Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, but saying how knowledge works, is philosophy.

Otherwise known as guesswork.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Or believer in ID could try to apply the scientific method to their beliefs. The fact is that this is a scientific question, not a theological one and there is no scientific evidence for ID. Can you explain that rather obvious failure for IDists?

The scientific method is very limited in explaining reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since science has no explanation for the universe it certainly needs something to explain how it began.

Science has more of an explanation than theists have. "God did it" is just a claim. It is not an explanation. It appears that you are being inconsistent in what you require when it comes to supporting one's beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific method is very limited in explaining reality.

You have to know that that is not the case. Science can explain far more than theists can.

 

[Sheldon]

This universe could not have possible appeared out of nowhere, or nothing.

Who says it did, and how do you claim to know what the entire scientific world does not? Making sweeping unevidenced assumptions is not wisdom, or perceptive, any fool can it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Otherwise known as guesswork.

Yeah, but it still works, because everybody else than you are still here along you in the everyday world. And that includes this:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have to know that that is not the case. Science can explain far more than theists can.

As long as you don't cross the demarcation line as it is describe here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as you don't cross the demarcation line as it is describe here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I have no problem with that. I do not tend to apply the sciences to those sorts of questions. But we were discussing the physical universe, not concepts of right and wrong or aesthetics.

 

[Sheldon]

Man, since time began, has acted in a manner that defies his superior intelligence to that of all creatures:

Humans didn't evolve until 200k years ago, whereas time as we observe it is old as the physical universe, 13.77 billion years approximately, on which its existence is dependant.

Since the beginning of history there has not been oner society or culture, worth mentioning, that did not worship a deity.

That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy, the number of people who believe something alone, tells us nothing about the belief's validity.

Man, unlike any other creature, has a conscience and a moral standard - only the wild beasts kill indiscriminately with absolutely no regret or remorse, eating one another alive.

None of this is true, not one word? Did you not know that all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups exhibit moral behaviour, or do you not understand what morality means?

Man was created in the image of God,

Nope, like all living things humans evolved, this is a scientific fact accepted by a global scientific consensus based on and supported by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence.

atheists would have to be the most oblivious and shallow people alive if there is a God.

Really, why so? If there is a deity, then humans have pointedly failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for one, and have a clear propensity to imagine deities, imagining literally thousands of them, and theistic beliefs in the majority are little more than accident of geographical birth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says it did, and how do you claim to know what the entire scientific world does not? Make sweeping unevidenced assumptions is not wisdom, or perceptive, any fool can it.

I have only seen creationists of one stripe or another make the false claim of "You believe that they universe came out of nothing." Ironically that is often their own beliefs. They will claim that God made the universe out of nothing quite often. I have seen that physicists will point out that the total energy of the universe (which includes mass) is zero so a "Universe out of nothing"
does not appear to break any of the laws of thermodynamics, but I have never seen them turn that into a claim of "The universe came from nothing". There is a significant difference between "the universe coming from nothing would not break any laws of physics" with a claim of "the universe came from nothing".

Ironically when one points out that it is the creationists making these claims they cannot even define what they mean by "nothing".

 

[wellwisher]

Science has more of an explanation than theists have. "God did it" is just a claim. It is not an explanation. It appears that you are being inconsistent in what you require when it comes to supporting one's beliefs.

The scientific method only applies to things that enter our senses from the outside. This is how we, as a group, can all verify and agree on external things.

But there are things on the inside, such as hopes and dreams, that the extroverted approach of science is not equipped to deal with. These inner things are not subject to the extroverted approach of science. An external prosthesis approach, for these inner things, is only half baked.

Science, via psychology, has attempted to replace religion when dealing with mental health. However, today there are more people with mental health issues, than ever before, such as the problem of homelessness in the USA. The richest country in the world, the land of opportunity, has more people who have lost their way, due to the impact of materialism and psychology, since these are too shallow and superficial to reach the inner depths needed. It addresses the ego, but not the inner self, as does religion.

The push towards simplicity, by many of the voluntary homeless, tries to avoid the materialist approach in favor of finding their inner voice. However, too many still use the extroverted prosthesis of science, via manufactured drugs. These can allow for temporary states of happiness, but at the cost of creating other long term problems. Many cannot find religion, since they have been brain washed to tow an atheist line, that they no longer wish to tow, except with the materialism of man made drugs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific method only applies to things that enter our senses from the outside. This is how we, as a group, can all verify and agree on external things.

But there are things on the inside, such as hopes and dreams, that the extroverted approach of science is not equipped to deal with. These inner things are not subject to the extroverted approach of science. An external prosthesis approach, for these inner things, is only half baked.

Science, via psychology, has attempted to replace religion when dealing with mental health. However, today there are more people with mental health issues, than ever before, such as the problem of homelessness in the USA. The richest country in the world, the land of opportunity, has more people who have lost their way, due to the impact of materialism and psychology, since these are too shallow and superficial to reach the inner depths needed. It addresses the ego, but not the inner self, as does religion.

The push towards simplicity, by many of the voluntary homeless, tries to avoid the materialist approach in favor of finding their inner voice. However, too many still use the extroverted prosthesis of science, via manufactured drugs. These can allow for temporary states of happiness, but at the cost of creating other long term problems. Many cannot find religion, since they have been brain washed to tow an atheist line, that they no longer wish to tow, except with the materialism of man made drugs.

You are very likely mistaken when you claim that there are more people with mental health issues than in the past. This is probably not true. What we can do now is to detect mental health issues better than we could in the past. And guess how we are able to do that.

The problem with beliefs is that people can believe anything that they want to if they are willing to drop rational thought. When one tries to reason rationally one's ideas become very close to those determined by the scientific method.

Do you have any evidence for your beliefs besides "I believe what I believe because I either want to or was raised that way"?

 

[ppp]

Since science has no explanation for the universe it certainly needs something to explain how it began.

Perhaps. And that's big perhaps. But some guy merely saying a god did it is not an explanation until and unless he can demonstrate a reliable method for making that determination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no problem with that. I do not tend to apply the sciences to those sorts of questions. But we were discussing the physical universe, not concepts of right and wrong or aesthetics.

Yeah, and here is another version of science:
"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So yes, talk you want about the physical universe using science, but don't use science on gods.
When up against a religious person of that kind, I simply answer that I believe differently.

 

[Sheldon]

The scientific method is very limited in explaining reality.

Are you trying to set a record for factually incorrect statements?

Maybe to build on the record for sweeping unevidenced assertions?

Just for ***** and giggles, maybe you could enthral us with a breakdown of which parts of reality you are claiming science can't explain, and why of course.

Only I suspect this meaningless hyperbole is going to either involve unevidenced assumptions lined in tandem and being passed off as real, or you will be reluctant to revisit the claim ever.

Does that prediction count as prophesy if it comes true I wonder?

 

[Sheldon]

The scientific method is very limited in explaining reality.

ID has no explanatory powers whatsoever, so even were this ludicrously false claim valid, science would still offer more than the fantasy and superstition of creationism.

 

[Sheldon]

Science has more of an explanation than theists have. "God did it" is just a claim. It is not an explanation. It appears that you are being inconsistent in what you require when it comes to supporting one's beliefs.

Pixies using magic has as much explanatory powers as creationism, which is to say none.

 

[Sheldon]

You have to know that that is not the case. Science can explain far more than theists can.

Exactly, and my granny can explain far more than creationism, and she's been dead for over thirty years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, and here is another version of science:
"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So yes, talk you want about the physical universe using science, but don't use science on gods.
When up against a religious person of that kind, I simply answer that I believe differently.

And I have not been arguing either for or against gods. I have merely pointed out that the sciences have a much more thorough explanation of where the universe came from than theists do. Those claiming that "God did it" only have those claims. They have no evidence. They have no way of supporting their beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

I have only seen creationists of one stripe or another make the false claim of "You believe that they universe came out of nothing." Ironically that is often their own beliefs. They will claim that God made the universe out of nothing quite often. I have seen that physicists will point out that the total energy of the universe (which includes mass) is zero so a "Universe out of nothing"
does not appear to break any of the laws of thermodynamics, but I have never seen them turn that into a claim of "The universe came from nothing". There is a significant difference between "the universe coming from nothing would not break any laws of physics" with a claim of "the universe came from nothing".

Ironically when one points out that it is the creationists making these claims they cannot even define what they mean by "nothing".

Indeed, most scientists tend to be cautious and avoid making sweeping claims, in stark contract to religious apologists of course, for whom such claims seem to be their raison d'etre.

I remember a public debate once, and when asked if he thought the universe came from nothing, Professor Dawkins in offering his measured response said well firstly we would need to know what you mean by nothing, and a lot of the audience laughed. He was genuinely baffled, and looking perplexed asked why is that funny? Sadly accurate debate of such ideas is hard when one's reasoning is that facile, as to not see that the dictionary definition of nothing would not be accurate enough for theoretical physics and physicists.

Maybe a lot of the audience started laughing at those who started laughing at Professor Dawkins question? I know their facile laughter was pretty amusing when I watched it.