then it's a good one, as, well, it explains it. Or are you saying that evolution doesn't explain everything? In that case I have no good reason to believe in it, as it doesn't explain everything. I certainly wouldn't blema Frank's cancer on God. There is a complex theology pertaining to most people's plights, in the bible and a deep investigation with an open mind will make you realize that sometimes God isn't the least involved in things you might expect to see. I know you're an intelligent guy here at the forum, so I hope you can see my earlier points about prayers being God's will, rather than society - who want to set the criteria, and say "if this and that isn't solved, then there's no God". Essentially the opposite, (their own will), not God's and what he said would happen. But I think even you will know that God is a person of his Word. When he says he'll do something, he sticks to it. For example, he remembere Abraham, Izacc and Jacob when he heared the cries of suffering because of the servitude of his people in Egypt. So this is not a simple issue, as I'm sure you can respect that the bible has a certain outlook pertaining to prayer. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2005 11:07 AM
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Sure. Tell me more about blind people being healed from their blindness through prayer. Names, dates, doctor reports, scientific papers, etc. Funny I haven't seen anything about it in the papers... quote:
LOL! The papers. Do you think God is going to turn up in the papers? Ahahahaha, I never found any truth in those papers Shraff. Oh dear girly!
Wouldn't a report of prayer giving sight to the blind make some newspaper, somewhere?
quote:
Hey Shraff, You're being impossible because you haven't fully understood the true nature of what we're dealing with.
Obviously. That's why I keep asking all of these questions, which you keep refusing to answer.
quote:
Science arrives with doubt , which according to God is exactly what you don't need, and infact is the core element of disbelief in God. Jesus could do no miracles in his home town because of doubt. His disciples couldn't force out a demon when without Jesus.
So, I have to believe before I will believe.
quote:
Also, you don't look for instances in which faith-events would produce miracles. I've seen photographic proof of miracles.
Like what?
quote:
Names and adresses? WHy would I collect them when watching this stuff on tv? That's why you ask, because it would be difficuilt to find these evidences.
Then don't expect anyone to take your claims of "miracles" ans anything other than you talking out of your ass.
Sorry, my bullshit detector won't allow me to do that. quote:
Well, that's fair enough. I can understand why you won't want to be thought of as gullible. EVen the bible teaches to be on guard for false prophets.
Worse than being though of as gullible is actually being gullible.
It is NOT the simplest explanation. quote:
It is.
Becoming belligerant only indicates to me that you cannot support your argument. Explain how you are using the fewest assumptions when you say that your God is answering your prayers. I will repeat my explanation from my previous post until you address it like a grown up:
It frustrates me to no end when you continue to misuse this concept, and I am begining to think you ARE a liar because I have explained this to you many times. The "simplest" explanation is the one which answers the question using the fewest unsupported assumptions. The fact that you make the gargantuan unsupported assumption that your particular God is healing you, even though there are many mundane factors which could also explain the phenomena, means that your explanation is very, very complicated. It is the opposite of "simple". It is NOT the simplest explanation. It is S I M P L I S T I C. It explains every possible outcome. Therefore, it explains nothing at all. You say that the explanation of "God healed me" is the simlpest explanation? OK. Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell? See how simple, and useful, your "explanation" is? It explains every possible outcome. Therefore, it explains nothing at all. quote:
This is your own methodo scientifico probably. Your fear is that I am correct!
No, I am TRYING TO GET YOU TO GIVE ME INFORMATION SO I CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS BUT YOU REFUSE TO DO SO.
quote:
If it explains it then it's the best explanation with the least entities.
Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell?
quote:
I've read the principle of parsimony before you told me anything SHraffy so I'm not lying. I read it, and I can see that God is not simplistic, but rather the true and simplest explanation.
Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell?
quote:
I'm not dumb enough to buy into the whole, "God is more complicated" scenario. I'll leave that for other people to fall for. Or is he simplistic? Hmmmm.
Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell?
How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? quote:
That's my little scientist.
Let's say that "God healed you". How? How did God heal you? What mechanism did God use? How has our understanding of the nature of healing been increased by using this explanation? What predictions about future healing can we make using the "God healed mike" explanation? Is there any time in which the "God healed mike" explanation is ever not applicable to a healing? How can we tell? also, I'd really like an answer to this part of my last post, now asked for twice:
...except that you have ignored all of the factors which are not "God" or supernatural at all in deciding if your prayers were answered or not. quote:
That's because there are no other factors.
Are you sure? The things you prayed for could not possibly have come about except by the intervention of your particular God? How do you determine that this is the case? What mundane factors could have influenced the outcome? If you come up with a hit rate greater than chance would suggest, then I would say that there is something to this prayer. quote:
But what is this chance? How do I know what chance would allow?
It's MATH mike. MATHEMATICS. PROBABILITY. ODDS. Take a statistics course and you will understand better. I found this site on this site on calculating basic probability Of course, it deals with extremely clear cut cases, such as the odds of pulling a red or a blue marble out of a bag. The problems with prayer requests is that they are generally much more susceptible to interpretation after the fact, because they are not anywhere near specific enough. That's because my specific prayers have been answered which shows that God is infact answering them, No, it doesn't show that. It shows that something is affecting the outcome. See, you cannot define or detect or show anyone this God that you say you are praying to. We have no way of knowing what is making the things happen, only that they are happening. quote:
and my perception of God is that he answers my prayers according to how the bible says he would.
Hmmm, "according to how the Bible said he would"? That phrase send up a red flag to me because we all know how vague and open to interpretation the Bible is. What, exactly, do you mean by "and my perception of God is that he answers my prayers according to how the bible says he would"? How, exactly, should God be anwering your prayers? This explanation should be as precise and specific as possible, otherwise we are heading into rationalization and post hoc reasoniong land. quote:
You make complaints about "prayer effects investigation not being good science", yet you completely ignored all of the science-based investigative questions I asked you in my last message!
The following are additional points and specific, direct questions to you which you ignored from my last message:
quote:
I listen to all of you, I really do. But what you don't realise is that these incidents outweigh all of these things you teach me.
How so? Upon what evidence do you base this claim? (Lemme guess...your own self-reports, right?) quote:
Which is more likely, that my prayer was answered and I was healed in ten seconds, (as I declared), for each symptom, by Christ whom I believe in, according to the scriptures, OR that it was what chance allowed for AND my own immune system AND my own memory and confirmation bias AND another god.
That's not a fair comparison. My list was not dependent upon ALL of the items being included, but yours is. Here's what I wrote:
quote:
Or, people heal at different rates because of various biological and environmental factors, like individual immune system variations, nutrition and hydration, type of virus, amount of sleep they get, stress, exposure to pollution, etc. etc, etc. Which is more likely, the above list which is clearly observed and documented and everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can agree on, or that your God is sometimes healing people quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes a kind of medium speed, sometimes not at all?
Try again. quote:
Notice how many unecessary entities you induce in order to explain the situation,
Sorry, read what I wrote more carefully. It is you who are twisting what I said to change the analogy. Now, please answer the question: Which is more likely?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2005 11:02 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
knowing the result
Good to see we're sparring again. Yep - I was glad to see you came back... Also, I wasn't trying to claim that you use "Goddidit" as a universal explanation - I was trying to show that "Goddidit" is a very complicated, and very poor explanation when it comes to actually explaining physical phenomena and doing anything about them (like curing disease).
If an explanation meets all the evidence and explains everything, then it's a good one, as, well, it explains it. But not really - I still have a problem with this statement. Perhaps it "explains everything" in a philosophical or spiritual sense, but that doesn't really help me determine if a potential drug is going to cause dangerous toxicity in a subset of patients. Some people claim that String Theory may be the "universal theory" that encompasses everything - even if this turns out to be the case, String Theory as I understand it won't be able to help us cure disease, or develop disease-resistant crops, or build safer vehicles, or solve many issues in scientific study where "smaller" theories will do a much better job towards explanation and prediction. Your God explanation is along the lines of such a "universal theory" - it works for you to explain everything, but it is so abstract and all encompassing that it explains nothing.
Or are you saying that evolution doesn't explain everything? In that case I have no good reason to believe in it, as it doesn't explain everything. The Theory of Evolution explains very, very, very little about the natural universe. If you only believe in things that explain everything, than there is absolutely nothing in science or the natural world that you believe.
I certainly wouldn't blema Frank's cancer on God. There is a complex theology pertaining to most people's plights, in the bible and a deep investigation with an open mind will make you realize that sometimes God isn't the least involved in things you might expect to see. I guess I'm confused then. God is the explanation for everything, but he is not the explanation for Frank's cancer? and He isn't the least involved in many things? (God is involved in everything but not everything. Sounds like your complicated "simple" explanation is getting more and more complicated...) My interest in the thread was spurned by your comment that you knew you were rapidly healed through prayer. - If "God isn't the least involved in things you might expect to see", then how can you be so sure that He was involved in your rapid recovery? Or that He wasn't involved in Frank's affliction?
I know you're an intelligent guy here at the forum, so I hope you can see my earlier points about prayers being God's will, rather than society - who want to set the criteria, and say "if this and that isn't solved, then there's no God". Essentially the opposite, (their own will), not God's and what he said would happen. Okay, but haven't you been consistently stating that your prayers have been answered? It seems to me that you have been making claims about setting the criteria and knowing them fulfilled by God. The important point for me: My primary issue with many of your statements is your claim definitively know that your prayers were answered. I don't believe you can separate a "true answer" from a "coincidental" or "self-fulfilling" one. An answer of simply "I just know" or "faith" seems a circular argument to me - I know because I know because I know because.... (Also, if you get a chance you may want to peruse posts 63 & 64 if you missed them, they may be of interest).
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: knowing the result
Hi, the weight of burdens has increased. (postings to me). Forgive my short reply, for now.
I guess I'm confused then. God is the explanation for everything, but he is not the explanation for Frank's cancer? and He isn't the least involved in many things? I think I always get asked this one. Did you read in the thread where I said that it might be God's will to NOT heal someone, but that doesn't mean God gave them the disease? I think you'll agree that logically I can make that valid difference known. I think you've mis-understood my rantings. I meant that God is the simplest explaination for all factors involved, in my answered prayers. I didn't mean that God is the answer "for everything", as that's the "Goddidit" strawman I am not infact arguing. You're right that I say that God is the answer for everything in the sense of everything in the universe came about because he created it.
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
knowing vs believing
(No problem - take your time if you're stretched thin.)
I meant that God is the simplest explaination for all factors involved, in my answered prayers. I didn't mean that God is the answer "for everything", as that's the "Goddidit" strawman I am not infact arguing. Right - that's what I was trying to get to at the end of my post: How do you know your prayers were answered? If you have evidence that God answered your prayers, perhaps God is the "simplest explanation". If you have no evidence except the fact that you prayed, explanations based on psychology (placebo effect) or physiology (immune system) are simpler explanations given the evidence. Your "evidence" is likely faith - if so, we can conclude this discussion (on good terms) as reaching another science vs. faith impasse. However, if you want to discuss naturalistic evidence for answered prayers I'd be interested in continuing.
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: knowing vs believing
I think I look at this epistemologically. Apparently, we can know things without evidence. What I mean by that in simple terms, is that if you slapped me on the face, and five minutes later, I "knew" you slapped me, I infact have no evidence, yet the knowledge remains. In this day and age, that means very little because of the authoratitive position that science holds. So in a way, because of lies, and false witnesses, and biases, we throw the epistemological baby out with the bathwater. There is still very valid scenarios of epistemological truths pertaining to actual events. As with the slap. Shraff, and even probably you will understandably only be satisfied with empirical evidence, and a tangible truth. This is understandable, but you have to realize that the very nature of the truth gives only a personal knowledge to the believer. This means that if you yourself underwent healing in ten seconds for each sympton, then if somebody suggested these other things accounted for it, you'd laugh at them. And this would be because of the truths of the past also. We collect circumstances beyond coincidence, and add them to our faith. And even we only collect them if they are worthy. If anything remember that point, that we only collect them, if they are worthy, and specific. True, the vague and confirmation biased, post-hoc rationalizer is guilty if he asks for a sign and the television goes off. But if he asks for healing of cancer, and gets it? Well, would you be convinced? My testimony is true but apparently Shraff thinks I'm talking out my ass = futility for mike to continue in this topic.
If you have no evidence except the fact that you prayed, explanations based on psychology (placebo effect) or physiology (immune system) are simpler explanations given the evidence. From your standpoint I guess that might be true. But my second prayer was in anger. Also, can belief act as a placebo? What about in instances outside of the body? Like Christ on the plate? What about life-changes that are out of our control. I testify of all these things, otherwise I would be lying to you. And so, this Shraffy-happy list of what it could be, should have the most likely scenario on it, that I followed my biblical instructions and got the desired effect. A bit like a prediction of science almost.
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
Re: knowing vs believing
if you slapped me on the face, and five minutes later, I "knew" you slapped me, I infact have no evidence, yet the knowledge remains. But the knowledge is not necessarily true. By example, a paranoid schizophrenic may have the knowledge that he was slapped, but that does not make it true. I have had a few people very close to me have hallucinations related to medical problems; these hallucinations seem like "knowledge" to them. My post-stroke grandfather has "knowledge" of huge parts of his life history that never happened, even though he is otherwise generally sane and lucid. Does he "know" the "truth"?
True, the vague and confirmation biased, post-hoc rationalizer is guilty if he asks for a sign and the television goes off. But if he asks for healing of cancer, and gets it? Well, would you be convinced? No - but rather than try to give my own reasons, I'll ask the following (I'm particularly interested to see your answer). What is the specific difference between the two cases you describe?
Also, can belief act as a placebo? I believe so, and there is at least a small body of scientific evidence to suggest that this is the case. One general theme of these studies seems to be - People benefit medically from "prayer" only when they know they are being prayed for. That is, the "prayee" must be psychologically aware that prayer is happening on their behalf, otherwise they receive no benefit. If prayer worked purely in a spiritual sense, it should benefit the patient regardless of their ignorance to the praying. I think that is very strong evidence that prayer does NOT work via spiritual means.
And so, this Shraffy-happy list of what it could be, should have the most likely scenario on it, that I followed my biblical instructions and got the desired effect. A bit like a prediction of science almost. But you yourself state that you would have just as likely gotten no effect, or the opposite the desired effect. Therefore it is not at all like a prediction of science, since your "prediction" holds true for any possible outcome, no matter how good or bad.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2005 1:35 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: knowing vs believing
quote:
I think I look at this epistemologically. Apparently, we can know things without evidence. What I mean by that in simple terms, is that
if you slapped me on the face, and five minutes later, I "knew" you slapped me, I infact have no evidence, yet the knowledge remains.
No, both people are witnesses in this case. Also, we know and have much general knowledge that humans can, and do, slap one another's faces. It is not any sort of extraordinary or unusual event. Your claims of answered prayers are both extraordinary and unusual. Additionally, we have no evidence for the entity "God", whom you say is responsible for answering your prayers, nor do we have any evidence for the means or mechanism by which this entity is able to influence events in the natural world. So, there is a great deal that we can say we know about humans slapping each other's faces, but almost nothing we can say we know about your God, and if he heals people or not. The analogy to human events is a poor one.
quote:
We collect circumstances beyond coincidence,
How do you determine if it's "beyond coincidence?" You use statistics. That's why the field of Statistics exists, mike. If you simply say it's "beyond coincidence", without doing the math, then you are probably falling prey to all manner of post hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
|
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: 02-25-2005
|
God in a bottle
Pink Sasquatch writes: Well, this essentially has been done a few times, analyzing the "power of prayer" on disease outcomes. Basically, no significant effect of prayer has been found in these studies, with a couple of ... I wasn’t referring to the power of prayer in that way when I mentioned coincidence. Prayer as identified in these studies indicates a cause and effect mechanism whose results could be measured, outcomes predicted, verdict affirmed. Can God be put in a bottle? It should be no surprise that clinical studies such as these would show no effect of prayer. How could it be otherwise? How would it be possible for these studies to show a direct, positive, repeatable correlation between prayer and answered prayers? For if the studies prove, beyond statistical doubt, that a certain quantity of petitioners praying simultaneously could produce positive results for the object of the prayer requests. Then data could be accumulated that would allow the development of formulas for predicting, with a certain percentage of accuracy or probability, how effective a given prayer session will be. Where is God in all this? Surely He would be aware that His actions would lead to the formulation of the predictive theorems before He grants the prayer request. Would He do it anyway? Maybe, I certainly could be wrong about this, but IMHO I suspect that when and if God chooses to step back into human history such that his actions are easily recognizable and incontrovertible proof is given of His existence, it would be more significant than as a statistic. This message has been edited by Monk, Sun, 04-03-2005 05:37 PM
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein
|
™ Version 4.2