Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 166 of 201 (197729)
04-08-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Monk
04-08-2005 11:34 AM


Re: God in a bottle
quote:
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.
No, that's not correct.
I responded to Crashfrog in message #87, where I said this:
It irks me to no end when I see some family in a hospital on the television praising God for saving the life of their loved one who just had some major surgery. They declare it "a miracle!"!
Meanwhile, it was the thousands and thousands of inquiring and bright human minds who have worked hard over the generations to understand medical problems and develop technology and surgical techniques to make such things possible.
It wasn't God, OK? It was human effort.
You replied to my independent post, not the other way around.
Goodness, you could have just looked at the thread like I just did.
Anyway, let me ask you something...
When you said this:
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%.
In response to my saying this:
Meanwhile, it was the thousands and thousands of inquiring and bright human minds who have worked hard over the generations to understand medical problems and develop technology and surgical techniques to make such things possible.
...in what way should I have known that you were actually talking about all people, and not only those involved in medical advances?

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson
There is no greater threat to civil liberties than an efficient government. -jar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Monk, posted 04-08-2005 11:34 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Monk, posted 04-08-2005 7:37 PM nator has not replied
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 04-11-2005 6:34 PM nator has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 201 (197826)
04-09-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Monk
04-08-2005 2:34 AM


Don't be dissing pixies!
"...I don’t know what these comments (People claim that UFO's, Bigfoot, and any number of supernatural occurrences exist) have to do with prayer request..."
They have to do with your comment that, "...If a believer proclaimed that their prayers were answered, regardless of the prayer request, an atheist would not declare Divine intervention..."
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? 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? 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.
"...I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. (Hindus, Theist Buddhists, and Muslims)..."
But you don't automatically believe them, yes? So, we are again on the same side. People from other religions claim that their Gods (Some of whom are mutually exclusive with your God) are answering their prayers and you are, if not skeptical, at least not willing to immediately believe them. So, what's so strange that atheists would add your claims to that list?
"...If they say that God is answering their prayers, who am I to say He is not..."
If they say that their God is the one, true God and he is answering their prayers, would you agree with that also? If not, we are back to the same argument. A believer claims his/her prayers are being answered by their God, and you don't believe them.
"...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...and you are humming a song....Then you reach over and turn on the car’s radio and the same song is playing...The next day the same thing occurs...This time with a different song...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..."
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.
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. 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...
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Monk, posted 04-08-2005 2:34 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:37 AM Citizzzen has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 170 of 201 (197850)
04-09-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Monk
04-09-2005 2:37 AM


Coincidence?
Are there any others?
Yes, the idea that this is an unlikely event is being miscalculated very badly.
To determine how many time this would have to occur before it becomes statistically significant the following has to be done.
How many people are humming a tune before they turn on a car radio?
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").
How many of these people should get a hit at any time?
Given these numbers of people how frequently might we expect 2, 5, 10 in row from all of the people.
This is a slightly more out of the ordinary example of the picking up the phone to find that the person you were going to phone is on the line which hasn't rung yet.
Given the number of times that you phone a small subset of all possible people this is almost guarenteed to happen every so often. It is not a surprise or a mystery or psychic or any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:37 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 10:18 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 172 of 201 (197923)
04-09-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Monk
04-09-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Coincidence?
here 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.
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.
The lack of understanding of this is what supports a nice little fraud in the area of stock promotion.
You recieve a promotion for a newsletter that lists 5 stocks to buy. The newsletter is very expensive (say 1,000 $ for 4 quarterly issues). You ignore it.
Some weeks later you recieve another promotion showing how those 5 stocks have gone up substantially since the last promotion. It also give you 5 more stocks to buy.
Guess what? A few weeks later another promotion points out that the second set of stock also went up and you would have more than paid for the subscription if you had only bought them. More spectacular results are suggested (with all the usual disclaimers in the fine print).
This is a scam that is actually perpetrated. How is it done?
Another way to look at this is:
How many times in your life, have you been humming when you turned the radio on? How many of these were "misses" and how many were "hits"? What are the odds of any one hit?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-09-2005 01:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 10:18 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:28 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 174 of 201 (197937)
04-09-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Monk
04-09-2005 2:28 PM


Re: Coincidence?
The probability that this will happen somewhere is one figure which requires a consideration of all the possible events.
The probability that this will happen to one person who is preselected is another figure.
However, that one individual that matched the broadcast songs was not preselected. They were selected after the event occured.
Which is really surprising? Mr. Smith won the lottery or Mr. Smith won the lottery after having been written up in newspaper headlines as next weeks lottery winner.
The first case probability calculations requires knowledge of all the different possible events. The second requires only that we know the odds against Mr. Smith's single lottery number being picked.
The probability that someone will win the lottery is, on many draw days, pretty near 1. The chances that Mr. Smith's number will come up after he has been selected as the winner is several millions to one. If it happened even once one might begin to suspect fraud in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:28 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 7:50 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 176 of 201 (198005)
04-10-2005 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Monk
04-09-2005 7:50 PM


Probabilities
While hoping that a statistician will show up here I'll go over this in more detail.
We start with the hypothetical which means that hypothetically speaking it did happen, it’s a past event.
This will seem a bit odd but be patient it is relevant. The event happened by then it has a probability of 1.
I think it is possible to determine the probabilites 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.
Let's have a go at that and while doing so see if there is any connection to the lottery circumstance.
Let's make up some numbers to start with:
If the station plays 100 different songs and an individual hums one of those at random the odds that a single trail will produce a hit is, obviously, 1 in 100.
I suggest that the individual is very likely to be humming one of the pop songs (the 100) as that is why that person picks that station and the ones played are the most likely to be hummed.
(hidden in here is a chance that the 100 songs are biased with the "top 40" played more often than other and the individual being more likely to be humming one of those but I am ignoring that for the moment).
If we take raw probabilities the odds of hitting the same song in only 5 trails (one after the other with no intervening misses) are (1/100 )^5
This is obviously a terribly small probability(about 1 in 10^-10). It is exactly like the probability of picking 5 numbers on a lottery when there are 50 numbers to choose from ( 1/50 ) ^5 as an example.
So the chances of one particular individual getting 5 song hits are not very large.
The issue is that you are asking what the probability that this will happen somewhere. You did not specify the individual in advance so the events have to consider ALL the individuals.
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 happend 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.
So given the set of circumstances, was the series of events outside the realm of statistical randomness?
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 preselected individual or are we asking what the odds are of it happening so some individual out of many?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 7:50 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Monk, posted 04-11-2005 3:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 201 (198107)
04-10-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Monk
04-09-2005 2:37 AM


So far it is a confusing tangent, nothing more.
At the risk of sounding admin. like, I don't get how this relates to prayer. I thought the point was that Atheists always try to find "real world" explanations for things, but that sometimes coincidences happen so often, and so repeatedly that "coincidence" just doesn't cut it.
Crashfrog and I both asked for examples of the "coincidences" that Atheists were dismissing, but were first told that God doesn't work that way (anymore...) Now we are debating a completely hypothetical top 40... I am not a stickler for relevance, but if this is an elaborate set up to make a point, I am ready for the point to be made...
Oh, and to contribute to the current tangent, when I was in college our local townie radio station was completely automated. As such, sometimes a song would play and then a pre-recorded DJ would back sell the previous song and announce the next song. Other times, the songs would just play back to back. Because it was all pre-recorded and programmed, it was like listening to an album, where one song would end and you would immediately start humming the next song before it started. I don't know if this proves/disproves anything, but it tells you to avoid Central PA if you want innovative music selection!
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Monk, posted 04-09-2005 2:37 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Monk, posted 04-11-2005 3:48 PM Citizzzen has replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 178 of 201 (198339)
04-11-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jar
04-08-2005 10:04 AM


Re: Moving on down the river.
Then there are the prayers for some specific result and that's where I think you're having the biggest problem.
If you want to take one of my OP examples...say the Irag war...where there are plenty of personal prayers flying about the world everyday for soldiers to live through the day, not to be mangled, and maybe just to make it home alive. And at a rate of nearly one a day, a U.S. soldier dies (much higher than that if you start counting Iragi units and civilians), and potentially each death can be matched to multiple prayers that request a different out come. So obviously, this prayer, that your (son/husband/father/daughter/mother/wife) make it home alive, was not answered the way you wanted it to be...if at all.
If you spend an honest amount of time in the other types of prayers we have mentioned, and you ask God to protect your loved one, and then that doesn't happen...what do you think? Did God let you down? Did you pray incorrectly? Maybe you just didn't have enough faith?
How do you reconcile, if you claim God is accepting your praise, listening when you just want to talk, and even at times offering up guidance, but when you ask for something tangible and extremely important to you, God shrugs you off?

It's not selling out if nobody's buying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 04-08-2005 10:04 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 04-11-2005 4:05 PM clpMINI has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 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

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 180 of 201 (198351)
04-11-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Citizzzen
04-10-2005 4:38 PM


Tangent with a purpose
Ok, perhaps a recap is in order.
I said
quote:
But the same Public Relations can be applied to an atheist view of prayer.
If a believer gets what is asked for, it is merely chance, pure coincidence.
If a believer does not get what is asked for, then prayer is a futile activity.
Therefore, prayer always fails. With the right spin, the atheist can never be wrong.
This reply was in response to your corollary stating that according to believers, prayers can never fail.
Now I can’t prove that prayers never fail nor can any atheist prove prayers always fail. But just because there is no proof regarding prayers doesn’t mean that is an indictment on the existence of God.
I said:
quote:
Now, what is not often considered by atheists is this question. How often does a coincidence need to occur before it can begin to look no longer as a coincidence? Does the sum total of multiple coincidences occurring on a regular basis and often in quick succession constitute something other than one large coincidence? One might say no, it is just one large coincidence, until it happens to them..."
Here, I was trying to offer a scenario where all is not what it seems and that some events in life appear to be more than random chance. I do this in order to open the possibility that these events do not always have a plausible, identifiable, physical cause.
Of course, this does not further the belief in the supernatural and I would strongly hesitate to make such a leap.
Indeed, most people, (I know I am taking liberty with the use of the word most, no replies necessary), would simply say that not enough time and effort has been exerted to uncover a logical physical explanation.
For atheist, the quest for a physical explanation has no end. If one is not found, then the argument is simply that some day it will be. Believers get to a point where potential physical explanations have been stretched beyond limits and a supernatural cause begs to be recognized.
I was trying to show this using the hypothesis as foundation and also to show how it is possible that perfectly sane rational people come to a belief in God and that, in doing so, they have not suddenly become delusional.
Then crashfrog responds:
quote:
What is not often considered by believers is the fact that we have mathematical tools that can be applied to tell us what is coincidence and what is not, and that your freehand seat-of-your-pants estimation of significance is liable to be almost always completely wrong.
Here Crashfrog implies that mathematics can be used to determine whether an event or series of events (coincidences) have significance. To put it another way, that it is possible to prove mathematically that certain events are beyond random chance. I had not really considered the mathematical approach, so it intrigued me.
Then your response
quote:
Can I have an example of a set of occurrences, happening on a regular basis, in quick succession that are obviously supernatural in origin? Perhaps I missed this happening on the evening news...
Here begins the hypothetical discussion in order to show that my seat-of-your-pants estimation mentioned by crash is not necessarily wrong and, at the very least, has a rational basis.
NosyNed has been gracious enough to examine the mathematics of the hypothesis to determine whether such a series of events would be considered beyond mere chance. Based on his assessment, albeit filled with broad assumptions Message 176, it is unlikely that these events are the result of random chance.
If the events can be shown to be beyond random chance then there must be a cause. And if the cause has been explored extensively and no viable physical explanation presents itself then causes outside of nature would, to some people, be feasible. Here is where believers and atheist part ways.
I am attempting to demonstrate that from the point of view of the individual experiencing the phenomena, causes outside of nature would be possible. Of course it is easy for one to say; No, I would never consider that cause. It can’t happen, wouldn’t happen, and is simple nonsense. Your phenomena is uncanny, but purely random."
But we have already discussed how a hypothetical event might not be considered random chance. It wasn’t random even when the event selected, (hearing a song before turning on the radio), is not in itself a religious experience.
I have discussed religious conversions with many people and have read a fair amount about how people who were not initially religious come around to believing in God. There are, of course, blind ignorant people who look at a faith healer on stage, see a cure, and believe. It’s unfortunate that they are being duped, (and likely robbed of their wallets).
But this is only a small segment of believers. There are those who claim a feeling of energy through their bodies when they accept Jesus. Others claim that it is more of an inner feeling of being cleansed. Some, such as C.S. Lewis, claim to have come to faith through a rational thought process. Still others perceive a series of unlikely coincidences that defy explanation.
I don’t believe this should be unusual because I believe in a God who values a personal relationship with the believer. Since all of us are different, then we all have different thresholds for belief. For some, like C.S. Lewis, an ‘extraordinary’ event is not necessary.
For others, those who cannot make a leap of faith based solely on rational arguments, then I believe God finds the most appropriate method of communicating His presence. The communication is with the individual in question and not to the world via some supernatural extravaganza
I selected the hypothesis involving coincidences because that was how I came to believe. But the coincidences were not so mundane as hearing a song before it is played on the radio even though we have shown that it is unlikely to be random.
The events were personal, directed at me, and having significance for me alone. Events that by their very nature removed in my mind all probability that I was dealing with randomness. I was dealing with a personal communication from God that I found impossible to deny.
Does that make me delusional? Perhaps, all I can say is that since then, my life has changed for the better and I believe God has everything to do with that.

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 177 by Citizzzen, posted 04-10-2005 4:38 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Citizzzen, posted 04-15-2005 2:16 PM Monk has replied
 Message 191 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 3:07 PM Monk 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