Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PruePhillip]

This type of apologetics has been labelled a "god of the gaps" polemic, these arguments usually use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I have this theory I call 'skeptics of the gaps' concerning the bible.
The claim by skeptics has been, over the past 100 years or more, that the bible is myth - there being no Jewish people, no Patriarchs, no King David, no Moses, no Sodom and Gomorrah and no Jesus. But slowly these figures, cities, empires and prophets have come to light. This year it has been Sodom and the proving that the Jews of Moses time had a written language.

 

[PruePhillip]

... there is nothing a faith-based thinker can comprehend that is incomprehensible to the critical thinker. The former can only imagine then believe more things, not comprehend them.

Here's one. The bible says in the kingdom of God there is no time.
I find it incomprehensible that a realm can operate without time. All physical laws that I am familiar with require t=time.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Don't give me that nonsense.. If there is no difference in why did you resist earlier corrections?

Because they gave a different definition. BTW, should we let everyone who calls themselves a Christian to define the word ", Christian"? I don't think so. I have heard people apply the word to themselves who don't even believe in the life story of Jesus from the Bible.
The word Christian comes from the Greek word christianos which is derived from the word christos or Christ, which means “anointed one.” A Christian, then, is someone who is a follower of Christ.
That means you have to know who his is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, there is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis.

Zero evidence is a lot?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zero evidence is a lot?

Why do try to make yourself look totally ignorant?

Let's go over the concept of evidence. That way the only way that you can claim that there is no evidence is by openly lying.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why do try to make yourself look totally ignorant?

Let's go over the concept of evidence. That way the only way that you can claim that there is no evidence is by openly lying.

There is no credible evidence that any natural forces, in any combination or order, ever collected and assembled the required elements essential to form even the simplest biochemical compounds necessary to create life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see a difference. An absence of belief in deities doesn't leave room for God being a possibility.

I have to respond to this again, considering your most recent failures. An absence of belief can be easily changed if one does not believe due to a lack of evidence. Present evidence to a person that reasons rationally and that person will change his mind. When a person already believes something they are much less likely to change their mind. And when a person refuses to reason rationally they will almost never change their minds.

Did you ever see the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate? Those that can reason rationally all know exactly when Ken lost the debate. And that includes most Christians that watched it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no credible evidence that any natural forces, in any combination or order, ever collected and assembled the required elements essential to form even the simplest biochemical compounds necessary to create life.

You do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. What makes you think that you can judge what is "credible" or not? Why are you afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence? Your fears tell us that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Wildswanderer]

have to respond to this again, considering your most recent failures. An absence of belief can be easily changed if one does not believe due to a lack of evidence

And then, by definition, one would no longer be an atheist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. What makes you think that you can judge what is "credible" or not? Why are you afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence? Your fears tell us that you know that you are wrong.

Lol, this from the same people who try to deny Jesus even existed, even though they have historical writing and archaeological evidence that he did, want to believe random chemicals formed life, when they have absolutely no evidence of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And then, by definition, one would no longer be an atheist.

Correct. The reason atheists are atheists is because of a failure of theists to support their beliefs with evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, this from the same people who try to deny Jesus even existed, even though they have historical writing and archaeological evidence that he did, want to believe random chemicals formed life, when they have absolutely no evidence of this.

Very very few atheists claim that Jesus ever existed. The fact that Jesus is mythological is not a claim that he never existed. Do you understand that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Very very few atheists claim that Jesus ever existed. The fact that Jesus is mythological is not a claim that he never existed. Do you understand that?

I have had atheists on this forum question his existence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Correct. The reason atheists are atheists is because of a failure of theists to support their beliefs with evidence

So now you agree with my definition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have had atheists on this forum question his existence.

Questioning his existence is not the same as claiming that he does not exist, and the evidence for his existence is rather weak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you agree with my definition?

No, your definition was shown to be wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And you are guessing that matter could somehow be eternal even though we see everything degrading on the earth.

You are guessing that a god exists and created our universe. I am enumerating logical possibilities to account for the world being here, not guessing. Guessing would be to pick one without justification. Guessing also includes eliminating any possibility without justification.

If you choose to change the clear meaning of words, no one can take you seriously.

Plenty of people use the definitions I use and they take one another seriously. But even if I were the only one who defined atheist the way I do, it would be appropriate for me to do so. I don't need people to use words the way I do, just to understand what I mean when I use the word.

That doesn't imply it's automated.

Sure it does. The sine qua non of automation is operation without an operator. What makes the ATM automated relative to the window in the bank? No teller. Would say that that doesn't imply automation, either?

It also doesn't explain why everything works.

Irrelevant. You keep implying otherwise, that we need these answers. No we don't. We've never had them and yet here we are. Furthermore, the religious "answer" explains nothing, either, and leaves additional questions unanswered about how and why a deity could exist, questions the theist doesn't ask himself, questions he dismisses with special pleading. Why? Because no answer is available and no answer is needed.

I don't see a difference. An absence of belief in deities doesn't leave room for God being a possibility.

Actually, it does, as has been explained to you in vain ad infinitum. The limitations of your imagination do not limit what is possible. All of my fellow self-identifying agnostic atheists have no difficulty with the idea that something can be not believed while believing that it is possible. I'll bet you've said, "Maybe, but I'm not convinced." Try to adapt that thought to atheism: "Maybe, but I'm not convinced about gods."

This just confirms the obvious truth of Life from life. Nothing creates itself. Matter can't create life.

That debate ended when you couldn't refute the last plausible statement on the matter.

Think about a courtroom trial. If the prosecution presents a plausible case for guilt that the defense cannot or does not refute, by which I mean provide a counterargument that if sound, makes the original comment incorrect - if the prosecution is not rebutted, the argument is over and the jury convicts. In this case, perhaps the defense offers a plausible alibi that, if correct, means the defendant cannot be guilty. If that is not rebutted, the trial ends there with a not guilty verdict. Perhaps the alibi can be cast into doubt, perhaps with cell tower pinging data. If this cannot be rebutted, not guilty.

Likewise in these debates. You left the last plausible statement unrebutted, and the debate ended: not only can life come from nonlife, it is necessarily the case that it did.

The bible says in the kingdom of God there is no time. I find it incomprehensible that a realm can operate without time. All physical laws that I am familiar with require t=time.

It's comprehensible, just incoherent. I imagine time stopping, and everything else stops with it, including thought and action. The claim that a deity thinks and acts outside of time is easy to conceive and to reject. Remember, your original claim was that no comment can be made about such incomprehensible realms, and I argued that all such notions could be analyzed critically for just those kinds of errors.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Irrelevant. You keep implying otherwise, that we need these answers. No we don't. We've never had them and yet here we are.

Oh good grief! Yes here we are? Why? That's the question literally every sane person asks at some point. And yes many find answers, like we are here to help others, or we are here to worship the creator, or we are here for a purpose of some kind at least. Otherwise, you might as well say suicide is a perfectly legitimate response to life's little problems.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Actually, it does, as has been explained to you in vain ad infinitum. The limitations of your imagination do not limit what is possible.

Irrelevant. Lack of belief isn't " I maybe, kind of could believe." That's uncertainty. The definition of words is important.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Likewise in these debates. You left the last plausible statement unrebutted, and the debate ended: not only can life come from nonlife, it is necessarily the case that it did.

You have provided no such evidence.