Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

They claim that only people with unsound minds believe in God.

Who says that? Not me, or anyone I am aware of. Sounds like a feeble straw man.
Most people believe in god through childhood indoctrination or cultural acquisition. That does not mean that their mind is "unsound". It just means that childhood indoctrination/the need to "belong" is a very effective means of shaping the way people think on some issues.
As Aristotle said... "Give me the boy until he is seven and I will show you the man".

However, people who claim to actually be in contact with gods or witness miracles are very possibly delusional.

What else do you need to know? Yes, they are making false assumptions based on misleading information!

Ironically, that is exactly what you have just done.

 

[KWED]

If we are approaching this using only the naturalistic view of reality of course.

No. We must apply our standards evenly.
I do hope that you are not about to claim that some things that have no prior cause and just exist are not ridiculous and can simply be accepted? That would make a mockery of your whole argument.

Lol, now you ask me to believe in the multi-verse by faith. Are you going to start the church of the multi-verse?

Oh dear. What are you on about?
You implied that unless we have hard evidence for something, we must dismiss it. I explained what that was irrational. Don't know why you are going on about the church of the multiverse". Most odd.

Only from a totally naturalistic viewpoint. There are no options left, so I have to opt for the supernatural.

If you are now prepared to accept that which you earlier dismissed as too ridiculous to consider, why don't you consider the stuff of the universe just existing without a cause? Why is that not as possible as a god just existing without a cause? We have explanations for neither, so why do you prefer one over the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was an actual individual, not a myth... all historians know this.

A person can be both an individual that existed and a myth. There probably really was a Jesus of Nazareth. but your version of Jesus appears to be less real than:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just labeling something a conspiracy theory is an easy, lazy way to dismiss it.

Making up a conspiracy theory is easy too. You even just admitted that you have no evidence for it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The first two are ridiculous and go against all scientific laws... So we can toss those.

The first second one is equally ridiculous as it has no evidence whatsoever, and explains nothing about anything

So we are left with God.

We are not left with God, since the God you posit the existence of, had no cause and always existed, according to you, Two things for which you say are ridiculous, and go against scientific laws.
You just negated the existence of your own God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you love an AI? No, because it's not capable of love.

Sure you can. Just because the AI can't theoretically love you back doesn't mean anything. Human beings are capable of love.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are will still talking about atheists? They claim that only people with unsound minds believe in God. What else do you need to know? Yes, they are making false assumptions based on misleading information!

No they don't. What they claim is that you haven't made a rational argument in favour of the existence of the God you believe in.

 

[metis]

You can't "lose" your salvation but you can fall into false beliefs and give it back.

Which is the same as losing it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which is the same as losing it.

Not to me. Losing something implies it can happen by accident.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sure you can. Just because the AI can't theoretically love you back doesn't mean anything. Human beings are capable of love.

Not if they don't have free will.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Making up a conspiracy theory is easy too. You even just admitted that you have no evidence for it.

No it's just that the evidence isn't readily available.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A person can be both an individual that existed and a myth. There probably really was a Jesus of Nazareth. but your version of Jesus appears to be less real than:

Not according to the vast majority of the human race since he left this earth. You certainly can believe his followers made up a story about him if you like, but you can't say it wasn't convincing. It reaches some deep need in the human race.

 

[Wildswanderer]

earlier dismissed as too ridiculous to consider, why don't you consider the stuff of the universe just existing without a cause? Why is that not as possible as a god just existing without a cause? We have explanations for neither, so why do you prefer one over the other?

Because nothing we know of in the material world exists without a cause and because everything that is created needs an intelligent designer to exist. I choose the most logical explanation.

 

[metis]

Not to me. Losing something implies it can happen by accident.

Not in the context I was using as there's no logical way that I can see as to how one can lose it "by accident".

Either way, backsliding is possible, thus "once saved, always saved" simply is not Gospel and potentially dangerous to the individual.

 

[Wildswanderer]

However, people who claim to actually be in contact with gods or witness miracles are very possibly delusional.

There you go again. Claiming only your little club thinks rational. Just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it's just that the evidence isn't readily available.

And yet you've drawn the conclusion anyway.
Thanks for making my point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if they don't have free will.

That doesn't address what I said at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not according to the vast majority of the human race since he left this earth. You certainly can believe his followers made up a story about him if you like, but you can't say it wasn't convincing. It reaches some deep need in the human race.

Sorry but you are wrong again. The "vast majority" of the human race believes those stories are mythical. You tried to use an argumentum ad populum and forgot that Christianity at best has only had a plurality of believers. It has never had a majority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again. Claiming only your little club thinks rational. Just can't help yourself, can you?

Remember what I said about it being a fact? That was a challenge to you to come up with a rational argument for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because nothing we know of in the material world exists without a cause and because everything that is created needs an intelligent designer to exist. I choose the most logical explanation.

Sorry, but this is loaded with flaws. First you need to define your terms properly. If you refuse to do so you allow others to define them for you and it is easy to define terms so that you would lose. Are you sure that you want to continue in this vein?