Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

I dismissed compatibalism, but that's not because I don't understand it. I once tried to be a compatabalist and before that I was nearly a determinist before I knew what one was. It is as I said, just another form of determinism. Instead of hard determinism, it tries to have its cake and eat it too, by saying free will and determinism can both co exist. It's inherently illogical, IMO.

How can you "try to be" something like that? Either the argument/evidence is convincing or it isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

But that is not proof.

 

[KWED]

I am a Christian and like many other Christians I would not 'flock' to these charlatans. A 'prosperity Gospel' is not what
Jesus taught. And Peter warned of those who would 'make merchandise of you.' Jesus said 'Freely received, freely
given.' This means you ought not take your wallet to church.

How can you "freely give" (or the church "freely receive") if you don't have your wallet?

 

[KWED]

Any evidence that the universe is NOT human centered? No.

Yes. The simple fact that we have been here for the blink of an eye, will just as soon be gone, while the universe continues oblivious. We inhabit a remote point in one of billions of galaxies, who we are and where we are is nothing special.

The one thing we HAVE figure out is that yes, humans ARE the center of the universe and the sun DOES go around us,
only it's not just 'us' but YOU. That's relativity.

Still making no sense.

It's about OBSERVERS.
If I say 'It's now sunrise' - is that valid or should I say 'The earth has rotated around so we can now view the sun'
Both are valid, but not just in a metaphoric way.
On the moon you will see 'Earth rise' which would be quite pretty. But is the earth 'rising'? To an observer on the
moon, yes, the earth is rising above the horizon.
Two objects fly past each other deep in space, way beyond our solar system - which one is 'moving' ? You see the
other object flash past but you can't see the object was moving, and fast, because maybe the object was 'stationary'
and it was YOU who was flying past.

Ah, I understand now.
Humans can somethings feel like they are the centre of the universe, even though they are not.
Yeah, people can suffer from delusions of self-importance. Not sure where that gets you though.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes. The simple fact that we have been here for the blink of an eye, will just as soon be gone, while the universe continues oblivious. We inhabit a remote point in one of billions of galaxies, who we are and where we are is nothing special.

Still making no sense.

Ah, I understand now.
Humans can somethings feel like they are the centre of the universe, even though they are not.
Yeah, people can suffer from delusions of self-importance. Not sure where that gets you though.

So our luna settler is suffering from hubris when he shows his children 'Earth Rise' ?
And the astronomer who says the galaxies are all flying AWAY from us suffers the same hubris?
No, human centric is just taking note of the OBSERVER EFFECT.
YOU and the Earth are the center of the universe because you see the heavens wheeling around you.
In each of these far flung stars and planets they see YOU rotating around THEMSELVES.
No hubris needed.

 

[PruePhillip]

How can you "freely give" (or the church "freely receive") if you don't have your wallet?

Jesus said he was giving his Gospel freely. He charged no-one for it. Those he sent out likewise were to take no wallet with them.
They had received the Gospel for 'free' and they were to give it freely also.
Once Peter's 'wolves' had seized the flock and made merchandise of them they built their temples, despite Jesus saying that God
does not dwell in such structures.

 

[Kenny]

All you offered was hand waving denials? What logical fallacy? Be a dear and offer a link to an explanation of it, and quote where you claim I used it, as I think this is BS.

LOL... I am talking overall... but you probable will deny that too...

As I said before, when you have something of import, happy to address it. Simply giving your opinions as if it were truth isn't a part of the discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

LOL... I am talking overall... but you probable will deny that too...

As I said before, when you have something of import, happy to address it. Simply giving your opinions as if it were truth isn't a part of the discussion.

If I recall right, you manage okay and you were overall lucky in the life you have had based on what you have wrote in other threads. You then explain that with God.
The rest of us then ask: What about the unlucky ones?
And you don't seen to answer that.

 

[KWED]

The texts that the early Christians received included notes from the Apostles (mostly still alive)

There is no evidence for this assertion. Historians are in agreement that there are no recorded eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

These guys kept the church on the straight and narrow. We see with the last Apostle John that
he was having trouble with some renegades such as Diotrephes - probably the earliest Catholic
Bishiop. And Peter was concerned that after his departure 'wolves' would enter the flock, and
his people would be 'made merchandise' of.
By the Second Century all bets were off with many groups wanting to create their own doctrines.
This is where Easter, Christmas, Christian priests, altars, churches, indulgences, rosary beads,
Mary Queen of Heaven and the Inquistion and Crusades came from.

Yet again, you are simply saying that you accept these texts because they are the accepted texts.

 

[KWED]

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.

The formation of the Earth and moon, explained

 

[KWED]

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.

Yes, we know that you don't believe anything is real - even your own belief that nothing is real.
Doesn't really get us anywhere though, does it?

 

[KWED]

But that is not proof.

 

[blü 2]

But that is not proof.

It's not mathematical proof, no.

But it may be proof in the legal sense, a satisfactory demonstration of the claim, or at the least a demonstration significantly more satisfactory than the demonstration presented for the contrary case.

In reality there are no absolute statements outside this sentence.

 

[KWED]

So our luna settler is suffering from hubris when he shows his children 'Earth Rise' ?

No. They are simply using a common but inaccurate expression. They will know that the earth isn't actually rising and will likely have taught their children that.

And the astronomer who says the galaxies are all flying AWAY from us suffers the same hubris?

Do they? They are all moving away from everything. All astronomers understand this.

No, human centric is just taking note of the OBSERVER EFFECT.

That is not what "The Observer Effect" is. What you are describing is just "being wrong" and it doesn't affect the system being observed.

YOU and the Earth are the center of the universe because you see the heavens wheeling around you.

People of limited knowledge may think that, but they are wrong.
When you are a train that stops at a station and it feels like it is still moving, it isn't actually moving, even if it seems like it is.

In each of these far flung stars and planets they see YOU rotating around THEMSELVES.
No hubris needed.

Indeed, just a lack of knowledge, because they are wrong. The universe isn't rotating around them.
Hopefully this has cleared up your misunderstanding.

 

[KWED]

As I said before, when you have something of import, happy to address it. Simply giving your opinions as if it were truth isn't a part of the discussion.

Given that your thread is about the efficacy of prayer, an important issue for you to address is...
What are the many prayers you have had answered?

You keep making this claim as "evidence" for the efficacy of prayer, yet steadfastly refuse to elaborate.
So tell us, what are the prayers that god considers important enough to grant, while ignoring so many prayers for children dying in agony? Why are you more deserving than them?
You really need to explain this.

(Of course, you will simply ignore this again, presumably because you realise just what a hole you have dug for yourself.)

 

[KWED]

If I recall right, you manage okay and you were overall lucky in the life you have had based on what you have wrote in other threads. You then explain that with God.
The rest of us then ask: What about the unlucky ones?
And you don't seen to answer that.

@KenS is special. God considers his prayers more important than those for children dying in agony.

 

[PruePhillip]

No. They are simply using a common but inaccurate expression. They will know that the earth isn't actually rising and will likely have taught their children that.

Do they? They are all moving away from everything. All astronomers understand this.

That is not what "The Observer Effect" is. What you are describing is just "being wrong" and it doesn't affect the system being observed.

People of limited knowledge may think that, but they are wrong.
When you are a train that stops at a station and it feels like it is still moving, it isn't actually moving, even if it seems like it is.

Indeed, just a lack of knowledge, because they are wrong. The universe isn't rotating around them.
Hopefully this has cleared up your misunderstanding.

If you are on the moon watching Earth Rise, you aren't even seeing the moon 'go around the earth' because both are spiralling through
space around the sun. The dance of the sun, earth and moon is a very complex movement through the Milky Way. It looks like the
Sun is a comet with planets spiralling in a vortex around it. Nice animation here The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube

So is the earth 'going around the sun' or is the 'sun rising each day' or are we in a vortex spiral?
Depends.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is no evidence for this assertion. Historians are in agreement that there are no recorded eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

Yet again, you are simply saying that you accept these texts because they are the accepted texts.

Earliest dated letter is Paul's letter to the Thessalonian one, ca 50 AD.
Luke wrote the Acts and his Gospel. He died mid 60's AD with Paul.
John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus as an old man. It's our last Gospel.
So until the close of the First Century there was still Apostolic authority of sorts - various ministers and new
writings and doctrines could be contested by those who were alive with Jesus, or even worked with the
Apostles in the early days of Acts.
By the Second Century this wasn't the case. People began to add or remove all sorts of things the Apostles
wrote or said. Who was going to stop them? These people eventually had the power to kill those who lived
as the Apostles did.

 

[KWED]

If you are on the moon watching Earth Rise, you aren't even seeing the moon 'go around the earth' because both are spiralling through
space around the sun. The dance of the sun, earth and moon is a very complex movement through the Milky Way. It looks like the
Sun is a comet with planets spiralling in a vortex around it. Nice animation here The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube

So is the earth 'going around the sun' or is the 'sun rising each day' or are we in a vortex spiral?
Depends.

Really? I thought we had put this to bed.
A person's misunderstanding of a physical event does not change the nature of that event. The person is simply mistaken.

I refer you back to the train analogy.
Another is to stand under a skyscraper when the wind is blowing clouds away from you. It looks like the building is falling on you - but it isn't! The fact that it seems like it is falling on you doesn't change the realist that it isn't. Your "observer's perspective" is irrelevant to the process.

 

[KWED]

Earliest dated letter is Paul's letter to the Thessalonian one, ca 50 AD.
Luke wrote the Acts and his Gospel. He died mid 60's AD with Paul.
John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus as an old man. It's our last Gospel.
So until the close of the First Century there was still Apostolic authority of sorts - various ministers and new
writings and doctrines could be contested by those who were alive with Jesus, or even worked with the
Apostles in the early days of Acts.
By the Second Century this wasn't the case. People began to add or remove all sorts of things the Apostles
wrote or said. Who was going to stop them? These people eventually had the power to kill those who lived
as the Apostles did.

None of the records we have were written by eye-witnesses. None of the records were written by any of the Apostles. That is the historical consensus. It is irrelevant when people lived or died. If they were not eye-witnesses, they were not eye-witnesses.