Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Well... you could say that...

But surely the default lies at "nothing" not "there is an invisible being who can answer my prayers".

Except your belief isn't "nothing"- you have to believe in properties about the universe that I don't, and vice versa. That was the whole red picks blue picks thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Go back and look at my queston as posted. I quoted you there, and was typing of it.

First of all, please don't be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I was confused about your point and asked you for clarification. No reason not to answer.

I have no idea what you are typing about. I gave you an answer, and you used it for the following:

Secondly.

And beyond that, you can't say for certain whether or not particles are moving on their own, or being guided by a divine hand, until you have a *perfect* understanding of particle physics, free of random chance. Even then, you could say God was responsible for setting them in motion in the first place.

Ideas I see in this quote:
1: Particles are moving on their own
2: They're being guided by a divine hand
3: We'll someday have perfect understanding of particle physics
4: Particle physics is inherently free of random chance.
5: God set them in motion.
6: The possibility that 2 or 5 is true means neuroscience can't disprove that prayer responses come from god.

Pick two.

We may never have a perfect understanding of particles. We may never have a perfect understanding of anything. Such a state may not exist. We can only aspire to try and become more true all the time.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I have no idea what you are typing about. I gave you an answer, and you used it for the following:

I asked you which ideas you meant, and you said "Go look it up" rather than "What the ideas were"

We may never have a perfect understanding of particles. We may never have a perfect understanding of anything. Such a state may not exist. We can only aspire to try and become more true all the time.

Ok, then, again, neuroscience will never be able to discount the validity of prayer.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Neuroscience may not, but double-blind studies have shown that no people of any relgious belief experiance higher levels of having their prayers answered.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Neuroscience may not, but double-blind studies have shown that no people of any relgious belief experiance higher levels of having their prayers answered.

Two notes.

One: if by "answered" you mean "Wishes met", then the studies were bogus. If god *does* exist, and did answer prayers, don't you think he'd put more value on genuine prayers than those made only for a study?

Secondly, I don't think supplicant prayers are granted, at all. I said this quite a ways back. I think the point of supplicant prayers is to meditate on and come to terms with your own desires.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, to hell with it. You just keep jumping back into the gaps whenever I argue anything.

Here is an abstract of the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). It was in the October 2006 American Heart Journal.

Here is a more complex PDF abstract.
This is an abstract from the American Heart Journal itself, but it requires regestering to get the full text.

That last abstract includes the results of the study.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Oh, to hell with it. You just keep jumping back into the gaps whenever I argue anything.

Here is an abstract of the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). It was in the October 2006 American Heart Journal.

Here is a more complex PDF abstract.
This is an abstract from the American Heart Journal itself, but it requires regestering to get the full text.

That last abstract includes the results of the study.

None of that invalidates the points I just made... again, I don't believe that suplicant prayer has physical effects, so you're not even arguing a point I'm making...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, it doesn't invalidate your point, because your point is fully insubstantial. I just thought I'd give the study to prove I wasn't making it up. We've come to a bit of a stalemate here. You and I won't be moving from this point in the argument, I assure you. You are in the gaps of knowlage, and I am outside. We cannot take this further, unless we decide to just start insulting one another.

[Robocorn]

One: if by "answered" you mean "Wishes met", then the studies were bogus. If god *does* exist, and did answer prayers, don't you think he'd put more value on genuine prayers than those made only for a study?

nope, god loves studies. He participates any chance he can get. He also loves philly cheese steak and cats for their aloofness.

What I'm trying to say here is that you just projected your belief onto god. Why should god avoid tests? Is god trying to loo like a figment of human cultures collective imagination. Without faith is he nothing and goes "poof" in a cloud of logic? And for that point, what is a "genuine prayer"?

Describing the god that is already doubted only gives more context for a doubt. It's easier to disbelieve a giant amorphous entity beyond space and time that grants wishes than a  regular old giant amorphous being beyond space and time.

I can come to terms with my desires without praying. It may be hard for other people so I see how asking some invisible confidant for help might work. (is your god invisible or really far away? I'm only familiar with astronomical cosmology.)

[FreakyCheeseMan]

No, it doesn't invalidate your point, because your point is fully insubstantial. I just thought I'd give the study to prove I wasn't making it up. We've come to a bit of a stalemate here. You and I won't be moving from this point in the argument, I assure you. You are in the gaps of knowlege, and I am outside. We cannot take this further, unless we decide to just start insulting one another.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the study didn't exist; I meant that the study could not have been scientifically valid, for the reason I described.

"In the gaps of knowledge"- you're getting a little too metaphory for me there. Explain?

What I'm trying to say here is that you just projected your belief onto god. Why should god avoid tests? Is god trying to loo like a figment of human cultures collective imagination. Without faith is he nothing and goes "poof" in a cloud of logic? And for that point, what is a "genuine prayer"?

Describing the god that is already doubted only gives more context for a doubt. It's easier to disbelieve a giant amorphous entity beyond space and time that grants wishes than a  regular old giant amorphous being beyond space and time.

I can come to terms with my desires without praying. It may be hard for other people so I see how asking some invisible confidant for help might work. (is your god invisible or really far away? I'm only familiar with astronomical cosmology.)

Well, it isn't a valid study. Maybe he loves test, and would answer prayers more if it'd show off that he existed. But it's still not a fair sampling, and never can be.

As for the lack of proof/evidence, I explained my theory on that many pages ago- I can rehash it if you really need, but it boils down to the importance of free will.

Ok. I can come to terms with my desires by praying. What's the issue? As for my god, he's... spread out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As we were discussing a few pages back, you can just put your argument for god within gaps of human knowlage, and then nothing can be done to counter-argue it with substantial evidence. You did not imply the study did not exist, I just knew that sooner or later someone would want to see it, so I put it up.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

As we were discussing a few pages back, you can just put your argument for god within gaps of human knowlage, and then nothing can be done to counter-argue it with substantial evidence. You did not imply the study did not exist, I just knew that sooner or later someone would want to see it, so I put it up.

Um, that was never my argument. Someone misunderstood something else I said as being that, but I view the gaps in human knowledge in exactly the same way you do. My argument is only for the internal validity of my own positions, and the worth to other people of considering a few things from outside of their default philosophies.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As you said, god will not respond to observed prayer contitions or do anything heavly physical. You pray to come to terms with your own desires. We are officaly out of the ballpark at that point, and into a gap of human knowlage. Like I said, we won't really move from here. The only thing to be said by me at this point is that your prayer has no supernatural origins, and you just get results from focus.

[Nikov]

Okay, I'll post.

I don't mind theists atheists as long as they don't try to convert me

Why do you guys have to be harshing his good vibes?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

As you said, god will not respond to observed prayer contitions or do anything heavly physical. You pray to come to terms with your own desires. We are officaly out of the ballpark at that point, and into a gap of human knowlage. Like I said, we won't really move from here. The only thing to be said by me at this point is that your prayer has no supernatural origins, and you just get results from focus.

*Shrugs* At that point I think it ceases to be a matter of "Gaps in human knowledge" and more "Matter of perspective".
As for the origin of  the responses to my prayers... at this point I don't know that it's that significant. Whether or not my actions would have different results, this perspective is valuable to me; as I have no interest in trying to tear others from their beliefs, and as no one has been able to show mine to be actually invalid/illogical... yeah, I think we're done.

Okay, I'll post.

I don't mind theists atheists as long as they don't try to convert me

Why do you guys have to be harshing his good vibes?

So, first of all, thank you. You posted *just* as I was about to make my final comment and walk away. Seriously. I was *this* close to freedom.

I'll get you for that...