Proof of the supernatural

[Kilgore Trout]

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the story in the OP is actual evidence of deity. If that is indeed the case, then it might be interesting to note that, on the same day that deity miraculously took care of a woman in need of a new washer, perhaps up to 18,000 children worldwide died of starvation. Quite an interesting take on the priorities of deities.

The suffering and misery of countless children just doesn't stack up against fresh, fluffy laundry.

 

[George-ananda]

Some more than others. In jumping to the conclusion that God did it, the OP rejected natural explanations prematurely.

I'm not so sure it was prematurely. His style might be to state things too emphatically and that was your 'in' to make that claim.

"Bad" isn't that subjective when we're talking about things like statistical tests. Also, we can consider whether a person's standard is consistent. Personally, my standard for "supernatural" explanations is no lower or higher than my standard for "natural" explanations. If a plane goes down in the Caribbean, I would expect the person arguing that the crash was caused by the effects of the Bermuda Triangle to make just as rigorous a case as the person arguing that it was caused by a clogged engine fuel filter.

To call every anecdotal case 'bad' is wrong to me. If some of these stories are legit (such as involving higher beings), there can never be a way to show that. All we can see is the effect; not the cause.

But we're talking about this particular story. The question isn't "does the supernatural exist?" It's "did this incident have a supernatural cause?"

In this case we can only use our well-considered judgement as to likelihood.

The OP's argument has shifted around a bit, but it seems to float between "it must have been God" and "it was most likely God." Do you think there's a good case for either of those conclusions? Please note that neither of them are "we can't be sure it wasn't God."

I think a good case can be made for 'it was most likely God'. (although in my belief system I would use the term 'super-physical being' rather than God).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not so sure it was prematurely. His style might be to state things too emphatically and that was your 'in' to make that claim.

Yes, the problems with his claims gave me the ability to criticize his claims. I'm not sure why you would try to cast that as something wrong with my approach.

Edit: just to be clear, are you saying that he did eliminate the natural explanations? If he did, then it wasn't premature... but I'd like to see where he did this. If he didn't eliminate them, then jumping to the God conclusion was premature.

To call every anecdotal case 'bad' is wrong to me. If some of these stories are legit (such as involving higher beings), there can never be a way to show that. All we can see is the effect; not the cause.

An anecdote is a single test with poor experimental controls and a sample size of one. Even under ideal conditions, a sample size of one isn't large enough to even calculate a variance; IOW, it's so poor quality that it isn't even good enough for us to quantify just how poor it is.

In this case we can only use our well-considered judgement as to likelihood.



I think a good case can be made for 'it was most likely God'. (although in my belief system I would use the term 'super-physical being' rather than God).

Really? How can you come to this conclusion?

"It was most likely God" implies that the probability of it being God is greater than the probability that it happened by chance or by some other means (e.g. the possibilities I mentioned earlier, like rigging the game).

Let's just consider whether God was more likely than chance. I have a pretty good handle on figuring out the probabilities in lotteries. Can you tell us how we could figure out the probability of:

- the existence of God (or a "super-physical being")
- given that God exists, the probability that he/she/it/them would rig a lottery so that the OP's neighbour can buy a washing machine.

I'm talking about actual numbers here, since that's what's required for "it was most likely God."

How do you calculate the likelihood that God did it?

 

[Sunstone]

The suffering and misery of countless children just doesn't stack up against fresh, fluffy laundry.

Well, not if you're using the right softener, it doesn't.

 

[fantome profane]

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the story in the OP is actual evidence of deity. If that is indeed the case, then it might be interesting to note that, on the same day that deity miraculously took care of a woman in need of a new washer, perhaps up to 18,000 children worldwide died of starvation. Quite an interesting take on the priorities of deities.

Perhaps this miracle was really preformed by the "Devil" with the intention of making "God" look ridiculous.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, the problems with his claims gave me the ability to criticize his claims. I'm not sure why you would try to cast that as something wrong with my approach.

Edit: just to be clear, are you saying that he did eliminate the natural explanations? If he did, then it wasn't premature... but I'd like to see where he did this. If he didn't eliminate them, then jumping to the God conclusion was premature.


An anecdote is a single test with poor experimental controls and a sample size of one. Even under ideal conditions, a sample size of one isn't large enough to even calculate a variance; IOW, it's so poor quality that it isn't even good enough for us to quantify just how poor it is.


Really? How can you come to this conclusion?

"It was most likely God" implies that the probability of it being God is greater than the probability that it happened by chance or by some other means (e.g. the possibilities I mentioned earlier, like rigging the game).

Let's just consider whether God was more likely than chance. I have a pretty good handle on figuring out the probabilities in lotteries. Can you tell us how we could figure out the probability of:

- the existence of God (or a "super-physical being")
- given that God exists, the probability that he/she/it/them would rig a lottery so that the OP's neighbour can buy a washing machine.

I'm talking about actual numbers here, since that's what's required for "it was most likely God."

How do you calculate the likelihood that God did it?

You need a large sample of people who have dreamed of numbers, cross referenced with a sample of people who play the lottery, in order to isolate a sample of people who play numbers from their dreams in the lottery. Then you need figures of how many of those people win, and you need to compare those figures to the odds for all lottery players in general.

The added information about broken washers and prayer would only be worth investigating if it turned out that people who play numbers from their dreams have a statistically significant lotto advantage. If not, that information is completely irrelevant.

That's what I would consider evidence, though not evidence (let alone proof) of the "supernatural" (which in this case means natural but unexplained phenomena).

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, the problems with his claims gave me the ability to criticize his claims. I'm not sure why you would try to cast that as something wrong with my approach.

Edit: just to be clear, are you saying that he did eliminate the natural explanations? If he did, then it wasn't premature... but I'd like to see where he did this. If he didn't eliminate them, then jumping to the God conclusion was premature.

I'm saying he did consider the natural explanations and considered them to be extremely unlikely. Everyone considers the co-incidence hypothesis but with the list of additional details also part of the story he believes the co-incidence theory to be a negligible possibility.

An anecdote is a single test with poor experimental controls and a sample size of one. Even under ideal conditions, a sample size of one isn't large enough to even calculate a variance; IOW, it's so poor quality that it isn't even good enough for us to quantify just how poor it is.

An anecdote is not a test or an experiment and can't be analyzed in the same way.

Really? How can you come to this conclusion?

"It was most likely God" implies that the probability of it being God is greater than the probability that it happened by chance or by some other means (e.g. the possibilities I mentioned earlier, like rigging the game).

Let's just consider whether God was more likely than chance. I have a pretty good handle on figuring out the probabilities in lotteries. Can you tell us how we could figure out the probability of:

- the existence of God (or a "super-physical being")
- given that God exists, the probability that he/she/it/them would rig a lottery so that the OP's neighbour can buy a washing machine.

I'm talking about actual numbers here, since that's what's required for "it was most likely God."

How do you calculate the likelihood that God did it?

It can't be put into numbers. Again, anecdotes are not tests or experiments where odds against chance can be calculated.

Opinions on likelihood must then come down individual judgement. Factors that come into play in the judgement include a lifetime of thoughts, observations, listening to all argumentation, etc.. And before coming into hearing about a particular anecdotal story our judgement has formed our views on how we believe the universe operates. To believe a story includes paranormal (or whatever gosh dang word) elements much more evidence is required for one who has formed a materialistic worldview then for one who has a worldview that allows these types of things to happen.

 

[Alceste]

I'm saying he did consider the natural explanations and considered them to be extremely unlikely. Everyone considers the co-incidence hypothesis but with the list of additional details also part of the story he believes the co-incidence theory to be a negligible possibility.




An anecdote is not a test or an experiment and can't be analyzed in the same way.




It can't be put into numbers. Again, anecdotes are not tests or experiments where odds against chance can be calculated.

Opinions on likelihood must then come down individual judgement. Factors that come into play in the judgement include a lifetime of thoughts, observations, listening to all argumentation, etc.. And before coming into hearing about a particular anecdotal story our judgement has formed our views on how we believe the universe operates. To believe a story includes paranormal (or whatever gosh dang word) elements much more evidence is required for one who has formed a materialistic worldview then for one who has a worldview that allows these types of things to happen.

How can you know he considered other possibilities? This is a guy who literally blocked my posts simply for asking him to explain his reasoning.

Keep in mind, coincidence is not the only other explanation that was put forward. Also, it's not particularly odd for people to dream of numbers, or for people to win the lottery. It's inevitable that those two populations would overlap at some point. It would in fact be more surprising if they didn't. So even if coincidence had been the ONLY other proposed mechanism, it wouldn't be a particularly surprising one.

Of course, you could say that the odds of this happening to someone whose washer was broken make the odds smaller, and the same for every other superfluous detail, but if I tell you exactly how my day went today in every detail, the improbability of anyone else having exactly the same kind of day gets progressively smaller. But that still isn't evidence of the supernatural. I've had a completely ordinary day.

That's only evidence of how adding endless, superfluous details to a story makes it appear to be unique, when in fact it's only the number of details we throw in that gives this impression, not the improbability of any single factor.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I'm not so sure it was prematurely. His style might be to state things too emphatically and that was your 'in' to make that claim.

very true, wonder why he chose not to reply to what I said about it.
It was several hours later after she won, that I chose to make my stance on it.
Plus, its now been 30 years, so that is plenty time, of talking to plenty of people to have came to even more reanalyzed conclusion.

To call every anecdotal case 'bad' is wrong to me. If some of these stories are legit (such as involving higher beings), there can never be a way to show that. All we can see is the effect; not the cause.

The thing is, lets change the cause to be something that cant have a relationship with us, that God can.
All the claims of Gods miracles are now deemed the result of throwing a coin into a wishing well.
Since sometimes the wishes come true and sometimes not, testing it for accuracy is out of the question. 50/50 if you will but people are still convinced it works.
They have nothing that proves it to them, other then the claim itself and is self defeating.

God gives me merit that coin toss can not give me,...
With God, I have a relationship with him, and he is real to me.
Unless one has that pure and genuine relationship, they simply can not understand.

Stuff happens to me and prob everyone else all the time that we cant explain and I don't automatically claim God is the cause.
A rough figure of 90% I deem unknown, coincidence, luck, w/e.
There is a tad bit of stuff that I deem of God.
Almost everyone I ever met that are religious say about the same thing.

In this case we can only use our well-considered judgement as to likelihood.



I think a good case can be made for 'it was most likely God'. (although in my belief system I would use the term 'super-physical being' rather than God).

I am not the type of person like those, ...example
Their car is a piece of junk and never starts, but when it does.
Thanks God...NO that's not me.
Not even close.
You know what though?
Maybe it is God though, obviously I can not prove either/or
But because God didn't make it known to me it was him, I don't claim it was him.
I don't know how else to put it.
When you know, you know.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I share his fascination, and I think starving children are fracking hilarious. Who doesn't?

I love being on ignore.

I do not find anything funny about starving kids, and requested the whole threads deletion w/o bias.
If this sort of thing is allowed here, you can be assured, I know where the door is

You also clearly prove that you have been trolling me all along.
Thank you for wasting my time.

BTW, I am not perfect and after posting that quote of yours, I deleted it within a min, you are fast to have been still able to catch it and reply.

Good for you

Also, people on YT make a fortune at trolling with videos, you are very good at your job, tricked me for a few days.
You should take that to youtube, some people make 30,000 a month doing it off the ad revenue.
serious
I wouldnt advice trolling about starving kids though, YT doesn't allow that

Some girl made a 30 sec vid on "If God doesnt exist, who wrote the Bible"
Its got millions of views.
Epic troll bait vid.

edit
Not sure why a person would waste their own time and the time of others by trolling on a board, just to do it.
Some like to be helpful to others and some like to waste peoples time, to each his/hers own I guess.
Some people have respect for themselves and some do not, life goes on.

See, even after I realized that you have been trolling me, I gave you decent advice on how to make yourself wealthy, if you can pull it off though.
I wish i could do what some do on YT, 1 vid a week and 20-30,000 a month is pretty epic.
remember me if you do it and succeed, throw me a bone
I am so poor, that poor people look at me and say "Damn bro, your one poor SOB"

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I do not find anything funny about starving kids, and requested the whole threads deletion w/o bias.
If this sort of thing is allowed here, you can be assured, I know where the door is

You also clearly prove that you have been trolling me all along.
Thank you for wasting my time.

BTW, I am not perfect and after posting that quote of yours, I deleted it within a min, you are fast to have been still able to catch it and reply.

Good for you

Also, people on YT make a fortune at trolling with videos, you are very good at your job, tricked me for a few days.
You should take that to youtube, some people make 30,000 a month doing it off the ad revenue.
serious
I wouldnt advice trolling about starving kids though, YT doesn't allow that

Some girl made a 30 sec vid on "If God doesnt exist, who wrote the Bible"
Its got millions of views.
Epic troll bait vid.

edit
Not sure why a person would waste their own time and the time of others by trolling on a board, just to do it.
Some like to be helpful to others and some like to waste peoples time, to each his/hers own I guess.
Some people have respect for themselves and some do not, life goes on.

See, even after I realized that you have been trolling me, I gave you decent advice on how to make yourself wealthy, if you can pull it off though.
I wish i could do what some do on YT, 1 vid a week and 20-30,000 a month is pretty epic.
remember me if you do it and succeed, throw me a bone
I am so poor, that poor people look at me and say "Damn bro, your one poor SOB"

Okay... but in all absolute seriousness... It is a valid question. Why does God worry with petty things such as washing machines for old women, but completely ignores the prayers of food and clean drinking water by those in 3rd world countries?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Okay... but in all absolute seriousness... It is a valid question. Why does God worry with petty things such as washing machines for old women, but completely ignores the prayers of food and clean drinking water by those in 3rd world countries?

Actually, i just created a new thread on that.

Check it out, its pretty sound and please show respect, it took a long time to make.
It was miles long and I kept reducing it until it was decent size.

But even if that new thread is wrong, the water problems are their faults just as our pollution is ours.
God wouldn't fix the planet after we ruin it, then fix it again and again.
Just as if one sins, then asked for forgiveness, sins tomorrow, rinse repeat, over and over.
People who think he does are wrong.

There would even be no reason to do that.
If man isn't sincere about wanting to live a good life, he isn't forgiven in the first place.
If common man don't accept apologies from others when they are empty and not sincere, why would God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm saying he did consider the natural explanations and considered them to be extremely unlikely. Everyone considers the co-incidence hypothesis but with the list of additional details also part of the story he believes the co-incidence theory to be a negligible possibility.

Just as I said: he rejected those possibilities.

An anecdote is not a test or an experiment and can't be analyzed in the same way.

... and this fact should be taken into account when we're considering how much weight to give it. It's intellectually dishonest to allow a lower standard of evidence any time someone says "anecdote!"

It can't be put into numbers. Again, anecdotes are not tests or experiments where odds against chance can be calculated.

Opinions on likelihood must then come down individual judgement. Factors that come into play in the judgement include a lifetime of thoughts, observations, listening to all argumentation, etc.. And before coming into hearing about a particular anecdotal story our judgement has formed our views on how we believe the universe operates. To believe a story includes paranormal (or whatever gosh dang word) elements much more evidence is required for one who has formed a materialistic worldview then for one who has a worldview that allows these types of things to happen.

When the odds of one possibility (i.e. random chance) are known or can be calculated, then we absolutely need to be able to quantify the probability of another option to say it's "more likely".

If the odds of it happening by chance are X, then saying "it was most likely God" implies that the probability of it being God is greater than X. If you haven't done any math at all about the probability of God as the cause, then you can't reasonably make this claim.

 

[George-ananda]

Just as I said: he rejected those possibilities.

No, I believe he accepts those possibilities but his judgement tells him they are extremely unlikely in this case. Rejection to me would be calling those explanations impossible (not just extremely unlikely).

... and this fact should be taken into account when we're considering how much weight to give it. It's intellectually dishonest to allow a lower standard of evidence any time someone says "anecdote!"

As I've been saying, we use our judgement to determine our opinion of the evidence. And when we consider an anecdote our minds don't treat it like it's the only event in the universe we know about. Our judgement considers it with the wisdom a lifetime of learning, observing and thinking has given us.

It is true that anecdotes don't play well with the scientific method. I accept that. But it seems to me the scientific method is best for understanding the physical universe. The scientific method can not be employed to study our OP friend's story.

When the odds of one possibility (i.e. random chance) are known or can be calculated, then we absolutely need to be able to quantify the probability of another option to say it's "more likely".

If the odds of it happening by chance are X, then saying "it was most likely God" implies that the probability of it being God is greater than X. If you haven't done any math at all about the probability of God as the cause, then you can't reasonably make this claim.

It can't be calculated. Forget it.

And the only claim I'm making is what my opinion is. And this is based on my lifetime of learning, observing and thinking about these things. I am not claiming that everyone should accept 'God (or non-physical intercessors in my case) is the cause' based on this case.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Considering that some people think that making fun of starving kids and trolling others is what these types of boards are for and obviously the Admins don't care either.
I am done here.
sadly though I was liking it here until a few people ruined it for me.
The other board I was on, wants me back full time anyway, so that is what I will do.
I thought this board was better due to more activity, but once you begin to ignore the trolls and spam posters, its about the same amount of activity.

This board looses in the end, not me.
almost all my topics are fresh and because active.
which is why they want me back there.

I dont have time for both though.
well i could, but I simply not not wish to help a board with my activity that allows so much ignorance.
wasting other peoples time by trying to derail the OP because the dont like what is being said or maybe they are just kids, IDK
Making fun of starving kids is screwed up mentality.
I wonder just how screwed up some atheists are in real life.


what else do you expect from an atheist with no moral code.
Ever notice, atheists tend to show from their behaviors that they are of satan and not God.
thought God didn't exist? :sarcastic
Most atheists behave like trash and they even know it.
No God, no morals
bet the atheist mods will delete this but still allow starving kids to be laughed at.
later.

I would tell yah to have fun in hell, but I knwo you wont.
To choose hell over heaven, why? why? why?
Its real brother, i dont want anyone ending up there, but that is not up to me, I can only chose my path in life.

later :run:

 

[TheGunShoj]

Making fun of starving kids is screwed up mentality.
I wonder just how screwed up some atheists are in real life.

Actually they weren't making fun of starving kids. They were pointing out how ridiculous it is to worship a God who prioritizes helping old women fix their washers rather than helping those starving kids and how immoral that is. And you follow that God, so which is really more messed up mentally?

what else do you expect from an atheist with no moral code.
Ever notice, atheists tend to show from their behaviors that they are of satan and not God.
thought God didn't exist? :sarcastic
Most atheists behave like trash and they even know it.
No God, no morals
bet the atheist mods will delete this but still allow starving kids to be laughed at.
later..

And they should delete it. It's offensive. Atheists are not immoral people. God isn't necessary to figure out that it is more beneficial to live peacefully as a social species instead of killing, raping and stealing from each other. It's actually common sense. Also, you can't say that we are of satan until you demonstrate that to be true

I would tell yah to have fun in hell, but I knwo you wont.
To choose hell over heaven, why? why? why?
Its real brother, i dont want anyone ending up there, but that is not up to me, I can only chose my path in life.

later :run:[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Yet you worship and revere the God who sends people there to suffer forever, and we're the immoral ones. I say good riddance.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Actually they weren't making fun of starving kids. They were pointing out how ridiculous it is to worship a God who prioritizes helping old women fix their washers rather than helping those starving kids and how immoral that is. And you follow that God, so which is really more messed up mentally?



And they should delete it. It's offensive. Atheists are not immoral people. God isn't necessary to figure out that it is more beneficial to live peacefully as a social species instead of killing, raping and stealing from each other. It's actually common sense. Also, you can't say that we are of satan until you demonstrate that to be true



Yet you worship and revere the God who sends people there to suffer forever, and we're the immoral ones. I say good riddance.

Exactly. If he/she has a problem with starving kids (which he/she should, as should everyone else) then he/she might want to take it up with the god who actually allows it to happen. Not the people who simply point it out.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Ah well. On RF, there is no shortage of aspiring gurus seeking a following. They don't last long, thank God. (Or thank those of us who intentionally drive them away. )

Translation
There are people on here that ruin it for others because said person says stuff they dont wish to hear because
It makes it harder for them to lie to themselves.
They cant handle the truth so they use pathetic methods to silence the truth.

I am not leaving because of you, I am leaving because of the fact the owners make money off the ad revenue and such and I wont help generate money on a board that allows people to show a total lack of respect for others on it.
there are a lot of decent people here, I could just ignore you and life goes on.
But I have more respect for myself to be on such a board.
Some people are just sadistic by nature.
Stallin was one sadistic *******, Dawkins is as well, so is krauss, so is the rest of um.
You know the type, hide behind an atheist tag, but in reality, are just giving atheists a bad name, they are actually Anti-morals
Odd that all those that completely deny God, are anti-moral and show huge signs of a sadistic nature.
Did natural selection create that genome?
Science will tell us someday, I am sure of that.

no offence to all the decent atheists, don't worry once humanity figures it out they will have their own title.
I just had to have the last word, its how I roll

I will leave with humor
How come anti-theists dont take baths?
They are scared a JW is gonna happen along and baptize them and if that happens, their anti-god wont even want them so they will be without a home.
:run:

 

[Alceste]

Translation
There are people on here that ruin it for others because said person says stuff they dont wish to hear because
It makes it harder for them to lie to themselves.
They cant handle the truth so they use pathetic methods to silence the truth.

I am not leaving because of you, I am leaving because of the fact the owners make money off the ad revenue and such and I wont help generate money on a board that allows people to show a total lack of respect for others on it.
there are a lot of decent people here, I could just ignore you and life goes on.
But I have more respect for myself to be on such a board.
Some people are just sadistic by nature.
Stallin was one sadistic *******, Dawkins is as well, so is krauss, so is the rest of um.
You know the type, hide behind an atheist tag, but in reality, are just giving atheists a bad name, they are actually Anti-morals
Odd that all those that completely deny God, are anti-moral and show huge signs of a sadistic nature.
Did natural selection create that genome?
Science will tell us someday, I am sure of that.

no offence to all the decent atheists, don't worry once humanity figures it out they will have their own title.
I just had to have the last word, its how I roll

I will leave with humor
How come anti-theists dont take baths?
They are scared a JW is gonna happen along and baptize them and if that happens, their anti-god wont even want them so they will be without a home.
:run:

Hm, first you say you're going to ignore me and then you say you're scuttling off wherever you came from. Yet here you are still.

"I have the gift - of making promises I don't intend to keep".

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

QUOTE=IHaveTheGift;3747534]Considering that some people think that making fun of starving kids and trolling others is what these types of boards are for and obviously the Admins don't care either.
I am done here.
sadly though I was liking it here until a few people ruined it for me.
The other board I was on, wants me back full time anyway, so that is what I will do.
I thought this board was better due to more activity, but once you begin to ignore the trolls and spam posters, its about the same amount of activity.

This board looses in the end, not me.
almost all my topics are fresh and because active.
which is why they want me back there.

I dont have time for both though.
well i could, but I simply not not wish to help a board with my activity that allows so much ignorance.
wasting other peoples time by trying to derail the OP because the dont like what is being said or maybe they are just kids, IDK
Making fun of starving kids is screwed up mentality.
I wonder just how screwed up some atheists are in real life.


what else do you expect from an atheist with no moral code.
Ever notice, atheists tend to show from their behaviors that they are of satan and not God.
thought God didn't exist? :sarcastic
Most atheists behave like trash and they even know it.
No God, no morals
bet the atheist mods will delete this but still allow starving kids to be laughed at.
later.

I would tell yah to have fun in hell, but I knwo you wont.
To choose hell over heaven, why? why? why?
Its real brother, i dont want anyone ending up there, but that is not up to me, I can only chose my path in life.

later :run:[/QUOTE]

Actually... You're behaving like trash right now. It is wrong for you to assume that all atheists and other irreligious people are bad people. We love our families, we do good deeds, and do good to others. So how dare you lump us all into one group. Goodbye, and I hope you don't get too lonely up there on your pedestal.

P.S. I love your new profile pic. of a gremlin holding a bomb and giving the finger... I'm sure Jesus would be proud.