Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PruePhillip]

No, if no point is privileged, then NO POINT has that honor. There is no center to the expansion. Each point gets a distorted view. What is important is the whole geometry, not the view of any point.

Let's rephrase - if I am on the moon I watch 'Earth rise' and if I am on the Earth I watch 'moon rise'
Who is rising ?
Depends who you ask.

 

[KWED]

There is for those who experience it's effects. Again you insist on everything having to be physical.

This is where you run into a fundamental, insurmountable problem.
If you insist that an individual's "experience of god" is evidence that said god exists, then you have to accept the existence of every god/spirit that anyone has ever "experienced".
And as all those other gods exist, then your god is clearly dishonest or ignorant - in which case, why choose to believe its lies/nonsense and worship it?

 

[KWED]

Yep 96 percent of people suffer from hallucinations.. sounds perfectly reasonable, you convinced me!
Why people give you guys any credit for logic is beyond me.

Most people believe in god/s because they have been brought up to believe in them from infancy, not because they have had miraculous visions.
Childhood indoctrination is well understood to be a very powerful tool in shaping people's behaviour. As Aristotle said... "Give me the boy until he is seven and I will show you the man".

Also, presumably you claim that all the people claiming to have "experience" of the gods of other religions are all delusional, despite them being as certain of their truth as you are of yours - so what s the difference between them and you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most people believe in god/s because they have been brought up to believe in them from infancy, not because they have had miraculous visions.
Childhood indoctrination is well understood to be a very powerful tool in shaping people's behaviour. As Aristotle said... "Give me the boy until he is seven and I will show you the man".

And some people believe in philosophical naturalism or similar variants, because they are in culture that has that world view.
That is not unique to religion. That is how culture work in general.

 

[KWED]

Let's rephrase - if I am on the moon I watch 'Earth rise' and if I am on the Earth I watch 'moon rise'
Who is rising ?

Neither. Your misconception does not change the reality of what is actually happening.

 

[KWED]

Yeah you aren't addressing my beliefs at all. The spiritual realm is real, not because I think it is, but because it just is.

And yet the only "evidence" that you have been able to present is your "thinking it is".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet the only "evidence" that you have been able to present is your "thinking it is".

Well, what is real it is that not all natural processes are objective and the non-objective ones are what allows us to argue over in the end of what reality really is. But that is not limited to religion.

 

[KWED]

Everyone has influences, but that doesn't mean they have to succumb to those influences.

What is the practical difference between a person not succumbing to those influences, and succumbing to them without realising it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only it's not. And no one can live as if it is. Lots of theists believe in determinism, BTW. I'm just not one of them.
BTW some will say free will means ability to act without influences. That's not what I mean at all. Everyone has influences, but that doesn't mean they have to succumb to those influences.

So you haven't succumbed to any influence?

 

[KWED]

Jesus compared the holy spirit with the wind.

Interesting, because "wind" isn't an actual thing. It is simply an effect caused by something else.
So according to Jesus, the "Holy Spirit" isn't an actual thing, it is just an effect caused by something else - an electro-chemical imbalance in the brain, perhaps?

 

[KWED]

Of course I believe that the spiritual realm is as real, actually more real, than the physical one.

Now you're just being silly.

And given that most people experience it,

1. Ad pop fallacy.
2. As most people experience a "spiritual realm" that disproves your own version, you have just argued yourself into a corner.

I'd say your idea that it can't be tested is wrong.

Cool. Explain how we objectively test for a spiritual realm. A test that is repeatable by anyone, regardless of their position on the issue, and will produce the same results.

Just because something isn't measurable by physical means doesn't negate it's existence.

You just claimed that it can be tested. Now you admit it can't.
Make your mind up.

 

[KWED]

No you don't. I bet you even look both ways before you cross the street. If everything is determined, things like that are unnecessary. You can't change anything if everything is determined... if you sit on the couch and eat ho hos, or go and work hard it make no difference, whatever will be will be.
Why not let fate just do it's thing? It's impossible. You still are motivated to try and excel at something even if it's pointless.

1. Do you believe that your god infallibly knows everything you will do in the future?
2. Do you believe that you can do something that god does not know you will do?

 

[KWED]

It's pretty close. In fact, can you prove that more people understand what air is than there are people who believe in God? Since most people believe in a spiritual realm I think you are in a tiny minority.

This has to be one of the best multiple fallacies I have come across!

 

[KWED]

Another person who would rather believe that everybody in the world except for 4% have hallucinations. I don't have that kind of faith...the odds are just too much against you.

You really need to try and understand that most religionists do not experience miraculous visions. I have never met one irl who claims to have done. Belief usually comes through childhood indoctrination and cultural assimilation. In fact, many people who identify as belonging to a religion do not actually consider themselves religious.
This was perfectly illustrated after the last census. A question on the form said "What religion are you?" and provided a list to select from. Over 60% of people chose one of the religions. However, when the same people were asked the follow-up question "Are you religious?", over 60% responded "no". How do you explain that if, as you claim, 96% of them have "experienced god"?

Basically we can add the fallacy of composition to your long list (you think you have met god, therefore everyone who identifies with a religion has met god).

 

[KWED]

Yeah considering this is a subject that I spent years thinking about and studying,

Evidence suggests otherwise, or you should ask for your money back!

 

[KWED]

Apparently you also if you think the world was created by uncaused causes.

But you believe god is an "uncaused cause".

(Also, we understand the natural processes that formed the world. No need for magic)

 

[KWED]

Usually, when skeptics ask us Christians for “proof,” they are usually calling for “scientific proof ” for God’s existence, or the spirit realms existence.

Indeed. We require repeatable, testable proof that is apparent to any observer, regardless of their existing position. If it is only apparent to people who already believe in it, then it is not "proof". Individual anecdote of feelings is certainly not "proof".
QED

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you believe god is an "uncaused cause".

(Also, we understand the natural processes that formed the world. No need for magic)

No, we don't. There is no unified theory of everything. At least be intellectually honest and further learned to understand methodological naturalism, because you claim something for which there is no we. You are expressing your world view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed. We require repeatable, testable proof that is apparent to any observer, regardless of their existing position. If it is only apparent to people who already believe in it, then it is not "proof". Individual anecdote of feelings is certainly not "proof".
QED

Under the axiomatic assumptions of methodical naturalism and science. But those assumptions have no proof themselves. That is why they are axiomatic and how proof works as you use it.

 

[KWED]

So you are admitting that your explanation could leave room for God, and in fact requires a uncaused cause?

lol!
It means that your objection to a "universe" (or the material it is composed of) that "just exists" can be dismissed.

If the alternatives are
1. A "universe" that just exists.
or
2. A universe that exists because a god that just exists created it by magic
Then 1 is clearly the more reasonable.