Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[SkepticThinker]

I can't prove a lot of things that are real. Neither can you. You can say you love someone but you can't prove it because it's not measurable with instruments. Does that make it less real?

I can demonstrate I love someone with my words and actions. That's called evidence.

I try my best to believe in things that are demonstrably true; for which there is evidence.

Just declaring 'Nah nah you can't do it either" (which is false, by the way) isn't an answer to any of these questions. "I can't prove a lot of things are real" is a good reason to withhold belief in those things.

 

[KWED]

Because the world obviously didn't happen by accident and I find God the best explanation... That's a reason to initially believe, but once you experience God personally you don't have to question which God is real.

That doesn't explain why you reject the Alien Hypothesis as too ridiculous to consider. You are simply stating that you accept one extraordinary explanation without any supporting evidence.
So, why are aliens ridiculous but god reasonable?

 

[KWED]

Nonsense. You just expressed a bunch of them.

Like what?

 

[KWED]

Again everything could be an illusion. But I believe what I experience because it's the only way to interpret life. And my experiences of God are just as real to me as knowing where I'm sitting at the moment. If I'm wrong about both, oh well!

Yet again, you misrepresent the argument (whether through ignorance or dishonesty is not clear).
It is not that everything we experience is a delusion. It is that we know that sometimes, some people suffer delusions that seem entirely real - including hearing/seeing gods, angels, demons, spirits,etc.
I want to know how you can be certain that the "experience of god" you had wasn't simply generated within your own imagination, like all those other delusions. Presumably you don't really believe that everyone who thinks they are Jesus actually is Jesus. In which case, how do you know your experience isn't like theirs?

 

[KWED]

I can't prove a lot of things that are real. Neither can you. You can say you love someone but you can't prove it because it's not measurable with instruments. Does that make it less real?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
So, as "love" is simply an electro-chemical response within the physical brain, you admit that your "god experience" could be the same thing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

can demonstrate I love someone with my words and actions. That's called evidence.

I can demonstrate that God exists by how he changes people... it's called evidence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That doesn't explain why you reject the Alien Hypothesis as too ridiculous to consider. You are simply stating that you accept one extraordinary explanation without any supporting evidence.
So, why are aliens ridiculous but god reasonable?

Why is it extraordinary? That's just your perception of reality... your beliefs...It's no more viable than any other perception.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yet again, you misrepresent the argument (whether through ignorance or dishonesty is not clear).
It is not that everything we experience is a delusion. It is that we know that sometimes, some people suffer delusions that seem entirely real - including hearing/seeing gods, angels, demons, spirits,etc.
I want to know how you can be certain that the "experience of god" you had wasn't simply generated within your own imagination, like all those other delusions. Presumably you don't really believe that everyone who thinks they are Jesus actually is Jesus. In which case, how do you know your experience isn't like theirs?

Again, how do I know anything is real? Using my perception of reality. Same as anyone. Why should you make exceptions for the non physical realities we experience? That's just your prejudice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
So, as "love" is simply an electro-chemical response within the physical brain, you admit that your "god experience" could be the same thing.

No, I didn't say that at all.
If you don't believe love is real that's just because you choose not to accept the evidence for it.

 

[KWED]

I can demonstrate that God exists by how he changes people... it's called evidence.

Yet more question begging.
All you can show is that people change. You don't know that "god" changed them, it was probably just them changing themselves. I could just as easily say that I can show unicorns exist by how they have changed me.
And it certainly isn't called "evidence". It is genuinely funny that you think it is.

 

[Sheldon]

I would not be at all surprised if both Hannibal and Scipio performed multiple sacrifices and appeals to their Gods for success in battle.

So your statement isn't *quite* true.

Nobody claims their appeals to magic actually worked, though.

For clarity I meant historians are not trying to claim this, since the post was making a direct comparison between the evidence for Hannibal's crossing, and biblical claims for miracles etc..

 

[KWED]

Why is it extraordinary?

Because it requires the laws of nature to be suspended. It requires all the hard evidence from physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc to be wrong.

That's just your perception of reality... your beliefs...It's no more viable than any other perception.

Ok. So you admit that the "god perception" is no more viable than the "aliens perception".
So why do you accept one and reject the other?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I'm pretty sure no one has tried to claim Hannibal used inexplicable unevidenced magic.

But people will tell you the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are fictional.

They may well be, there is certainly no objective evidence they were historical figures. Though I don't think this addresses the context of my post tbh.

 

[KWED]

Again, how do I know anything is real? Using my perception of reality. Same as anyone.

How do you know your perception is accurate?

Why should you make exceptions for the non physical realities we experience?

You mean "why should I be sceptical of claims that have no supporting evidence, that would require much of what we know about the universe to be wrong"?
Gee, I dunno!

That's just your prejudice.

Whereas your "prejudice" is to accept the unlikely while rejecting the reasonable (although you only do this selectively, based on your initial prejudice).
Each to their own, I guess.

 

[Sheldon]

I can demonstrate that God exists by how he changes people... it's called evidence.

That doesn't demonstrate a deity exists, you are simply asserting this, without any demonstrating any objective evidence. Correlation is not causation. Do you know what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is, you might want to find out, it is a known common logical fallacy you are using here.

Nor of course is that the only problem with your claim. Do you believe the Islamic deity is real? I only ask, because i have heard Muslims claim their deity is real because he changed their lives. So do you have anything beyond handwaving to address this flaw in your claim?

 

[KWED]

No, I didn't say that at all.
If you don't believe love is real that's just because you choose not to accept the evidence for it.

Where did I say that love is not real? Of course that electro-chemical activity is real. Of course the brain is real.
The point is, there is nothing supernatural about it. It occurs strictly within the brain. It is not independent of the person experiencing it.
Your "god experience" is probably something like "love". Certain stimuli provoke an electro-chemical response in your brain that makes you feel like you are "experiencing god". I have had experiences that, had I not known the nature of their source, could very well have been mistaken for an encounter with the divine.
There is nothing particularly extraordinary about feeling like you have met god. It is only extraordinary to insist that you actually met an actual god.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, faith, even though it shouldn't be, is a very subjective term in regard to those who claim to have it. So, when they say I prayed, or that i was devout but was not answered, raises the question to the degree of humility and faith of the requester.

That is the very definition of a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Polymath257 said: ↑
How is this not a perfect example of confirmation bias?

Believe you have received it before actually receiving it? That is called self delusion.

It's called acting upon one's faith. What's the point of having faith if it gives you no confidence or comfort - that's called skepticism and doubt?

So as @Polymath257 asserts, this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Faith is wisdom, and one's perception and understanding raises the conviction of his faith. Thus, trusting one's instincts and insights, necessitates the increase of one's expectations.

It still just reads like bias.

 

[Sheldon]

You believe you will receive a check for 40 hours of work before you actually receive it. Otherwise you wouldn't work the 40 hours first.

Not without a contract I wouldn't, now that contract would be objective evidence right? The kind you don't have..

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is nothing particularly extraordinary about feeling like you have met god. It is only extraordinary to insist that you actually met an actual god.

Which I have.