Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

What? This isn't a hard concept to understand... If we change the definitions of words nobody knows what we're talking about.

Correct it is very simple, disbelief of a claim is not certainty the claim is false, that is a claim about knowledge. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

 

[sojourner]

I have never seen one. Perhaps you know of one.

Sure. It’s working with the life force — the energy of the body. It’s not “magic.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. It’s working with the life force — the energy of the body. It’s not “magic.”

Sorry, but there does not appear to be a "life force". In other words you just said that it works by magic.

 

[PruePhillip]

Cool story, but scepticism is the default position to any unevidenced claim, and all you have done here is make a string of unevidenced claims, so I remain sceptical, and also have no idea what exactly you are even trying to assert, or why?

Your posts also seems yet again to have absolutely nothing to do with my post you have quoted? Here:

'Unevidenced claim' could apply to many figures in history, including Hannibal.
But the default position for many skeptics is this, 'There's no evidence there ever was a King David.' Meaning to most of the population, 'King David is a myth.'
This is how it's read in theology at uni, the public at large and biblical skeptics. This effected people's faith in the bible. And when the 'House of David' was eventually found it seemed there was no going back - the bible is a myth.

God of the gaps refers to using the bible as explanation for natural phenomena, ie lightning. The invention of the lightning rod was truly something astonishing to Christians. But it should have been - the bible has nothing to say about how the universe works. As Galileo put it, 'The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.'

 

[PruePhillip]

Your string of unevidenced assumptions doesn't seem to have any relation to your claim or my response? You cannot rationally claim something is incomprehensible, while simultaneously making assertions about it.

So where do YOU think our universe came from? And also, why it appeared?
nb no unevidenced claims.

 

[PruePhillip]

I believe this is one of the reasons why they push for the multiverse even though there's no evidence... Then they don't have to imagine time beginning, which they have no explanation for.

The issue with the multi-verse is
1 - it still doesn't explain where they came from
2 - if these universes popped out of the first universe than that doesn't explain much either.

 

[PruePhillip]

I've said this to you before and I'll say it again.

When archaeologists uncovered the city of Troy and found that it really did exist and people really lived there, did that suddenly mean that the god Apollo exists and pulls the sun across the sky every day with his chariot, or that the god Zeus mated with a sea nymph who gave birth to the demi-God Achilles as foretold in prophecy?

Is this also a case of "skeptics of the gaps?"

We have evidence there was a house of David, but no way would there be evidence for David's inner feelings and experiences.
What skeptics were doing was saying that as "there's no evidence for King David" that David never existed, and that's not scientific.
These skeptics play God (ie themselves the repository of wisdom and knowledge) and play scientist too, 'Science says there's no David.'

But from Abraham onwards the whole historic claim of the bible is more or less validated, with the exception of Moses (yet)
So there are no gods on Mount Olympus, but there were the biblical Phillistines and Amorites, the temple and Jerusalem, Isaiah and David, the Babylonian captivity and Cyrus' return, Pontius Pilot and Agrippa.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Cool story, but scepticism is the default position to any unevidenced claim, and all you have done here is make a string of unevidenced claims,

'Unevidenced claim' could apply to many figures in history, including Hannibal.

Don't you think it's ironic your response is yet another sweeping unevidenced claim? Also there is evidence for Hannibal, and historians wouldn't get their work past peer review if it was completely unevidenced, so it's a dubious claim anyway, and of course more importantly I just explained I remain sceptical and withhold belief from all unevidenced claims.

God of the gaps refers to using the bible as explanation for natural phenomena, ie lightning.

No it doesn't, it refers to claims using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, "we don't have an explanation for X therefore goddidit."

I can't see any relevance in the rest of your post, and since you keep leaping to non-sequiturs it's getting tedious to keep responding to them only to have you ignore the response and roll on with a new set of unrelated claims.

 

[Sheldon]

So where do YOU think our universe came from? And also, why it appeared?
nb no unevidenced claims.

I suggest you ask a theoretical physicist, on a physics site. Not sure why you'd ask a scientific question in forum for religious debate? You also have yet again failed to address your contradiction, where you made assertions about something you claimed was incomprehensible.

 

[Sheldon]

What skeptics were doing was saying that as "there's no evidence for King David" that David never existed, and that's not scientific.

I find this claim highly dubious, and it certainly has nothing to do with atheism, which is not a claim, but a lack or absence of theistic belief. I can and do disbelieve things without needing or having any contrary evidence.

Abraham onwards the whole historic claim of the bible is more or less validated, with the exception of Moses (yet)

Nope, but even were it accepted as fact by the majority of historians, historical claims don't validate inexplicable magic or the supernatural, so it wouldn't be objective evidence for any deity.

 

[PruePhillip]

I find this claim highly dubious, and it certainly has nothing to do with atheism, which is not a claim, but a lack or absence of theistic belief. I can and do disbelieve things without needing or having any contrary evidence.



Nope, but even were it accepted as fact by the majority of historians, historical claims don't validate inexplicable magic or the supernatural, so it wouldn't be objective evidence for any deity.

The historic claim of the bible (as opposed to myth stories of the Greeks etc..) is that Abraham came from Sumer, via Syria into Canaan. His descendants lived there too. They witnessed various events, such as Sodom and Gomorrah. These people, like many Semites at the time, migrated to Egypt. The Semites were numerous enough to seize Egypt. During the Bronze Age Collapse the Jews and Phillistines left Egypt and settled in Canaan. The Jews were of 12 tribes, one of which we can track via DNA, that of Moses' line. Joshua conquered Canaan and built a 'place of cursing' which was found in 2022. After a period of conflict Israe established a monarchy - first Saul, then David, then Solomon. The Jews split into two nations. One nation was exiled by the Assyrians. The other nation went into captivity to Babylon. Cyrus the Great freed the Jews and many other nations. The Jews wrote of these Messiah who would come to redeem his people by playing the price - he would be rejected by his own people and crucified. This Jewish Messiah would return in triumph and the Jews would mourn when they see it's the same man they crucified. This Redeemer told his people they would go into exile and he would be believed upon of the Gentiles, until the Gentiles time is finished - which was last century.
Yeah, I am ok with this biblical narrative.

 

[PruePhillip]

I suggest you ask a theoretical physicist, on a physics site. Not sure why you'd ask a scientific question in forum for religious debate? You also have yet again failed to address your contradiction, where you made assertions about something you claimed was incomprehensible.

Ok, I'll let you dodge the question. Scientists also dodge it - the rule is, 'Don't think about it.'
Yes we can make certain assumptions about a super realm on the basis of logic - for instance, if it has no time then it has no end and no beginning.

 

[Sheldon]

The historic claim of the bible (as opposed to myth stories of the Greeks etc..) is that Abraham came from Sumer, via Syria into Canaan. His descendants lived there too. They witnessed various events, such as Sodom and Gomorrah. These people, like many Semites at the time, migrated to Egypt. The Semites were numerous enough to seize Egypt. During the Bronze Age Collapse the Jews and Phillistines left Egypt and settled in Canaan. The Jews were of 12 tribes, one of which we can track via DNA, that of Moses' line. Joshua conquered Canaan and built a 'place of cursing' which was found in 2022. After a period of conflict Israe established a monarchy - first Saul, then David, then Solomon. The Jews split into two nations. One nation was exiled by the Assyrians. The other nation went into captivity to Babylon. Cyrus the Great freed the Jews and many other nations. The Jews wrote of these Messiah who would come to redeem his people by playing the price - he would be rejected by his own people and crucified. This Jewish Messiah would return in triumph and the Jews would mourn when they see it's the same man they crucified. This Redeemer told his people they would go into exile and he would be believed upon of the Gentiles, until the Gentiles time is finished - which was last century.
Yeah, I am ok with this biblical narrative.

You claimed a realm exists that is incomprehensible, then proceeded to make claims about it, until you finally address this contradiction I'm disinclined to wade through another raft of dubious and unevidenced claims about the bible. I don't care to be preached at, that said this subjective narrative wouldn't be objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural even were your claims true.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok, I'll let you dodge the question.

I didn't dodge it, I explained it is a scientific question, and I am not a scientist, and this is not a science debate forum.

Scientists also dodge it - the rule is, 'Don't think about it.'

What a spectacularly stupid claim, of course they don't "dodge it" and of course they dedicate their lives to studying the universe's origins, what is it you think theoretical physicists do exactly.

Yes we can make certain assumptions about a super realm on the basis of logic - for instance, if it has no time then it has no end and no beginning.

You said it was incomprehensible, ipso facto it cannot be comprehended, and since you have used a known common logical fallacy there called begging the question, I'm not sure you should be invoking logic, even as rhetoric.

 

[PruePhillip]

You claimed a realm exists that is incomprehensible, then proceeded to make claims about it, until you finally address this contradiction I'm disinclined to wade through another raft of dubious and unevidenced claims about the bible. I don't care to be preached at, that said this subjective narrative wouldn't be objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural even were your claims true.

Nearly everything I said of the historic claim of the bible is now proven fact. Certainly we don't have evidence for Abraham, but what the heck, he was a nomad. But some of the things he saw, and the Bronze Age customs connected to him, have now come to light. So yes, it's mostly objective stuff.

 

[Sheldon]

Nearly everything I said of the historic claim of the bible is now proven fact.

Repeating your unevidenced claim doesn't make it more compelling, and I already answered it, and you ignored the answer. Just as you have again ignored the fact that you claimed a realm exists that is incomprehensible, then proceeded to make claims and assertions about it. yet have refused to address this irrational contradiction.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but there does not appear to be a "life force". In other words you just said that it works by magic.

There’s not a life force?? Fine. You try cobbling together lifeless flesh and causing it to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s not a life force?? Fine. You try cobbling together lifeless flesh and causing it to live.

Sorry. It does not work that way.

This is s logical fail on your part.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry. It does not work that way.

This is s logical fail on your part.

How? We can’t make inanimate tissue initiate life. It’s beyond us; we don’t know how or why it begins. What do we call that? Every living thing has it. It exists, or nothing would be alive. What is it? What do we call it? “Life force.” Heck, call it “life impetus,” or even “troll booger” for all I care. But there exists some impetus and sustainer of life. Every living thing has energy, and it’s the same energy as every other living thing. Everything — everything is comprised of energetic fields and particles, interacting in different ways. People can sense these fields. Induction shows that we can even manipulate fields with our skin (think theremin), just as they can affect us (think static electricity and gravitational fields). Why shouldn’t we be able to affect the fields of the human body, as well? Fields are fields.

Sorry — it does work that way. I’ve seen it happen; I’ve made it happen; it has happened to me. Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How? We can’t make inanimate tissue initiate life. It’s beyond us; we don’t know how or why it begins. What do we call that? Every living thing has it. It exists, or nothing would be alive. What is it? What do we call it? “Life force.” Heck, call it “life impetus,” or even “troll booger” for all I care. But there exists some impetus and sustainer of life. Every living thing has energy, and it’s the same energy as every other living thing. Everything — everything is comprised of energetic fields and particles, interacting in different ways. People can sense these fields. Induction shows that we can even manipulate fields with our skin (think theremin), just as they can affect us (think static electricity and gravitational fields). Why shouldn’t we be able to affect the fields of the human body, as well? Fields are fields.

Sorry — it does work that way. I’ve seen it happen; I’ve made it happen; it has happened to me. Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Abiogenesis takes quite a while. And if you understood it at all you would know why it can't be replicated once more modern life exists.

There does not appear to be any evidence for a "life force". You can't show evidence for it. That means that you are claiming magic.

And you have almost certainly only fooled yourself into thinking that magic works. Confirmation bias can be very convincing.