Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

"likely" with no evidence whatsoever?

Like your entirely unevidenced assumptions.

 

[PruePhillip]

When did I ever cite the media? I'm making my judgment of Christianity on what I have witnessed myself. These pastors have no problem letting us know exactly who they are. I have seen the videos made by Pat Robertson and James Copeland, among others, myself, and this speaks as testimony itself about how toxic Christianity is today.

And you are implying that media as a resource is not reliable? Some is unreliable, so we have to be very scrutinizing about what media we access and rely on.


In the USA Christianity is the most prevalent religion. And Christian extremists are very hostile towards Muslins which I suspect has pressured them to keep a low profile for their own sake.

But do you think Christianity is off limits? We aren't seeing scrutiny of Christians to volunteer are food banks, we are seeing scrutiny of pastors who violate laws, like preaching political views in sermons, and who rake in massive amounts of money from manipulated followers. You acknowledge prosperity gospel, so you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you are being judgmental yourself. So is it that only Christians can scrutinize each other?


All of this is irrelevant since Christianity demands tithing. It may not demand 10% which would turn believers off, but they still do it. Have you never been in a Christian sermon where there was not a plate passed through the pews for donations? If not tithing what is it, panhandling?

And it's not as if Christianity doesn't cite the OT for any arbitrary issue that support or oppose. Anti-gay rhetoric comes straight out of Leviticus. The 10 Commandments are OT and highly valued by Christians, and even used as a symbol. So trying to distance the OT from Christianity is not a rational approach.

With some 44,000 sects under the umbrella of Christianity there is no true Christianity.

Too much to process here
re anti-gay rhetoric. True. Homosexuality is a sin to the Abrahamic religions. So too is stealing, adulerty, pride, lust, divorce etc..
This Copeland guy. We have watched a video or two about him and his private planes. We find it disturbing and anti-Christian.
There IS a political view in biblical Christianity - it's about being moderate, and something America desperately needs now
Tithing was not in the New Testament - it was added by later devils who aggrandized power and wealth to themselves.
In Western societies criticism of Islam is muted compared to Christianity - it's part of our cultural self hate.
Some religions claiming to be 'Christian' do tithe, such as the Mormons. 10% of your gross wage - that's a lot of money.

 

[PruePhillip]

Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, and adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, and insisting what we don't don't understand must be "explicable" by inexplicable magic, is asinine.

Sheldon. Science can 'explain' much of the natural world. Not all, but much.
It cannot explain MEANING for instance, other than to deny it exists - which is not a scientific statement.
But as I see it there's two ways to explain why we are here
1 - we are created
2 - it all happened by magic

When there was n.o.t.h.i.n.g., not even time or phsyics or even numbers, then HOW did the univese
spring into being? And why? I take it that this mystery by itself points to a creator, someone who put
the universe into place, bootstrapping it with physical laws.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, you are an observer. You have consciousness.

So what?

It's utterly crucial. Does any of this exist if not for an observer?
My point is that the bible doesn't say we are the center of the universe. But Christians, adopting what just about
every other culture on earth thought, put us at the center.
I hold that this human center is not wrong. That's all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What? Hand waving evasion at best, and flatly wrong as well.

There's no natural explanation for why, only how.
No one knows where the energy came from to create the universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Like your entirely unevidenced assumptions.

So? Science is the same as religion? Religion requires faith. No one denys that. But science isn't supposed to require faith, it's supposed to be based only on solid evidence.

 

[blü 2]

So there is no absolute proof for real? Now we are getting somewhere at last.

Not in reality, no. For example, an absolute proof would have to provide absolute falsifications of unfalsifiable propositions such as eg Last Thursdayism, Dream-in-the-mind-of-a-Superbeingism, Element-in-a-Tron-gameism and so on through whatever is the complete list.

 

[Polymath257]

It's utterly crucial. Does any of this exist if not for an observer?

Yes, of course. The universe existed LONG before there was life, let alone consciousness.

My point is that the bible doesn't say we are the center of the universe. But Christians, adopting what just about
every other culture on earth thought, put us at the center.
I hold that this human center is not wrong. That's all.

It's misguided at best.

 

[Polymath257]

Sheldon. Science can 'explain' much of the natural world. Not all, but much.
It cannot explain MEANING for instance, other than to deny it exists - which is not a scientific statement.

Meaning is something given by conscious entities to things. There is meaning because somethings are more important to conscious entities than others.

But as I see it there's two ways to explain why we are here
1 - we are created
2 - it all happened by magic

Both are the religious point of view. The scientific viewpoint is neither of those.

When there was n.o.t.h.i.n.g., not even time or phsyics or even numbers, then HOW did the univese
spring into being? And why? I take it that this mystery by itself points to a creator, someone who put
the universe into place, bootstrapping it with physical laws.

There was no 'when there was nothing'. To use the word 'when' implies a time. The universe did not 'spring into being'. It imply exists as spacetime. No creator needed. No who implied.

 

[Polymath257]

There's no natural explanation for why, only how.
No one knows where the energy came from to create the universe.

It didn't 'come from' anywhere. Whenever there was time, that energy existed.

 

[Polymath257]

What? How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Not through observation of the universe.

Absolutely through observation of the universe. Every cause we have ever seen has been *within* the universe. So it is reasonable to think that causes only make sense within the universe. And that means that the term 'cause' simply doesn't apply to the universe as a whole.

 

[Polymath257]

Only that doesn't apply to the universe itself.

Yes, it actually does. The universe itself (all of space and time, matter and energy) simply exists. It is not caused because all causes are within the universe; within space and time.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Polymath, You asked for proof that the spiritual realm exists. It's really a matter of definitions. If one defines the material realm as consisting of items and attributes which can be measured, deteriorates over time, and whose behavior is predictable; the spiritual realm is the opposite of this. It consists of items and attributes which cannot be measured, do not deteriorate over time, and whose behavior is unpredictable. It's that simple.

Why would you include 'deteriorate over time' as part of your definition of material? As far as we have found, the proton, which is certainly material, does not decay. Neither do electrons.

Using this definition there's a whole host of spiritual phenomena. The most obvious examples exist as emotions. Love is not measurable, not predictable, and doesn't degrade reliably over time. The same is true of trust, mercy, injustice. The same is true of an individual's relationships with their parents. The relationship exists spiritually. The relationshi cannot be measured; it's impact cannot be predicted, and it doesn't degrade over time. Even something abstract such as an individual's name can have unpredictable, immeasurable, and non-degrading impact on their life. These are all spiritual phenomena and exist in the spiritual realm.

Emotions are certainly part of the material realm. They *can* be measured by brain scans and are mostly mediated by the limbic system (although the cortex also participates).

Clearly all of these are based on material existence and so are ultimately physical in nature. Trust, mercy, and a sense of injustice are, again, emotions, and are mediated by our brains. We can use brain scans to determine which emotions someone is feeling and how strongly they feel them. This isn't even that difficult these days.

Names, like language, are conventions. They are agreements people make to make their existence easier. I fail to see how they are not based on the material world.

It seems that you have a limited understanding of what things can and cannot be measured.

 

[Polymath257]

Facepalm! Eternal matter, because apparently anything is better than an eternal God.

We know matter exists. We can see it and touch it. We have nothing like that with deities.

What's so unreasonable about matter and energy being eternal (coexistent with time)? Why invent another entity when it isn't needed for understanding?

 

[Polymath257]

Likely? You say "likely" with no evidence whatsoever? Are you sure you aren't just having faith in something that no one has been able to demonstrate happening?

I say likely because that is what follows from the natural laws we have figured out.

 

[F1fan]

Too much to process here
re anti-gay rhetoric. True. Homosexuality is a sin to the Abrahamic religions. So too is stealing, adulerty, pride, lust, divorce etc..

Well there are gay Christians, so what do you want to do to them, execution? Stoning?

And there is no authority within the Abrahamic religions over others like atheists and Hidus, Shinto, Jaines, etc. So if Christians have moral rules, OK, those rules only extend to those believers. As we see even Christians can't agree of what is right or wrong. Liberal Christians and some conservative christians accept gays. Only select Christian extremists have bigotry against gays these days. Same goes for Muslims.

And adultery, well Evangelicals are among the highest divorce rates, so there's likely some hanky panky going on, eh?

This Copeland guy. We have watched a video or two about him and his private planes. We find it disturbing and anti-Christian.

That's it? That's all you have to say? How is it these guys can commit fraud against their followers and still call themselves Christian? I guess you aren't all that disturbed by these people. I asked how these people became accepted as Christians and you offer no explanation. Are Christians just more easily manipulated and taken advantage of?

There IS a political view in biblical Christianity - it's about being moderate, and something America desperately needs now

There are liberal and moderate Christians. But the troublemakers are the conservative Christians as they are aligned to the GOP, and not for good ends to democracy and freedom.

Tithing was not in the New Testament - it was added by later devils who aggrandized power and wealth to themselves.

Then how did it become so accepted in Christianity? Just greed, that's it?

In Western societies criticism of Islam is muted compared to Christianity - it's part of our cultural self hate.

Both religions have a huge influence on society, and Christianity is using politics to impose policy on all Americans even though that is unconstitutional. They are getting away with it. It's a problem. Muslims aren't doing this.

Some religions claiming to be 'Christian' do tithe, such as the Mormons. 10% of your gross wage - that's a lot of money.

They can get away with it if Mormons want to follow their rules.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well there are gay Christians, so what do you want to do to them, execution? Stoning?

And there is no authority within the Abrahamic religions over others like atheists and Hidus, Shinto, Jaines, etc. So if Christians have moral rules, OK, those rules only extend to those believers. As we see even Christians can't agree of what is right or wrong. Liberal Christians and some conservative christians accept gays. Only select Christian extremists have bigotry against gays these days. Same goes for Muslims.

And adultery, well Evangelicals are among the highest divorce rates, so there's likely some hanky panky going on, eh?


That's it? That's all you have to say? How is it these guys can commit fraud against their followers and still call themselves Christian? I guess you aren't all that disturbed by these people. I asked how these people became accepted as Christians and you offer no explanation. Are Christians just more easily manipulated and taken advantage of?


There are liberal and moderate Christians. But the troublemakers are the conservative Christians as they are aligned to the GOP, and not for good ends to democracy and freedom.


Then how did it become so accepted in Christianity? Just greed, that's it?


Both religions have a huge influence on society, and Christianity is using politics to impose policy on all Americans even though that is unconstitutional. They are getting away with it. It's a problem. Muslims aren't doing this.


They can get away with it if Mormons want to follow their rules.

There's two ways to view Christianity -
1 - via the Apostolic Church in the New Testament
2 - via the Copelands, Archbishops and Popes today.

It's not fair to judge Christianity by some of the devils who have risen to power within it, and define its new doctrines.

It doesn't matter what some 'Christians' might believe about gay priests, for instance, because there were no gays, or
even priests in the Apostolic Church. Both were banned. Being homosexual was a death penalty in bible culture. Same
as adultery. Doesn't matter who does it, it's still wrong.
I put it to you that liberal Christians are a problem too - but this isn't reported in liberal media. An example is African
Anglicans boycotting the Anglican Lambeth conference due to the issue of lesbian, gays and trans - something most
Africans loathe.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's misguided at best.

When you can identify the exact center of the univere, let us know.
Pin the tail on the donkey comes to mind.

 

[dybmh]

Why would you include 'deteriorate over time' as part of your definition of material?

The criteria is all three: Can't be measured *and* doesn't deteriorate *and* is unpredictable.

As far as we have found, the proton, which is certainly material, does not decay. Neither do electrons.

Both protons and electrons behave in predictable ways and can be measured so they don't qualify.

Clearly all of these are based on material existence and so are ultimately physical in nature. Trust, mercy, and a sense of injustice are, again, emotions, and are mediated by our brains. We can use brain scans to determine which emotions someone is feeling and how strongly they feel them. This isn't even that difficult these days.

The brain scan isn't measuring the quantity of love, trust, mercy, and injustice. They measure the presence. Injustice is the trickiest one. I notice you changed the wording slightly to "The sense of" injustice. This demonstrates that the brainscan is not masuring a quantity of these emotions.

Names, like language, are conventions. They are agreements people make to make their existence easier. I fail to see how they are not based on the material world.

The spiritual aspect of the name carries the potential influence it has on a person's life. For example, my name has a deep history coming from the Bible. That story is inspiring to me. This capacity to inspire is its spiritual dimension, the aspect which resides in the spiritual realm. Not all names have deep meaning, but all names have potential to be a vessel for inspiration. That's its spiritual side.

It seems that you have a limited understanding of what things can and cannot be measured.

Feel free to post evidence supporting the claim that love, trust, mercy, injustice are measured using a brainscan. I expect that they can detect a presence but not a quantity.

 

[DNB]

You just tell yourself that to make yourself feel warm and cozy. It basically ties in with your previous post.

But no, that's just your personal "hope/belief/wish" that would justify your faith. You could just call it Wisdom(tm) instead of "irrational beliefs."

So no, i don't think YOU understand what wisdom means. That's simply your personal definition, one that disagrees with all other definitions. Therefore your usage is confusing/incorrect/has no value.

...just so that no one misunderstands the point here: faith is wisdom!