Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

But you're not alone. This is the same error Craig makes in his Kalam argument. Somehow, the multiverse never appeared on his list and was never ruled out, either

Why would it? It's not an answer to anything. So it should not be on the list. If you ask me who made my lunch and I said " a lot more lunches exist".
You would rightly be very confused, and wonder how I thought that was an answer to your question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's been the majority religion for centuries.

And?

At some point in the past, a majority of people believed in a bunch of other gods. Was Osiris real, because so many people believed at the time? Osiris obviously filled some deep need that human beings have, so he must have been real. That's essentially what you're saying here.

Christianity certainly isn’t the only prevalent religion in the world, but among all other major religious schools, Christianity is by far the most popular.
Christianity exceeds the other four major religious/non-religious bodies by a significant proportion of 0.6 billion.
And despite those claiming it's dying it's still gaining popularity.

Right now. So what? I mean, you're literally making an argumentum ad populum here, which is a logical fallacy. And I just pointed out in my last post that the number of people who believe a thing has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. Do you think it does?

One study conducted in 2018 by the Pew Research Center shows that Christianity is still the largest religion across all of Western Europe, with 71% of the population identifying as Christians.
Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Over 100 million copies of the Bible are printed every single year.
Over 60,000 people have been recorded to be using a Bible app at any given moment.
You are missing the boat, man.
It almost makes me believe that the amillennialists might be correct and Christianity will basically take over the world.

Well, when you spread your religion first by the sword, and then by missionary work and/or forced conversion, then this is exactly what you'd expect, now isn't it? Again, nothing about this indicates the truthfulness of the god claim.

Apparently, Islam has been the fastest growing religion in the world for a while now. So, according to you, it fulfills some deep need people have, and therefore must be true, right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It reaches some deep need in the human race.

And how do you suppose that those with no such need understand that? I like to use the eyeglasses metaphor in these situations. Eyeglasses serve some need in much of the human race. I happen to be able to read without them. Should I envy those people? Should I consider having a need fulfilled by glasses a good thing to have?

nothing we know of in the material world exists without a cause and because everything that is created needs an intelligent designer to exist. I choose the most logical explanation.

You've chosen the least parsimonious of the logical possibilities, the only one that requires a conscious agent, which would have to be the least likely thing imaginable to exist uncaused and undesigned.

There you go again. Claiming only your little club thinks rational. Just can't help yourself, can you?

But you just keep making logical errors and then complain when you're not included in the "little club." Everybody is welcome, but there is one requirement: you must learn and deploy critical thought. You've got to stop making fallacious statements.

It's still the largest religion in the world.

And here's an implied ad populum fallacy. That fact doesn't matter at all regarding the religion's authenticity. Nor does pointing out that most of the world rejects Christianity, another equally impotent ad populum fallacy, make Christianity wrong.

I know what I see, and I see evidence for God every day.

You see the same evidence every atheists sees. Considering how many people don't feel compelled to follow you to, "therefore God," it is not compelling evidence for a god to them. And these are the people that CAN make sound arguments.

Why would it? It's not an answer to anything. So it should not be on the list.

Yes, a multiverse is a logical possibility. If you want to be in the "little club," you'll need to stop making such errors.

It's not only on my list of candidate explanations for the existence of the world, it's above a god hypothesis simply because it's a more parsimonious explanation. I realize that you don't want it on that list and so, like Craig, just dismiss it out of hand, but that's not how it's done in the "little club." Whenever one does that, he jumps the reason shark. He goes off the reason reservation. He's left the reason building.

If you ask me who made my lunch and I said " a lot more lunches exist". You would rightly be very confused, and wonder how I thought that was an answer to your question.

That's not an apt analogy. A better one would be if one were asked who made lunch, answering maybe Godiva, maybe Multiva, or, to be complete, maybe the lunch has always existed or assembled itself. And if it came from Multiva, there are probably countless other lunches of every possible stripe somewhere.

 

[Sheldon]

The 'argument' of 'who then created God' cannot be valid.

It' not argument it is a question, a question theists have no credible answer for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It' not argument it is a question, a question theists have no credible answer for.

And by the same logic the question "who created the universe" is not valid either. He is using a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
One study conducted in 2018 by the Pew Research Center shows that Christianity is still the largest religion across all of Western Europe, with 71% of the population identifying as Christians.
Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Over 100 million copies of the Bible are printed every single year.
Over 60,000 people have been recorded to be using a Bible app at any given moment.
You are missing the boat, man.
It almost makes me believe that the amillennialists might be correct and Christianity will basically take over the world.

Well, when you spread your religion first by the sword, and then by missionary work and/or forced conversion, then this is exactly what you'd expect, now isn't it? Again, nothing about this indicates the truthfulness of the god claim.

I agree, but then that quote is not mine? So I am not sure why my name is at the top, but if you follow the link you will see it isn't from my post, or any of my posts come to that, I'm also an atheist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree, but then that quote is not mine? So I am not sure why my name is at the top, but if you follow the link you will see it isn't from my post, or any of my posts come to that, I'm also an atheist.

Oops, how in the world did I manage to do that??
Sorry! I think I fixed it (?)

Obviously I need more coffee.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't reject science. So no.

Yes you certainly do, you may cherry pick which bits you reject, based on whether it conflicts with your religious doctrine, but you certainly do and have rejected science, that is indisputable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You see the same evidence every atheists sees.

I don't think so. An atheist only sees what he thinks exists. He could see a fairy in the rose bush but he would deny that he did, because he can't let it be a possibility.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, a multiverse is a logical possibility. If you want to be in the "little club," you'll need to stop making such errors.

It's not only on my list of candidate explanations for the existence of the world, it's above a god hypothesis simply because it's a more parsimonious explanation. I realize that you don't want it on that list and so, like Craig, just dismiss it out of hand,

It makes no difference one way or the other...it doesn't explain anything! It just another layer of complexity to Creation, so now you have more to explain.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's not an apt analogy. A better one would be if one were asked who made lunch, answering maybe Godiva, maybe Multiva, or, to be complete, maybe the lunch has always existed or assembled itself.

Rotflol! You just did the very thing you say theists do. Eternal matter is your answer? Magic!

 

[metis]

The reality no matter how unsettling it is, is that we will not ever likely know for certain what caused our universe/multiverse. Beliefs are fine as far as they go, but they're not objectively derived evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

It makes no difference one way or the other...it doesn't explain anything! It just another layer of complexity to Creation, so now you have more to explain.

as opposed to imaginary deities using inexplicable magic, irony overload.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

as opposed to imaginary deities using inexplicable magic, irony overload.

Touché.

 

[PruePhillip]

It' not argument it is a question, a question theists have no credible answer for.

That still doesn't refute the claim. We reached the end of this discussion the first chance you had to rebut and chose not to. Correct statements cannot be rebutted, which is the likely reason you don't try. I consider the matter resolved. All debates end with the last, unrebutted, plausible statement, which in this case, is one I made that you keep deflecting from.

Two answers
1 - you cannot question the nature of a realm you cannot comprehend
2 - saying God has existed 'forever' isn't accepted by some, yet they will say the universe has been here 'forever'

 

[joelr]

Nonsense. There's lots of Christians who are historians.

Please tell me a historian who supports the gospel narratives and has peer-reviewed work?

I'll post it again because you don't seem to be getting it:

This is Dr Carrier, he's done the MOST RECENT Jesus historicity study SINCE 1926?? The ONLY HISTORICAL TREATMENT of the evidence. Turns out the evidence that there was even a real man the stories were based on is very weak. But the idea of an actual savior demigod, not a chance.
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Here I will summarize the best arguments for historicity and the logic behind the best case for it. And this only means mundane historicity; not the Gospel Jesus, but the Jesus of honest mainstream scholarship. I am most interested in finding out if I have left any good arguments out. So please add more in comments, if any you think remain that aren’t ridiculous and can be taken seriously by mainstream experts. Likewise if you think the logic of any argument I do present can be better formulated."
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

The Guy is biased.

"The Guy" is telling you about the general beliefs in his field. Not only does he have a PhD in Biblical history but has written several books and a final 700 pg Jesus historicity study which took 7 years. He's familiar with his peers.

That's just a snide way of claiming you can't believe in miracles and be a historian.

Also you are 100% wrong. There is nothing "snide" about saying a real historian doesn't accept mythical claims without proper evidence. Do you expect historians will start saying Krishna is real because he performed miracles in stories? Do you expect a big push from history to get Islamic miracles to be taught in science class because it says so in the Quran? Maybe Islam should become the official religion in the U.S. because it's going to have more members by 2050 and it's clearly proof of God and miracles? How is it proof of miracles and Allah who has updated Christianity and said Christians are all wrong, liers and are doomed? Well, IT SAYS SO.

Oh you don't think that's fair? Well that is why historians don't just buy into obvious mythology. There isn't evidence for it at all. There is huge amounts of evidence that all of the theology and myths in Christianity are taken from cultures who were nearby or invaded Hebrew cities. That is the evidence historians have.

So if the crap evidence for your religion are going to be taken as real then Islam and every other claim is also real. Truth doesn't work like that and obviously you don't want it to work that way.
So you can believe in miracles as a historian if you find convincing evidence and if a paper is peer-reviewed and everyone agrees there is unusual evidence?

But that is not the case. These are all stories based on older stories. Historians know this. Your weird special pleading for one religion isn't how actual scholarship works. That is what fundamentalist apologists do. But Islam also has those. And they swear Allah is the true God and Christians have messed up his clear message. But again, real historians do not care about claims, stories and myths.
They know they are just legendary stories written by people. But it's the same with your religion.

So yeah historians can believe your miracle stories.
But then they can also believe this -

30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,

35 On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.

Wow, a painful doom, terrible. I know you will say, "no Jesus said watch out for false prophets!"
He did. But then God sent an actual angel from the OT, Gabrielle to update the mistakes made.
Sure there are false prophets, but this is an angel. Can't deny an angel from Heaven?
How do we know? IT SAYS SO!?!? Right in the Quran. Miracles happened also to demonstrate. Again, IT SAYS SO ON THE PAGE. Yes they claim many witnesses as well.
So yeah lets all start believing scripture as revelations.
Or we can continue to have standards of truth and only believe things when evidence warrants belief.
Fundamentalists and apologists can go to churches and believe whatever they like. Historians will deal with what is demonstrable true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think so. An atheist only sees what he thinks exists. He could see a fairy in the rose bush but he would deny that he did, because he can't let it be a possibility.

Actually, a skeptical person would investigate closer to get to the truth of the matter. Skeptical people know that our brains try to find patterns in the things around us, and so we could be mistaken and further investigation is required. Just accepting that it's a fairy without further inquiry would be the mistake.

Atheists have nothing to do with it really, because atheism only speaks to one single claim about god(s). Not fairies. Not ghosts. Not UFOs. Just god(s).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An atheist only sees what he thinks exists. He could see a fairy in the rose bush but he would deny that he did, because he can't let it be a possibility.

You've just described a faith-based confirmation bias. That's the bailiwick of those willing to believe by faith. What the empiricist thinks exists is a better map of reality than what the faith-based thinker conjures up. I just posted to a believer who was explaining to the thread how the Bible contains no contradictions, a belief he holds by faith, that is, by guess. You show him a contradiction and he doesn't see one.

Why? because he has decided that no such thing exists as you just described. The empiricist would investigate the possibility before arriving at a tentative conclusion, which is the fundamental difference between the two approaches to mapping reality. The empiricist begins with that reality and generates useful inductions about it by noting its patterns and laws. The faith-based thinker begins with his "conclusions," then massages the evidence through his confirmation bias to try to make it comport with those a priori beliefs.

It makes no difference one way or the other...it doesn't explain anything! It just another layer of complexity to Creation, so now you have more to explain.

I have nothing more to explain.

If you could, you would inform the thread why your god belief does a better job doing the things you imply it does better than the multiverse hypothesis. But you can't. You'll just continue with special pleading fallacies that criticize the hypotheses you reject out of hand with criticisms that, were they valid, would be just as valid criticisms of what you choose to belief by faith. If the word multiverse explains nothing, then the word God explains nothing. If that's a valid reason to reject either, it's a valid reason to reject both.

You just did the very thing you say theists do. Eternal matter is your answer? Magic!

Nope. Pure reason

you cannot question the nature of a realm you cannot comprehend

Sure I can. I comprehend the claim, and I find it incoherent. The description of the supernatural is fraught with internal contradiction. Furthermore, there is nothing a faith-based thinker can comprehend that is incomprehensible to the critical thinker. The former can only imagine then believe more things, not comprehend them.

The claims that his realm is off limits to critical analysis because it is described in contradictory terms is rejected. The idea of a deity existing or acting outside of time is incoherent. The idea that there is a realm perceptible to believers but not scientists and unbelievers is incoherent. And so, such claims are rejected.

Theists simply don't recognize the contradictions that they create in their theology. I was just involved in a discussion on free will. We were told that evil exists not because of God, but because man has free will. And why does man have free will to commit evil? Because God doesn't want automatons. What's the glaring inconsistency there? Can you find it?

Spoiler: answer

Is there evil in heaven? Do you see where this is going? Whatever your answer, the theology is incoherent. Think if through.

 

[Sheldon]

1 - you cannot question the nature of a realm you cannot comprehend

Of course I can, don't be silly, your claims about its nature are risible, since you have claimed it cannot be comprehended. It appears you still don't understand what a laughable contradiction those two assertions create. That you think making an appeal to mystery somehow defends the notion speaks for itself, but if you'd care to learn how irrational such a rationale is, you might learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, and what it means logically for your argument here.

2 - saying God has existed 'forever' isn't accepted by some, yet they will say the universe has been here 'forever'

We do at least know a universe is possible, we have no such objective evidence that any deity is possible, and the universe we currently observe has axiomatically not existed forever, at least in that form. Such a claim would be falsified by the scientific theory of the big bang. No one "knows" or understands what existed prior to Planck time, and even theoretical physicists can only speculate at this point, while they try to find methods to test such hypothesise.

The bottom line is that not knowing where the universe came from, beyond what is evidenced by the big bang theory, does not remotely lend credence to unevidenced superstition about supernatural magic. This type of apologetics has been labelled a "god of the gaps" polemic, these arguments usually use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.