Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

It is a combination of coping to existential events, the personal for lack of better words subculture/values of a given person and their actual cognitive makeup. But not all changes are existential, in some people they are driven by the cognitive makeup for some choices.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you obviously apply the same degree of scepticism to the tales of magic in the Bible (probably more so because of a complete lack of evidence for magic in the first place).
What's that?
You don't??
Please explain why.

I have faith in the Bible. Why do I have to keep explaining that to you? I don't have faith in people who claim to know what was happening 30 billion years ago, using methods that cannot account for changes we aren't aware of in how science itself functioned.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As far as the biblical reason to believe in free will:

"The Bible often expresses this free center of the human self by referring to the “heart.” Jesus says the heart is like a tree: it brings forth good or evil fruit according to its nature (Luke 6:43–44). Thus, he continues, “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart” (Luke 6:45). No further explanation for the fruit is necessary. Jesus teaches that “out of the heart” all “evil thoughts,” as well as “murder, adultery, [and] sexual immorality” come (Matt. 15:19). The final explanation for human behavior is to be found in this self-determining center of the human self."

I don't see a reason to believe in free will there. This is a statement that some people have good wills and others malevolent ones.

At this point in my life I doubt very much I could reject God because I've seen too much of Him to doubt to that extent.

This is how the empiricist "decides" belief, except not just for gods. Using the principles of critical thinking, he decides what has been demonstrated to be correct and believes what has been. Absent that, he does not hold that belief. This is why there is no need or room for faith in this epistemology.

I'm working outside as I usually do when the weather is decent, surrounded by life! The crows are calling the chickens are clucking and one of our sheep had five babies last night. Life is always a miracle, and science has no ultimate explanation for it. Only: "this is how we think life got from point A point B." God explains why... Science only tries to explain how. The reason all this exists can't be" there's no reason." That is the most illogical answer of all.

I've already explained to you that I don't consider the faith-based pronouncements of religion knowledge or answers. Religion has no answers, just faith-based guesses and promises that can't be verified and need not be kept.

And congratulations on your flock, but I think you go too far in your understanding of your spiritual experiences with nature. The humanist has these as well, but does not conclude that they indicate a deity. It's perfectly reasonable for evolution to have gifted man with assorted faculties that facilitate his survival including a sense of the sacred that says nothing about reality, but rather, how he experiences it. This is analogous to many other such faculties. A sense of humor tells him what's funny, or what he considers valuable or beautiful. It's all him modifying the input of the senses. Likewise with an experience that reality is sacred.

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

You just pretend that a god exists that is exempt from the laws of nature and reason. You were talking about illogical above in reference to science's inability to give you "ultimate explanations" and to your strawmen depictions of the pronouncements of science. Then you just make pronouncements ex culo that are incoherent. Everything real is subject to natural law. If gods exist, they are natural and subject to whatever laws maintain their structural integrity and that of their knowledge, and allow them to create.

He was here in bodily form. And he is detectable to millions of people today. And his creation speaks of him constantly.

You wrote that in response to, "Think of this when you hear a theist tell others that the supernatural is undetectable even in principle. He's telling you that it doesn't exist in this reality, that it is causally disconnected from nature." I'm here in bodily form as well. Are you offering that as evidence that a supernatural realm said to be undetectable even in principle exists? The opinions of believers aren't evidence that their beliefs represent something with an external referent (something more real than an idea confined to the heads of those who believe it).

 

[Kenny]

That I leave to God, if She exists. Not you nor me. You are one of those humans regardless of actual beliefs, who think, that how they cope, is the only way to cope. That makes you potentially dangerous to other humans and again that has not to do with you being religious as you are.
I have spotted that in some non-religious people too, so it is not unique to religion. And no, I don't consider you wrong or any of that. You just haven't learned the difference between individual, social and objective in some cases. But again, that is not unique to you. We are biased at times, including you and I.

I don't think we have interacted enough for that conclusion to be made.

For an example "How they cope is the only way to cope". Hardly fits my person.

Maybe, as we interact more and ask questions, you will know me better.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to think that what we believe dictates what is.

Didn't you just proclaim that DNA doesn't affect the soul? That's you willing souls and their relationship to DNA into your personal existence. That's all of religious doctrine to me, and why I put no stock in any of it. It's not the method I use to decide what is true about the world, so whatever it generates for others is unimportant to me. But to the believer, it's all graduated to real, as if their faith were a path to truth. And they hope to be taken seriously and have such opinions respected by people who reject faith as a path to truth. So it's interesting to see that comment from you above.

So yes, the empiricist DOES think that the faith-based thinker generates beliefs without consulting reality (nonempirically) and that those beliefs dictate what he considers real. I understand that you don't see it that way, but it might help you to recognize that it IS how others see it before you write comments like that. You seem to think that you can defend the idea that that is not exactly what the believer does. You can't do that without a sound argument, and you have no such valid argument. You would do well to recognize that the critical thinker decides what is true about the world using only ideas that have been shown to be correct using the laws of reason applied to evidence to generate sound conclusions. I have that in this discussion, but you don't. I'm saying that you are doing what you seem to be denying you do, and I offer your unevidenced proclamation about souls as evidence that you do that. If I were wrong, it would mean that I had made an error of fact or in reasoning, and you have the opportunity to identify it (rebuttal). If you can't or don't, your opinion is dismissed as just another insufficiently evidenced claim.

And that includes all of the claims made that have been rebutted by the skeptic which rebuttal is then ignored. This is how the skeptics decides what is true, arguments like the one ignored. If it is correct, it cannot be successfully rebutted. Those ideas are so wedded together that the lack of rebuttal is the standard for belief that the unrebutted comment is correct. I think that the faith-based thinker is unaware of this. He thinks that if he ignores a comment, that the issue goes unresolved, a tie if you will. It doesn't. It's understood as an inability to refute what seems even more like a sound (and correct) conclusion by that lack of rebuttal, as when I gave you the thought argument about time travel to make my case that the issue of whether free will was an illusion (twice), you ignored the argument both times, and when I referred to it, said you didn't remember ever seeing it. I accept that as evidence that the conclusion regarding undecidability is sound. I acknowledge that I might have made an error, but until it is revealed, I consider the idea settled. That's how the critical thinker decides what is true or correct. He confirms his idea empirically when possible, and tentatively considers arguments that appear to be sound and which have not been successfully rebutted to be correct, always open to evidence that it is not.

Something similar happens when you ignore comments like mine speculating on whether your defense of free will is the usual defense of the justness of damnation or a defense of the idea of a soul being in the image of the divine having free will and conferring it on the "meat bag" it inhabits, or a little of both, or something altogether different. You chose to ignore that as well, and so I have come to my own conclusions without your input, what seems most likely to me based on what you have written about free will. Your reaction would be unthinkable to me. I can't imagine you speculating about me and my neither confirming that you were correct or explaining to you why I think you aren't, but just letting you hang there and risk you holding a false view that I could easily have corrected. Seriously: unthinkable. Impossible. If it ever happens, send an ambulance to my home, because I've been incapacitated.

These paragraphs aren't intended to demean you, but to give you insights that will better help you accomplish whatever your goals are here on RF. You'll want to understand your audience of skeptics and how they process what you tell them and notably, what you don't say. Saying that thinks seem illogical to you only works with people that haven't decided that you don't reason well. You may disagree with that assessment of your reasoning prowess, but unless you can provide evidence that you have learned to think logically, your pronouncements of what seems ridiculous to you aren't understood as indictments of those ideas but rather, a shortcoming on your part to conclude that an idea they find tenable you dismiss as ridiculous and illogical out of hand.

Would any of this matter to you if it were correct? Maybe you aren't posting for your human audience. Maybe you are virtue signaling to you god, doing what you think is expected of you whatever effect it has on how people think about you or the god you believe in. It all depends on what you see as your purpose posting. If it is to appease a deity, then I have no help to offer you. If it is to promote your beliefs and the virtue of theism, then you might want to consider the effect you actually have and that it might not be what you think it is. Your net presentation is simply an affirmation to most skeptics that faith yields no answers and that their choice to be critical thinkers and skeptics was a correct and valuable one.

Unfortunately, I fully expect no answer. I expect this question to go unanswered by you, and for me to once again have to decide for myself without your input what is likely going on in your mind. I can tell you what that is at this point, and will remain if you don't give me reason to believe otherwise: you're here on an audition for heaven with little regard for what anybody thinks of your posting other than the deity you believe is watching and judging you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's perfectly reasonable for evolution to have gifted man with assorted faculties that facilitate his survival including a sense of the sacred that says nothing about reality, but rather, how he experiences it.

Seriously? Why would blind causation give us a spiritual sense? It's only function is survival of the species. We don't need to be spiritual to survive.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If gods exist, they are natural and subject to whatever laws maintain their structural integrity and that of their knowledge, and allow them to create.

If they are subject to laws they are just created beings themselves. This doesn't tell us anything about why such laws exist. If there's nothing outside those laws, nothing should exist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm here in bodily form as well. Are you offering that as evidence that a supernatural realm said to be undetectable even in principle exists? T

Well yeah, you are evidence of something outside of science existing. You have a soul and a spirit and a will. There's no need for any of those in a purely naturalistic universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Something similar happens when you ignore comments like mine speculating on whether your defense of free will is the usual defense of the justness of damnation or a defense of the idea of a soul being in the image of the divine having free will and conferring it on the "meat bag" it inhabits, or a little of both, or something altogether different.

I have already covered this. Free will is necessary for us to be anything but automatons. If you don't believe in free will there's really no reason to take anything you say seriously because that would mean your words themselves are determined by forces outside of your will. They could be false or true but they would not be your arguments at all. It would be like playing a game with an artificial intelligence. The AI only does what it's programming tells it to. If that's how the universe operates then all these discussions are just fizz in a bottle and meaningless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Didn't you just proclaim that DNA doesn't affect the soul?

Would you prefer I put IMO whenever I make a statement that's my belief? Maybe you would find that less confusing? Not everything is an argument.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You seem to think that you can defend the idea that that is not exactly what the believer does. You can't do that without a sound argument, and you have no such valid argument.

Really? Why would you assume that? The shape of the reality I see dictates what I believe. My experiences dictate what I believe. The same is true of everyone I would hope, but I really doubt it.
Can you disbelieve in something you have experienced as reality? Good luck with that. Maybe if you simply choose not to accept it and decide you were hallucinating you could eventually get there. Being honest with myself means I can't choose to dismiss God even when he makes me uncomfortable. I think sometimes that atheists have this idea that we are this way only because it makes us happy, so we choose fantasy over reality. Truth is, sometimes reality sucks. I don't like being convicted of my sin. It's actually easier sometimes to ignore God's existence... but ultimately, it always results in bondage, not freedom. I don't have to prove anything to anyone or to God, BTW. My self worth isn't found in winning arguments. I'd rather testify to God's existence and let people decide for themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only much of what is known as science doesn't have evidence.

But it is not known whether there is/are God(s) or not. I know you have faith. I have a different one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Demonstrate the big bang. Test it to see if it happened.

Test that last Thursday happened.

 

[F1fan]

Ah, the ol' Democrats and the KKK. They thought they were doing good. People were lynched in the name of doing good. But it aint the 'doing good' that matters if you hate someone, or worse, kill them. You can kill many people and think that you are 'doing good', but not before God - there's an absolute gold standard of behavior.

That's right. Back when the Democrats were conservative in their political platform they had an extremist view of things. Lincoln was the first Republican president and he had liberal views, which opposed indentured servitude. The north of the USA has always been largely liberal, and that is why it went from being Republican to democrat over time, mostly in the 60's.

Eishenhower as a republican spent vast amounts of money investing in the interstate highway system. Nixon carried on LBJ's Medicaid and Medicare policies. In the 60's and 70's the two parties were fairly close in that they both supported good social programs that helped the average American. Today we see a farther divide between the parties, one that wants to help balance the inequities and how the advantaged should pay more into society than the disadvantaged. The other party is more hostile to these ideas, and we see them accuse democrats as being socialists. The funny thing is during the Cold War what republicans call socialism today is what the republicans did themselves, so this is more political nonsense to riled up the conservative voter than service to the people.

Who today is limiting access to polls of minority voters? Which side of politics eliminated the voting rights act? Which side is designing representative districts to eliminate black representation? That happened in Florida specifically, and DeSantis looks to be getting away with it. Florida has nearly a 50/50 split in democrat to republican voters yet the way republicans have designed their districts they look to have 20 of 27 seats in congress. Does that suggest ethical governing? Or a violation of trust?

 

[ppp]

Lucky socks?!!!! Never heard that one.

Really? People have believed that there are things that are talisman that enhance luck or good fortune for all of recorded history. Clothing, medallions, keepsakes, etc. A guy on my soccer

You are trying to reconcile religious beliefs with naturalistics beliefs - no telescope, microscope, equation, experiment or set of logic rules will suffice. Faith is faith.

I am not trying to reconcile them with anything. I am saying that accepting existential claims based on faith is an exercise in hubris and vanity with little sincere interest in distinguishing fact from falsity. It is a choice to take the path of comforting lies over the road of hard truths. And that is the case even if there is a god.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Unfortunately, I fully expect no answer. I expect this question to go unanswered by you, and for me to once again have to decide for myself without your input what is likely going on in your mind. I can tell you what that is at this point, and will remain if you don't give me reason to believe otherwise: you're here on an audition for heaven with little regard for what anybody thinks of your posting other than the deity you believe is watching and judging you.

Audition for heaven? That's kind of an odd statement...why do you think heaven holds auditions? No I'm here for fun, and to perhaps to make someone who is undecided think that following God might be a good choice. I'm not here to impress you or God. God already loves messed up me as I am, and frankly, your opinion isn't that important.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Test that last Thursday happened.

I don't have to. I was there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I am not trying to reconcile them with anything. I am saying that accepting existential claims based on faith is an exercise in hubris and vanity with little sincere interest in distinguishing fact from falsity. It is a choice to take the path of comforting lies over the road of hard truths. And that is the case even if there is a god.

Well for relevant cases I take methodological naturalism on faith, in that I trust with confidence that it works, but I have seen no evidence or proof of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't have to. I was there.

So you are God, because you know that past now as now. That explains a lot. But I still don't believe in you, since I have another faith.

 

[ppp]

Well for relevant cases I take methodological naturalism on faith, in that I trust with confidence that it works, but I have seen no evidence or proof of it.

What would constitute evidence for it?