Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[SkepticThinker]

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

We've already discovered in this thread that you can't demonstrate that and that such anecdotes aren't evidence to anyone other than the person who has experienced them. And that's the discussion we are currently in right now ... How do you demonstrate that these experiences aren't delusions, aren't cognitive or logical errors and that they are caused by the things you are claiming have caused them? How did you rule out other things? And if people can be changed without experiencing God, then how do we know God(s) are actually doing anything at all?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

That's a great way to not answer the question.

 

[PruePhillip]

Socrates (and not just followers of his philosophy) is mentioned in multiple sources that collaborate his views even by people that don't share them.

On the other hand, Homer is likely to be mythical, as is King Arthur.

Each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

And for the Gospels we have SEVEN authors, six of whom at least claimed eye witness to Jesus (include James, his own brother)

 

[KWED]

Either Livy or his sidekick mentioned that Scipio was the son of the gods, and the Numidians rode giant scorpions.

Not that I have ever come across. I think you may be "mistaken".

This whole story reminds me of the bible stories - just made up to frighten people

The Bible stories weren't made up just to frighten. They were also to give hope, encourage subservience, etc

 

[Polymath257]

Egyptian control of Canaan ended during the Bronze Age Collapse. Egypt was lucky to survive - all the other empires
fell. The agency of this collapse was the mass migration of people. This included Hebrews and Phillistines.

It looks like you have some problems with your chronology, then. The invasion of the Sea Peoples (who were also the Philistines) didn't happen until the late 13th or early 12th century BC and were related to the Pharoh Rameses II.

The events of 1650BC are related to the volcano at Thera and the destruction of the Minoan civilization and are correlated to the Hyksos control of Egypt.

We are talking about a gap of over 400 years.

 

[Polymath257]

And for the Gospels we have SEVEN authors, six of whom at least claimed eye witness to Jesus (include James, his own brother)

And we also know of a tradition that had imaginative writings that were then *attributed* to the apostles.

We also know from internal evidence that the gospels were not written independently. That is clear from a reading of the Synoptic gospels. And then, the gospel of John clearly is the result of the expansion of the legend.

And, I should point out, I am not one that questions that there was an itinerant preacher that said many of the things attributed to Jesus in the NT. We even have other examples of the same phenomenon.

And, when we add in the *other* gospels, like that of Thomas, and others that were rejected by the orthodox bishops, we get a very different picture of what happened.

What I am saying is that the miracles are an expansion of the legend, similar to the curing of scrofula by kings.

 

[KWED]

So how did you reach the conclusion that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are mythical ?

Because of the mythical nature of the claims made about them. Their ages for a start. Abraham was supposed to be 175 years old. Not possible. So mythical.
There may have been an actual person on whom the myth was based, but he didn't live to be 175 and perform magic.

What's more, historians now generally accept that there may not even have been a historical basis for the characters, and that they are purely fictional creations.

 

[KWED]

There's a story in 1 Samuel about the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Phillistines. When the ark returned
the Jews had control of Jerusalem, and the Ark was placed in Solomon's temple. Now if this account was written in
Persian or Greek times WITHOUT extant documents then you are left wondering how these people knew of the city
of Shiloh where the Ark was kept. By this time Shiloh was nothing more than a hill - nearly a thousand years had
passed. IF the Persian or Greek era Jews wrote from existing documents then the Tanakh was written in Persian
and Greek times, but when those earlier documents were written.

You still didn't say when "Persian and Greek Times" was.

And you still seem to be arguing that people in later times had no knowledge of earlier events - which is obvious nonsense.

Also, by way of example, archaelogy shows that not only was the Ark taken, but the tabernacle and 'horns of the altar' were destroyed - the whole of Shiloh fell. Not mentioned in the bible because the bible is not a historical document, but a narrative about aspects of history.

"Archaeology" does not even confirm the existence of the ark. It remains a myth.

 

[KWED]

Impossible.

Checking the ones you base your worldview on would be a start.

 

[KWED]

Don't blame God for the responsibility that He gave us.

The onus is on you and me.

OK, so you confirm that when god ignores the prayers for children dying in agony from congenital conditions or cancer, it is because the responsibility is on us to cure them, not god.
How nice!

So why does god answer your prayers? Why isn't that responsibility on you?
Because of your repeated refusal to give examples of your prayers he granted, I can only assume that they were so trivial as to even embarrass you, given that he refuses to save suffering children).

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. You think you met a god. It was almost certainly just your imagination. It is definitely the best explanation for your "experience".
Remember that delusional people usually insist that their delusions are real.

Only I'm not a delusional person. To suppose that a person is logical in every other aspect of life but delusional because they experience the spiritual is showing your extreme prejudice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Checking the ones you base your worldview on would be a start.

I have a confirmation that they are correct.

 

[KWED]

God doesn't force himself on anyone as far as I can tell. He could, but that wouldn't be love.

I seem to remember that he forced himself on the Virgin Mary!

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you accept that your "god experience" could have been a delusion.

Only to the extent that everything we experience could be an illusion. If I'm not really here right now and I don't have a heartbeat and don't bleed when I'm cut then maybe nothing is what it seems. All we have is the evidence of our minds, souls and senses. If they are all tricking us then this conversation is just senseless babbling anyway.

 

[PruePhillip]

You still didn't say when "Persian and Greek Times" was.

And you still seem to be arguing that people in later times had no knowledge of earlier events - which is obvious nonsense.

"Archaeology" does not even confirm the existence of the ark. It remains a myth.

What was lost at Shiloh was the Tabernacle, not the Ark.
The Persian and Greek times covers the Captivity through the Macabees, about 200-300 years.
To write a story about Shiloh after about a thousand years you would need some strong oral-tradition or existing documents
(assuming the bible WAS written at this time, which it wasn't) So if you 'wrote the Tanakh' at this time and used existing
documents then you aren't really writing the Tanakh at all - you are just translating or copying it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I seem to remember that he forced himself on the Virgin Mary!

God didn't have sexual relations with Mary if that's what you mean. She could have refused BTW. She was asked for her consent and gave it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Still entirely untrue

So you read a study with something other than your perceptions? And decide if you believe it with something other than your mind?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Scepticism is built into such studies, or they'd be rejected at peer review. The reputation of a research team or scientist who published work slanted by their own bias, would be severely tarnished, perhaps irretrievably. As unlike creationist and religious apologists, they can't just assume the conclusions they want, and bend everything to suit.

And most of the time they are still wrong..

 

[KWED]

If I follow your line of reasoning that's a possibility. If there is objective truth in the universe then I can believe the evidence of my senses and perception. Otherwise it's all doubtful.

My line of reasoning is that we can trust our perceptions if they can be repeatedly, independently verified. It is your line of "reasoning" that we simply accept things at face value without need for repeatable, independent confirmation.
Of course there is "objective truth" (eg. a specific god either exists or does not), but arriving at it is often problematical.

 

[PruePhillip]

Because of the mythical nature of the claims made about them. Their ages for a start. Abraham was supposed to be 175 years old. Not possible. So mythical.
There may have been an actual person on whom the myth was based, but he didn't live to be 175 and perform magic.

What's more, historians now generally accept that there may not even have been a historical basis for the characters, and that they are purely fictional creations.

At 100 years of age Abraham witnessed the destruction of the Jordan Valley. That places him ca 1650 BC.
Interestingly, that's the same date aprox when the Hyksos seized lower Egypt - the Canaanites were Hyksos and they
could have overwhelmed Egypt with refugees. In any case the Hebrews spent centuries in Egypt, coming out at the
same time as the Phillistines also came out - possibly as POW's of Egypt after a failed invasion during the Bronze
Age Collapse. The dates are interesting. A hundred years or so and we read of the Phillistines capturing the Ark of
the Covenant.