There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[samtonga43]

What people believe isn't that interesting when one is trying to find out what is actually true.
What people can demonstrate, is.

Oh, I have to disagree here, TM. I find other people’s beliefs to be fascinating, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

 

[Sheldon]

Some people have lost the right to demand evidence from me. If I feel like it I will provide them with evidence, but when they have shown that they will willingly make false statements about events I try to force them to learn what is and what is not evidence. That way they have to willingly lie to keep making their past claims about there being no evidence. I am pretty sure that deniers of reality know that they are wrong and that learning what is and what is not evidence would mean that they could no longer fool themselves. It is rather clear that they are not fooling anyone else.

You're right of course, I'm way too easy going... ask anyone...

It'll probably be denied, rationalised or just waved away anyway. Ah well, pizza, Indian or Chinese is the question now, I shall pour some wine and cogitate my options..

 

[dybmh]

When a proper study was done, that means a large study with many patients, not just with one, they found no effect.

heisenberg uncertainty principle? The act of measuring interfered with the results?

if the patient knew that they were being prayed for, though this was just one of the studies, they did worse.

The interference was compounded?

 

[dybmh]

Not until you agree to learn the basics of science. Until then you are in no position to demand anything. At a certain point in a debate a person may have to prove that he is being an honest interlocutor for others to supply him with evidence on demand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me try to explain with something not science. The concept of truth. In Western culture as that is what I know of, it is close to 2500 years old and it is not over yet.
So if someone who doesn't know the basics and simply goes by what he/she has heard in everyday life, it can be hard just to get off the ground.
Nothing against you, but if you want to get to the basics in a debate truth is more than just Google: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Or for science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So to give you an idea, remember the Google one for truth.
Here is the other end and that is not even all:
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hope it helps. BTW here is a start on science: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/index.php

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem with you and you would like some evidence that is fine with me. I can only take so much of what appears to be trolling. The person may be genuine. but that is not much better. He still has a minimum duty to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

heisenberg uncertainty principle? The act of measuring interfered with the results?

The interference was compounded?

That would be almost certainly an incorrect application of that principle. There have been several studies. In the ones where they avoided allowing the patient to knowing that the patient was being prayed for there was no net improvement. In the one case that I know of where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may apply, in that case the patients that were being prayed for knew it, they did worse.

 

[Sheldon]

It'll probably be denied, rationalised or just waved away anyway.

heisenberg uncertainty principle? The act of measuring interfered with the results?

Seems unlikely as it was a double blind trial, but I come across as prescient....

The interference was compounded?

No you've assumed interference across the board it seems, but only one group was told they were being prayed for, that group was unaware there was any other group, but fared worse nonetheless. So it's only an inconclusive inference that knowing they were being prayed for was probably a factor in their recovery being worse.

The rest were unaware that anyone was praying for anyone, the doctors compiling the results of the recovery were unaware that anyone was praying for anyone, the testers were not aware of the rates of recovery until they were compiled at the end, the people who prayed were not aware of anything but praying for a group of patients post heart op, see how this works? It helps remove subjective bias.

And the results showed unequivocally that praying had no discernible effect. Beyond the anomaly of the patients that knew they were being prayed for, who fared worse. Using a large test group, and already having a median metric for recovery, would make this is a very thorough test. However it is never going to satisfy people looking for a particular result, hint hint....

 

[dybmh]

That would be almost certainly an incorrect application of that principle

I beleive you. Trying to research it on my own has quickly gone beyond my capabilites for understanding.

What I'm thinking, though, is about the famous double slit experiment where an electron was fired at a film with two slits and the result beyond the film was a wave interference pattern. Then once the experiment was altered so that the electron was detected and measured when it passed through one slit or the other, the interference pattern went away. This suggested that measuring the electron's behaviour interfered with the results.

I'm wondering if prayer is similar in this regard, in order for it to work it needs to retain its wave-like behavior.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Our common reality, the one that doesn't depend on belief,

There's no such reality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The god believers are numbered among the people in the 40,000 denominations of Christianity and countless other religions with mythologies, who create their reality from stories believed by faith rather than evidence. If you ask them about the nature of the gods they say they believe in, you'll see what I mean about them extemporizing as they go. We see it here on RF continually with the just-so apologetics generated ad hoc. No two have the same concept of God, because they feel free to just define gods into existence (see below).

What we perceive as science today is a fairly new idea. Theists have perceived the world through a deity centered view for much longer. To assume you know more than they is just arrogance.
And science itself changes constantly.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But you're using this fact to argue that the program is effective. For me, the effectiveness of the program resides in its success rate. If one ignores the failures, the success rate is 100%. The program needs to effective in most cases to be called effective.

Maybe this will explain better:
HOW IT WORKS Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.
Our stories disclose in a general way what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now. If you have decided you want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it — then you are ready to take certain steps. At some of these we balked. We thought we could find an easier, softer way. But we could not. With all the earnestness at our command, we beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start. Some of us have tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was nil until we let go absolutely. Remember that we deal with alcohol — cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for us. But there is One who has all power — that One is God. May you find Him now! Half measures availed us nothing. We stood at the turning point. We asked His protection and care with complete abandon. Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery:

 

[Sheldon]

There's no such reality.

Is your subjective opinion, yet we are able to match evidence and facts to that reality, make predictions that match that reality based on those facts, and all without recourse to superstition, which paradoxically fails unerringly when tested.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Our common reality, the one that doesn't depend on belief, the one that contains the objects and processes that affect experience, the one discerned and tested empirically, the one those applying critical thought to the evidence of the senses discover, the one leading to the periodic table.

There's no such reality.

Perhaps there isn't for you. That's not surprising considering the difference in the way we decide what is true about the world. There are people who agree in detail what reality is like, and they are demonstrably correct, which is also not surprising considering what it is that they consult to determine the nature of reality. And it is not surprising that those who simply pronounce what reality is like without sufficient supporting evidence will come up with accounts that don't match one another or that of the empiricists.

Yes, there really is a sun. Really. A real sun. And one can know so empirically, experientially. That's what makes it reality. To the extent that you make empirical judgments, you are part of that common reality. You know all about reality that you have experienced, and its the same one I experience. Water feels wet. We sleep and awaken. People are born and people die. In between, they eat and breath. This is our common reality, the one you say doesn't exist.

Faith based thinkers will add to that, and each differently. What they create is not reality at all, but we can call it a private reality in homage to the fact that they believe it.

The god believers are numbered among the people in the 40,000 denominations of Christianity and countless other religions with mythologies, who create their reality from stories believed by faith rather than evidence. If you ask them about the nature of the gods they say they believe in, you'll see what I mean about them extemporizing as they go. We see it here on RF continually with the just-so apologetics generated ad hoc. No two have the same concept of God, because they feel free to just define gods into existence

What we perceive as science today is a fairly new idea. Theists have perceived the world through a deity centered view for much longer. To assume you know more than they is just arrogance.

Really? Theism has generated no knowledge. Empiricism has generated all of the actual knowledge we have. I've seen the theists view of reality. It's in holy books. It's on RF. It will be the cause of American women losing rights based on a "reality" that includes a deity that disapproves of abortion. It's the cause of homophobia in the West, based on the "reality" of a deity that considers homosexuality an abomination. Reality according to Christian theists includes a resurrection form the dead. It is not arrogance to point out how sterile this kind of thinking has been, and how stellar the results of empiricism have been. It's demonstrable fact.

I understand why the theists would like that kind of credibility with their faith-based pronouncements, which, as you indicate, have filled the world with ideas a lot longer than the scientific method, but being ancient doesn't make them venerable, just older than the scientific contributions, which have made life longer, healthier, more functional, more safe, more comfortable, and has made the world smaller and more accessible, and this more interesting and entertaining. Those benefits from science are the sine qua non of correct ideas (knowledge).

Biblical myths, gospels, and prophecies do almost nothing for man except comfort those who believe them. I'm sorry if the latter compares unfavorably to the former, but pointing that out is not arrogance. Arrogance is claiming that they are equivalent. Asserting their equality or equivalence given the difference in their track records is the arrogance here.

Einstein doesn't go further than his photoelectric, because his relativity theories are just pure imaginations, not science at all. Definitively physical reality and the God don't accept his relativity theories.

You might want to rethink posting things like this. You're posting on a topic about which you inadvertently declare you haven't studied to people that have studied and understood it, and know that you are wrong.

All you can accomplish with such a post is to disqualify your other opinions about science if they disagree with the mainstream. There are people that do that successfully, people who overturn older paradigms with their keen insights, but they are knowledgeable about existing science including the parts they are challenging. They don't make mistakes citing the mainstream position.

 

[Sheldon]

What we perceive as science today is a fairly new idea.

So what, you dismiss or ignore logic when it demonstrates your arguments are irrational, and that predates the creation of your deity by almost 5 centuries.

Theists have perceived the world through a deity centered view for much longer.

That's not true, since that is not "a deity" but limitless deities that humans have imagined are real. And of course, if the antiquity of an unevidenced superstition lent it credence then the legends of Hercules would be true.

To assume you know more than they is just arrogance.

Straw man fallacy, since scientific facts are not based on assumption, and you are only attacking the method because it contradicts core doctrinal claims of your own religious beliefs. Your bias doesn't in any way negate objective scientific evidence, and it is arrogant in the extreme to imagine your emotional attachment to the beliefs you favour are more accurate than centuries of global scientific scrutiny when inevitable that superstition is overturned by scientific fact.

And science itself changes constantly.

What a spectacularly dishonest claim, scientific methods have advanced our understanding of the natural physical world and universe at a spectacular rate, but those facts don't "change constantly" this is a popular creationist canard, and when and if it anything does change, it changes in the light of new objective scientific evidence. Unlike religion of course, which is left stupidly clinging to erroneous archaic superstition, long after it has been unequivocally falsified.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Unlike religion of course, which is left stupidly clinging to erroneous archaic superstition, long after it has been unequivocally falsified.

This is true for all false religions because they are based on superstition. Jesus Christ rising from the dead hasn’t been proven false after 2000 years because it happened. The evidence of the empty tomb, eyewitness accounts, the fact that lives are still being changed, demons expelled in His Name are still happening.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, that is their *belief*. But belief and reality are very different things.

And, once again, the *reality* is determined by observation and testing, not by myth making and faith.

By that standard, no God(s) have been discovered.

By that standard, nothing can be said to be reality. We don't know everything about anything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Straw man fallacy, since scientific facts are not based on assumption,

There's no such thing as scientific facts on only working theories.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, there really is a sun. Really. A real sun. And one can know so empirically, experientially

I can know God the same way and do.

 

[Wildswanderer]

but those facts don't "change constantly"

What were facts of science thirty years ago aren't now. You claim we are moving forward but you can't know that what we think we know now is anymore accurate than in the past. The so called facts will change again.