Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 114 of 201 (196900)
04-05-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
04-05-2005 10:09 AM


schrafinator writes:
Well, not everyone believes in the same way, do they? You are the one saying that the vast majority have "profound respect" for God, etc. Those are specific claims about the nature of their belief, which I think you should at least try to back up.
True, not everyone who believes, believes in the same way, but they still fundamentally believe. Is it not possible to categorize people into one of two categories: those that do and those that do not believe?
If it is possible to do so, then I would surmise that those people who do believe have a respect for God. Perhaps not necessarily a "profound" respect but still at its core a respect nonetheless. Would this be a fair statment?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:09 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:27 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 118 of 201 (196906)
04-05-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
04-05-2005 10:27 AM


quote:
What do you mean by "respect for God"?
By respect, I mean someone who honors God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:38 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 121 of 201 (196909)
04-05-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by nator
04-05-2005 10:38 AM


No

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:38 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:16 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 122 of 201 (196917)
04-05-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by pink sasquatch
04-04-2005 5:46 PM


Re: God in a bottle
pink sasquatch writes:
It has been otherwise. Clinical studies have been published demonstrating a positive effect of prayer on outcome, when the person whose outcome was in question was aware of the prayer or took part in the prayer.
I wasn't referring to noetic clinical studies but to "intercessionary" prayer studies or prayer by a group of people who are in a remote location and where the recipient is unaware of the prayer group on their behalf.
pink sasquatch writes:
In order to separate natural from supernatural effects, studies were set up where the patient and medical staff did not know who was being prayed for. In these studies no legitimate significant difference has been found yet.
That's correct and is what I was referring to.
pink sasquatch writes:
If God lets people die of disease that He would have otherwise saved, simply to avoid the possibility of registering a statistical anomaly in a small clinical trial, then God is not a very nice guy...
As I stated upthread, if we are only speaking of a statistical anomaly in a small clinical trial, then that is not going to convince any large group of people of the existence of God beyond a resonable doubt based on physical evidence, so it is inconsequential and would not cause God to act in any way other than He already is.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-04-2005 5:46 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:22 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 131 of 201 (196929)
04-05-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by nator
04-05-2005 11:16 AM


quote:
In order to fit all of the people you want to into the group of "bright minds" who also believe in God, I think you are going to have to leave it that vague.
But any concept can be shown to be vague if it is parsed sufficiently fine. Using that technique, then it would not be possible to draw inferences on anything. Bill Clinton showed how effective this can be when he said, It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:16 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nator, posted 04-06-2005 7:41 AM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 132 of 201 (196931)
04-05-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
04-05-2005 11:22 AM


Re: God in a bottle
schrafinator writes:
So, what if someone did a very large study and we still saw no difference? What would you think of there being no detectable effect?
But that's the point. There have been large intercessory prayer studies that show no appreciable effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by nator, posted 04-06-2005 7:45 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 163 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 10:13 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 136 of 201 (197103)
04-05-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Citizzzen
04-05-2005 9:44 PM


Re: One person's spin is another person's rinse...
citizzzen writes:
No, it really depends on what is being prayed for. Complete spontaneous remission of some advanced form of cancer would not be a coincidence. Besides, my point is that whenever someone survives a tragedy, they thank God. By contrast, the families of the survivors take heart knowing that their loved one is with God, who didn't save them here on earth because they were needed in heaven. What is the atheist corollary to that?
I'm not sure I understand. Why does it depend on what is being prayed for.
If a believer proclaimed that their prayers were answered, regardless of the prayer request, an atheist would not declare Divine intervention. Our atheist would, out of necessity to their belief (or lack thereof), find another explanation, any other explanation. The most common one used is mere chance, or luck.
OTOH, if a believer did not receive an answer to their prayer request, then our atheist friend would use that result as proof of the futility of prayer and encourage our believer to stop waisting his time.
So as I stated in the previous post, with this spin our atheist thinks he can never be wrong about the absence of God.
Citizzzen writes:
Can I have an example of a set of occurences, happeningon a regular basis, in quick succession that are obviously suernatural in origin? Perhaps I missed this happenign on the evening news...
You assume that the only way in which God could or would make His presence known is through the media in some kind of global photo op. Atheist will never understand that God does not operate that way. (At least not in recent times)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Citizzzen, posted 04-05-2005 9:44 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Citizzzen, posted 04-05-2005 10:43 PM Monk has replied
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2005 10:45 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 160 of 201 (197605)
04-08-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Citizzzen
04-05-2005 10:43 PM


No pixies
Citizzzen writes:
People claim that UFO's, Bigfoot, and any number of supernatural occurrences exist. I am sure we can come up with a couple of examples neither of us thinks are real. Clearly their belief does not convince you.
I don’t know what these comments have to do with prayer request.
Citizzzen writes:
So, when people claim that their prayers are answered, yes atheists are likely to doubt it.
That comment is the biggest understatement I’ve seen on this forum
Citizzzen writes:
Now, let me turn this around for a moment... Do you believe the prayers of Hindus, Theist Buddhists, and Muslims are answered?
I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them.
Citizzzen writes:
If so, who do you believe is answering them?
If they say that God is answering their prayers, who am I to say He is not?
Citizzzen writes:
So, first{SP} you say that atheists refuse to acknowledge that some coincidences are simply to uncanny not to be divinely inspired but when I ask for example, you say that God doesn't work that way.
I said God doesn’t work that way in response to your sarcasm when you said Perhaps I missed this happening{SP} on the evening news...
Both you and crashfrog have asked for an example of a coincidence and I’ll provide one. But not one necessarily caused by God. In fact, I am not interested in determining the cause of the coincidence. I am only interested in determining whether the sum total of coincidences constitute a phenomenon that is beyond chance or luck.
So then here is your example:
Suppose you are driving on the highway, its a nice day, and you are humming a song. The kind of song that runs around inside your head for no apparent reason. Maybe its a song you recently heard elsewhere and liked the tune.
Then you reach over and turn on the car’s radio and the same song is playing. That’s a simple type of coincidence. Perhaps you have experienced it. The coincidence in and of itself means nothing. So you shrug if off and don’t think of it any further.
The next day the same thing occurs. This time with a different song. Again you are riding in your car, switch on the radio and there is the song that has been playing in your head. Now this is mildly quirky, a bit uncanny perhaps, but not entirely impossible. Just another odd coincidence.
You think well, maybe this is happening because you have subconsciously memorized the preprogrammed list of songs at the radio station. That’s possible, except you’ve changed the channel each day.
So how many days does this event need to occur before it would no longer be considered a coincidence? How many times before the statistical probability is beyond mere chance? 3 days? 4, 5?
That’s the question I would like to know and I’m not interested in speculating as to the cause. I don’t care to hear any sarcasms related to magic pixies casting spells.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Citizzzen, posted 04-05-2005 10:43 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Citizzzen, posted 04-09-2005 12:42 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 164 of 201 (197672)
04-08-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by nator
04-08-2005 10:13 AM


Re: God in a bottle
I said:
quote:
Very true. Inquiring and bright minds have worked hard over the generations to understand all sorts of medical and technological problems to make life easier. Agree 100%.
scrafinator writes:
Please note here that you are still with me, talking only of those inquiring and bright minds involved in the medical profession.
Notice that you are already moving the goal posts by talking about the "broader category of people" who can be described as "bright minds".
Wrong. My original quote only used the term bright minds. There was no other qualifier. You have subsequently narrowed the definition to scientists and then you further narrowed it to only include those scientist working on medical advances.
The quote above contains technological which includes all technology not just medical. It is you who has moved the goalpost by narrowing my original term bright minds.
scrafinator writes:
I have always been talking ONLY about people who are involved in medical advances.
Perhaps, but since you were responding to my original post and did not create an independent post of your own, it is you who has moved the goalposts not me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 10:13 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 5:57 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 167 of 201 (197771)
04-08-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nator
04-08-2005 5:57 PM


Re: God in a bottle
schrafinator writes:
...in what way should I have known that you were actually talking about all people, and not only those involved in medical advances?
Because I said medical and technological advances. Perhaps I should have said and "other" technological advances.
But I also said:
quote:
But your next line is where we differ. You cannot possibly say that God was not involved and have it carry any weight. You don't know the motivations and beliefs of each of these generations of people and the inspirations that served as the genesis for their great technological breakthroughs.
I would have thought my meaning clear from the use of "generations of people".
At any rate, do you now understand the group of people I was referring to and if so, do you have a further question?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 5:57 PM nator has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 169 of 201 (197836)
04-09-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Citizzzen
04-09-2005 12:42 AM


It is a hypothetical, nothing more.
Citizzzan writes:
I would certainly agree with you that this seems like a lot more than a coincidence. However, since I do not believe in any divine force, or magic, or other non-straight forward forces in the world, I would have to try to postulate a real world reason for why that happened, and then see if I can test the theory.
Well let’s give it a go shall we? What are some real world reasons? Can you think of any? Here's one that comes to mind. Suppose there is another radio in the back seat that just so happens to be on and at such a low volume that it is only audible on the subconcience level. The driver would actually hear the song before turning on the dash board radio.
Are there any others?
Citizzzan writes:
My point being that, yes, an atheist would not simply "believe" the claims of Divine intervention, but since lots of people make lots of claims, why should s/he simply believe any of them?
S/he shouldn’t believe any of them. An atheists relies solely on proof from the physical world because they believe that is all there is.
Citizzan writes:
Especially when the claim includes an implicit belief in a supernatural force? More importantly, what makes your claims of Divine intervention any more credible than people who say they have been visited by Aliens?
I wasn’t making any claims of Divine intervention in the hypothesis. I was specifically trying to avoid that. We were speaking of probabilities.
Citizzan writes:
If someone made that claim, you and I would probably both be skeptical. In the case of the power of prayer, I am still skeptical.
The measure of your skepticism determines the strength of your atheistic convictions.
Citizzan writes:
Now, are you claiming that this, or a similar coincidence is happening to you? If not, this is an interesting hypothetical, but I don't see where it takes us.
It is a hypothetical, nothing more.
Citizzan writes:
Yes, there are events that atheists can not explain. That doesn't mean they are going to throw out all of their experiences and suddenly believe in a largely unbelievable story (to atheists) simply because they can't explain something...
Why should they throw out anything? Why should they do anything suddenly? Belief is a journey that often takes time. Remember in the hypothesis? At first, the driver shrugs if off and doesn’t think of it any further.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Citizzzen, posted 04-09-2005 12:42 AM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 3:58 AM Monk has replied
 Message 177 by Citizzzen, posted 04-10-2005 4:38 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 171 of 201 (197880)
04-09-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by NosyNed
04-09-2005 3:58 AM


Re: Coincidence?
NosyNed writes:
To determine how many time this would have to occur before it becomes statistically significant the following has to be done.
Ok NosyNed, here are the input parameters.
quote:
How many people are humming a tune before they turn on a car radio?
There is one person humming the tune. The driver is alone in the car each time. After the 2nd or 3rd time one might assume the driver would be sufficiently curious to want a witness. But for the time being let’s say only the driver is involved.
quote:
What are the total number of tunes that they might be humming and the radio may play? (this is not simply the total number of all tunes -- remember there is such a thing as "top 40").
Hmmm. I’m not a disc jockey so my estimates may be quite a bit off. Let’s assume that there are 10 possible radio stations available to the driver and each day the driver selects a new station.
Let’s further assume each station has 10 preprogrammed tracts of songs that could be played throughout the day with each track having 10 songs. Now it is true that top 40 hits would get more air time than other songs, (except for specialty stations such as golden oldies), so lets eliminate 3 of the potential radio stations. All 10 stations are still there for selection, but let’s not count potential songs on 3 out of 10 stations.
quote:
How many of these people should get a hit at any time?
There is only the driver so only one.
quote:
Given these numbers of people how frequently might we expect 2, 5, 10 in row from all of the people.
Let’s assume this event happens once each day for 5 days in a row.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 3:58 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 1:57 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 173 of 201 (197925)
04-09-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by NosyNed
04-09-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Coincidence?
NosyNed writes:
No, there is not one person humming a tune. There are 1,000's or 10,000's in north america. If you don't consider that this is exactly like being astonished that someone won the lottery with odds of many millions to one against that number being picked. WIth many people humming and turning on radios someone has some perhaps not to small chance of getting several hits in a row.
I'm not trying to perpetrate a scam and I'm not selling stock. You asked for a list of information that would be necessary to determine probabilities and I gave them to you.
If more than one person is considered, then all of the potential songs in those individual locations and the radio stations in proximity to those locations would need to be considered also wouldn't they?
Then, is it your opinion that this probability cannot be determined if only one person is considered?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 1:57 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 4:07 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 175 of 201 (197955)
04-09-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by NosyNed
04-09-2005 4:07 PM


Re: Coincidence?
I didn’t ask what is the probability that this will happen somewhere nor did I ask what is the probability that this could happen to a particular individual. We start with the hypothetical which means that hypothetically speaking it did happen, it’s a past event.
So given the set of circumstances, was the series of events outside the realm of statistical randomness?
If you don’t know or don’t believe it is possible to determine, then just say so. But let’s stick with the driver in the car already presented rather than introducing the lottery circumstance. I don’t believe they are completely analogous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2005 4:07 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by NosyNed, posted 04-10-2005 2:29 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 179 of 201 (198345)
04-11-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by NosyNed
04-10-2005 2:29 AM


Re: Probabilities
NosyNed writes:
I think it is possible to determine the probabilities involved and therefore an estimate of how statistically unlikely this event is. Getting the 'right' answer would be very difficult since we will have to estimate a lot of things that we are not going to want to spend the effort of actually measuring.
True, I don’t necessarily believe there is a ‘right’ answer anyway.
NosyNed writes:
Let's make up some more numbers:
There are 10 million individuals turning on their radios while humming and they do this 5 times per day.
That suggests, in my simple minded view, that a 5 song hit will not happen for about 10,000 days or 30 years.
I think it is safe to say (based on these estimates) that as many as 5 in a row is pretty dammed unlikely.
Yes, it is very unlikely. No need to crunch numbers any further unless crashfrog wants to.
NosyNed writes:
But we have to be sure that we are given the precise set of circumstances.
A huge issue is:
Are we asking what the odds are of it happening to one pre-selected individual or are we asking what the odds are of it happening so some individual out of many?
It is a huge issue. Whether this series of events happens to one person or to many. But at this point, I would like to respond to Citizzzen's post using the information you and I have been discussing and hopefully I will answer this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by NosyNed, posted 04-10-2005 2:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024