Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have noticed some apologists try to portray objective facts as absolutes, rather than simply ideas that are supported by overwhelming objective evidence. It may be because they are dimly aware that there is no objective evidence for any deity, and thus seek to validate that belief by denying the existence of it.

It is an objective fact that world is not flat, but even this need not rationally be an absolute, as some people are fond of claiming we might be living in a very cleverly designed simulation. However whilst the objective evidence that the world is not flat is overwhelming, there is absolutely none for the idea we live in a simulation, hence I have no choice but to believe the former, and disbelieve the latter.

I'ld say that even IF we live in a simulation, then clearly we are still bound by the rules / laws / physics of that simulation. So I don't think it makes a difference.

If reality is actually real or simulated, the earth is still not flat. Not if it is actually real, not if it is simulated.
If the universe is a simulation, then within that simulation, the earth is still not flat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists don't make any sense.

...to you.


Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.

You can believe without knowing.
That would make you agnostic theist.
You can also disbelieve without knowing.
That would make you an agnostic atheist.

You might want to think things through a bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The alien explanation is just kicking a can up the road, it's not an explanation of how everything came to be.

You are not answering the question. Instead, you are making just more bare assertions.

Again: how is god a better explanation then aliens?
In what specific way?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To claim every religious person is suffering from delusions is delusional.

I made no such claim.
That's just what you made of it.

People can also be simply honestly mistaken.
Also, people can also be delusional about something without it involving mental problems and / or hallucinations.

You should stop being so uptight defensive and instead relax a bit and think things through with a speck of intellectual honesty.

Don't you find it a bit arrogant to think that your 4% are the only sane people in the world?

I don't think that, so I don't have to feel any kind of way about it.
I have no need to defend your strawmen.

 

[Wildswanderer]

With over 96% of our DNA matching that of chimpanzees, you might want to contemplate that claim a little more rigorously.

DNA doesn't effect the soul.

 

[metis]

Were they there?

Of course not, but haven't you ever heard of "forensic evidence"? Many have been convicted on that basis alone, such as the use of fingerprints or d.n.a. evidence. It's ironic that you poke fun off scientists and yet you believe in scripture and what some religions teach that can't be objectively verified.

Then there's a vast amount of speculation...

Not when formulating scientific theories, which are held to a much higher standard than personal theories.

In reality they can't even get things right that happened 400 years ago.

Oh really? Such as...?

Clearly, you have a double standard with your blind belief in religion while fabricating stories about what we supposedly do in science. In science, we can check and cross-check the data, but in the area of religion we typically can't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Impossible... you can't repeat every scientific experiment that you've heard of to prove it to yourself.

"you" is not "you" personally.
It's "you" as in anyone. Other scientists.
Nobody stops you from becoming a scientist.

As said, this is why the scientific method exists. It's designed from the ground up to minimize influence of human bias and subjectivity.

This is why studies are double blind. This is why the peer review process exists.

Also: you test scientific theories every single day.
Every time you use your GPS, you test the theory of relativity for example.
I bet you don't even know why.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not when formulating scientific theories, which are held to a much higher standard than personal theories.

You obviously haven't looked into it very much. Entire " ancestors" have been invented from a few bone fragments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love offered freely to all is strange? Destruction for not believing is strange? Why, isn't death what you asked for if you don't accept life?

Isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?

You might want to read what I actually wrote again and respond to what I actually said.

 

[Wildswanderer]

you" is not "you" personally.
It's "you" as in anyone. Other scientists.

That obviously never got anything wrong about the past. I do some work that involves research into the not so distant past, and I can tell you the room for error is enormous. Books are often written by the people who haven't done what they say a tool is used for for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then quit riding the fence and get on one side or the other.

There's nothing in that post about "riding the fence".

More dishonesty on your part.
More bearing false witness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't pretend that God is ruled by the laws of science. Atheist do not have that option with their explanations.

If aliens created this universe as a simulation, then those aliens wouldn't be bound by the laws of this universe either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would take more lifetimes than one. Seriously? Do you also have access to all the bones of our supposed ancestors so you can analyze them and do you have the education to do that?

He could get that education and subsequent access to those fossils.

Obviously they don't let any average Joe without proper credentials touch those valuable artifacts.
Just like as a mere tourist, you won't be able to touch the Mona Lisa at the Louvre either. You could try, but it likely won't end well for you.

Neither would CERN allow non-qualified people push the buttons of the LHC.

This should be obvious to anyone who thinks for two seconds and / or who can be honest on this matter.

 

[metis]

You obviously haven't looked into it very much. Entire " ancestors" have been invented from a few bone fragments.

That is absolutely untrue as I taught the subject for 30 years after completing my graduate work. The amount of bones & fragments varies from find to find, although it is more likely that more will be missing the further back in time we go.

Even with that being the case with older finds, we don't just guess at what we've found as all bones fit together like a jig-saw puzzle. Reconstructions that involves skin, otoh, are indeed somewhat more speculative as skin rarely fossilizes.

But why do you keep inventing stories?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seriously? you are asking me to believe something on faith?

Nope.

Things that are produced through the scientific method, don't require faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA doesn't effect the soul.

What "soul"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You obviously haven't looked into it very much. Entire " ancestors" have been invented from a few bone fragments.

Not "invented".

Instead "derived/inferred/concluded based on evidence", by paleontologists, etc.

Which is to say: highly qualified people who are educated in these matters and understand what they are looking at.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That obviously never got anything wrong about the past.

I never said otherwise. More strawmanning coming up?

I do some work that involves research into the not so distant past, and I can tell you the room for error is enormous.

Your vague non-specific "argument", which is yet another bare assertion, carries no weight.

Books are often written by the people who haven't done what they say a tool is used for for example.

I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean nor how it fits into the conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But why do you keep inventing stories?

Because he can't defend his bs with the truth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I never said otherwise. More strawmanning coming up?



Your vague non-specific "argument", which is yet another bare assertion, carries no weight.



I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean nor how it fits into the conversation.

Because you don't want to understand that mistakes are common even for history that's only a few hundred years old or less.