Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

135

Comments

  • #62
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    No you tried to insinuate I was using circular reasoning. I gave an example of circular reasoning, and why it was circular reasoning. But rather than point out why my reasoning was circular, you have tried to side track the discussion into mis-representing Christian.

    I didn't insinuate anything. I stated quite clearly that you were indulging in circular reasoning. I have already pointed out why your arguments are circular. You want to discuss Christians' belief in an omnipotent God and then you use an argument based on something being extremely difficult for God.

    Your response was to invent a mythical argument by a Christian. If you don't recognise that to be a straw man then you have a problem.
    There's no point asking any "how" question. Because there's infintite magic available
    Well no-one is forcing you to post here. If you can't discuss the concept of an omnipotent God without throwing a hissy fit then why do you think any of us should pay any attention to anything you say?
    Who say out of "nothing"? "Nothing" is extremly difficult to objectively define because it is a human construct.
    Pseudo-intellectual evasion. 'No evidence' is also a human construct, but you don't seem quite so bashful about using it.
    I was speaking about the soul travelling to heaven. Now you seem a bit confused whether you want me to talk about the soul or not.
    I'm not confused at all. However, I am not a mind reader. If you wanted us to know that you were talking about the soul travelling anywhere then it would have helped if you had actually said so rather than hoping we might guess correctly.
    The soul, if it has mass, would require a huge amount of energy to move it. Otherwise Einstein's laws are wrong. Or that the soul has no mass and gets to heaven by a transport mechanism which we cannot detect. If it has no mass, is it inside space - time? If it is not, and you think heaven may be still be insde space time, therefore you are saying it is possible for the soul to be outside space time and get back in by a communication or action mechanism
    we can't detect. Perhaps you could just clarify what you think, rather than accuse me of straw men and circular reasoning which you can't substantiate.
    I have no idea whether the soul has mass or not. I haven't said anything about a soul. I answered a post about a personal relationship with Jesus and about communication between Jesus and Christians. If you choose to change the subject half way through a thread without telling anyone then it's no wonder you're making such little sense.
    You were the one to insinuate I was being arrogant and illogical. That's the way it came across. Which is nonsense and insulting.
    You may well find it insulting, but it is hardly nonsense.

    It was certainly less insulting than the posts I've read on the A&A and Feedback fora when others have expressed their low opinion of your ability to reason logically.


  • #63
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Tim Robbins said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I think the phrase you mentioned was used to say that ours is not a mere worship of a god out there, one who may or may not bother to notice us. It is a personal relationship which He initiated and enables.
    It is an obscure form of communication that from a scientific point of view has no difference between someone just imagining something. If God is sending you messages, does this travel as energy waves through the universe like all other forms of communication? No - because they'd be measurable. They simply by - pass all that and begin in your head. Just like someone's imagination.
    I agree. So either it is only imagination, or it is real.

    We have to look for evidence of the latter without the benefits of material scientific measurements. Examples of this would be, e.g., fulfilled prophecy or specific answer to prayer. If one has revealed (by this obscure form of communication ) to him a future event that exactly comes to pass, or if by this obscure form of communication he asks God for something and it exactly comes to pass - that would be proof of the reality by my reckoning.


  • #64
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Tim Robbins said:

    I agree. So either it is only imagination, or it is real.

    We have to look for evidence of the latter without the benefits of material scientific measurements. Examples of this would be, e.g., fulfilled prophecy or specific answer to prayer. If one has revealed (by this obscure form of communication ) to him a future event that exactly comes to pass, or if by this obscure form of communication he asks God for something and it exactly comes to pass - that would be proof of the reality by my reckoning.

    Yes, but the problem is that that has never happened.

    All claims of prophecy or answered prayers (in all religions) can either be explained by the answer being so vague as to match multiple possible future events, or simply statistics.

    But on a more fundamental point, even if such events did happen that doesn't actually demonstrate you are communicating with God. This point has been raised before and is some what ignored on this forum. You could be communicating with anything. It is your religion that says it can only be God because your religion rules out other entities that would have the powers you attribute to God. But that is not a logical conclusion, it is a theological conclusion that doesn't actually have any standing.

    So all one could put forward was that they were communicating with something that has access to accurate knowledge about the future. A lot of further investigation would be required before one could say it is actually the god you believe exists. Of course since we have not reached that point yet such a point is largely irrelevant at the moment.


  • #65
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes, but the problem is that that has never happened.

    All claims of prophecy or answered prayers (in all religions) can either be explained by the answer being so vague as to match multiple possible future events, or simply statistics.

    In your highly subjective & biased opinion.

    I have experienced numerous occasions where my prayers have been answered very specifically. In
    my
    highly subjective & biased opinion these can not be satisfactorily explained outside of God.


  • #66
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes, but the problem is that that has never happened.

    All claims of prophecy or answered prayers (in all religions) can either be explained by the answer being so vague as to match multiple possible future events, or simply statistics.

    But on a more fundamental point, even if such events did happen that doesn't actually demonstrate you are communicating with God. This point has been raised before and is some what ignored on this forum. You could be communicating with anything. It is your religion that says it can only be God because your religion rules out other entities that would have the powers you attribute to God. But that is not a logical conclusion, it is a theological conclusion that doesn't actually have any standing.

    So all one could put forward was that they were communicating with something that has access to accurate knowledge about the future. A lot of further investigation would be required before one could say it is actually the god you believe exists. Of course since we have not reached that point yet such a point is largely irrelevant at the moment.
    As PDN points out, you remain in ignorance of what others have experienced. How you can tell it was all vague or chance is, well, miraculous. :D

    But you have a valid objection when you go on to say it may be an entity other than God who is doing the communicating. Many times it is: demons also communicate with man, to delude them. Such is the case with the false religions and people who meddle with the occult.

    How do I know it is God? Because all that I've experienced is in line with His written word, the Bible:
    Isaiah 8:19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    In your highly subjective & biased opinion.

    Groan ... why do people keep saying that.

    There has never been a single record case where anyone, anywhere, has successfully demonstrated knowledge of the future, prayer or otherwise.

    Saying that someone had a feeling that something was going to happen, and then something happened, how odd, is not demonstrating knowledge of the future.
    PDN wrote: »
    I have experienced numerous occasions where my prayers have been answered very specifically.
    I would seriously doubt that. Any cases of these so called answered prayers that you have presented have been discussed to death on this forum and they fall far short of demonstrating actual knowledge of the future.

    Show me an example of someone who has actually demonstrated specific knowledge of the future due to communication with God, ie something that cannot be explained by someone simply guessing a correct answer or statistics.

    I'm still waiting for God to tell someone, anyone, what Fermat's Last Theorem was :pac:


  • #68
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As PDN points out, you remain in ignorance of what others have experienced. How you can tell it was all vague or chance is, well, miraculous. :D

    Hey, what can I say. I'm the second coming ...
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    How do I know it is God? Because all that I've experienced is in line with His written word, the Bible:

    Well, firstly being in line with His written word doesn't demonstrate it is God, it simply demonstrates that the "demon" talking to you can read.

    Secondly how do you know the Bible is His written word?


  • #69
    oobydooby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for God to tell someone, anyone, what Fermat's Last Theorem was :pac:

    This is a well known result now, it was proven over a decade ago. By a human. I expect you mean that you are waiting for an "inspired" proof which would be accessible to a child as opposed to the known proofs which are the privilege of a handful of experts with an enormous specialist knowledge? Some truths are quite deep.

    As a sidepoint, the mathematician Ramanujan (non-Christian) claimed to be divinely inspired. Certainly there is much mystery about his methods. It's an interesting topic, but not a terribly important or impressive test of divine communication. Even those who devote their lives to unravelling scientific, mathematical or philosophical truths might place a higher value on more mundane inspirations in life (relating to love, family, friendships, leisure). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest people feel divine presence in these aspects of their lives.


  • #70
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    I didn't insinuate anything. I stated quite clearly that you were indulging in circular reasoning. I have already pointed out why your arguments are circular.
    You didn't show something any argument of mine was circular.
    You want to discuss Christians' belief in an omnipotent God and then you use an argument based on something being extremely difficult for God.
    That's not circular. And you are also straw manning. I wanted to discuss the nature of the "personal relationship" with God. That's a bit more specific than "Christians' belief in an omnipotent God".
    Your response was to invent a mythical argument by a Christian. If you don't recognise that to be a straw man then you have a problem.
    A straw man is when you deliberately misunderstand your opponents argument. I was not doing that. I was giving an example of what a circular argument was. Which had nothing to do with this debate. I just that the context of the it might be a bit easier for you to understand because I do not think you understand what a circular argument is.
    Well no-one is forcing you to post here. If you can't discuss the concept of an omnipotent God without throwing a hissy fit then why do you think any of us should pay any attention to anything you say?
    No hissy fit. I return an accusation of being called arrogant and illogical. Nothing more than a quid pro quo.
    Pseudo-intellectual evasion. 'No evidence' is also a human construct, but you don't seem quite so bashful about using it.
    No. Dogs can smell evidence of their's and other Dog's urine. They also note it absence.

    I'm not confused at all. However, I am not a mind reader. If you wanted us to know that you were talking about the soul travelling anywhere then it would have helped if you had actually said so rather than hoping we might guess correctly.
    I have no idea whether the soul has mass or not. I haven't said anything about a soul. I answered a post about a personal relationship with Jesus and about communication between Jesus and Christians. If you choose to change the subject half way through a thread without telling anyone then it's no wonder you're making such little sense.
    You brought Heaven into it, which brought the soul into it. That was continuation of a point you brought up i.e. what goes to Heaven, the soul and if so does it have mass.

    You can't just bring up points and then when people want to think about them a bit more, accuse us of changing the subject.
    You may well find it insulting, but it is hardly nonsense.
    It is nonsense it's unsubstantiated. You are resorting to insults because you can't debate your points intellectually.
    It was certainly less insulting than the posts I've read on the A&A and Feedback fora when others have expressed their low opinion of your ability to reason logically.
    That's a bit petty, trying to wind me up?


  • #71
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    oobydooby wrote: »
    This is a well known result now, it was proven over a decade ago. By a human.
    No, the theory was proven, mathematically. But it used a proof that stretched over multiple pages and used advanced mathematical ideas that would not have been available to Fermat at the time.

    Fermat's proof was supposed to have fitted in under a page.
    oobydooby wrote: »
    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest people feel divine presence in these aspects of their lives.

    Certainly, but what is at issue here is something that can be tested.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    A common approach by theists, and one I have seen more than once on this forum (Most recently from PDN) is that they know a god exists because of their personal experiences.

    To paraphrase PDN, you stipulated that your (very specific) prayers have been answered. That's fair enough, I don't doubt that something you have hoped would come to pass has come to pass. My issue relies on the fact that you attribute this to a divine being. And by that logic, would I be free to make the assumption that god answers all your prayers? If someone is ill, and you pray for them to get better, have they got better in EVERY case? (as an example).

    If so (and I will not doubt you if you say they have), is it a very large leap for me to suggest that by that logic, any ill person who is prayed for will get better?

    Or do you find that sometimes things that you pray for come to pass, yet other times they do not? (And 'but that is gods will' or similar is not a valid explenination for this)

    Why does your god answer some of your prayers but not others?


  • #73
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Hi oeb,

    The topic has been covered at excruciating length here and here


  • #74
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Hi oeb,

    The topic has been covered at excruciating length here and here

    This was more directed at PDN, he claims that there is a god, and he knows it because he has prayed and had it answered. This is a logical response to that argument.

    I did not bring the topic to this level, I merely questions someone else's reasoning for bringing it up as part of this debate.


  • #75
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oeb wrote: »
    A common approach by theists, and one I have seen more than once on this forum (Most recently from PDN) is that they know a god exists because of their personal experiences.

    To paraphrase PDN, you stipulated that your (very specific) prayers have been answered. That's fair enough, I don't doubt that something you have hoped would come to pass has come to pass. My issue relies on the fact that you attribute this to a divine being. And by that logic, would I be free to make the assumption that god answers all your prayers? If someone is ill, and you pray for them to get better, have they got better in EVERY case? (as an example).

    If so (and I will not doubt you if you say they have), is it a very large leap for me to suggest that by that logic, any ill person who is prayed for will get better?

    Or do you find that sometimes things that you pray for come to pass, yet other times they do not? (And 'but that is gods will' or similar is not a valid explenination for this)

    Why does your god answer some of your prayers but not others?

    Yes, it is a huge leap of logic for you to suggest that everyone who is prayed for should get better?

    There are many possible reasons for why some prayers are not answered and, as Fanny Cradock has said, they have been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. However, the point here at hand is whether we know an incident of answered prayer is genuine or not.

    I know logic has been dragged through the muck on this thread, but let's try to look at this logically:

    In science it is not necessary for something to work every time for it to be considered as sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. For example, not everyone who smokes ends up contracting cancer, but the numbers of those who do is sufficient for most of us to conclude that a link exists.

    So, if we apply similar logic to prayer, it is not necessary to argue that prayer must be seen to work every time, simply that our experience should show that prayer makes a difference in a statistically significant number of cases. That is my experience.

    Also, sometimes only one incident of something is necessary to provide evidence. If I wrote a series of 1000 letters to Richard Branson asking for him to pay off my mortgage - then one reply would be sufficient evidence that my begging letters had worked. If the bearded one sent me a cheque, complete with his signature, for the exact amount I requested then that would be sufficient evidence for me, even if the other 999 letters received no reply whatsoever.

    So, logically it is not necessary for every prayer to be answered for me to see answered prayer as convincing evidence. I have seen hundreds of smaller prayer requests answered - certainly enough to convince me. I have also seen one or two of the 'Richard Branson' type prayers answered - sufficiently dramatic and miraculous as to be convincing in their own right.


  • #76
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    In science it is not necessary for something to work every time for it to be considered as sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. [...] So, if we apply similar logic to prayer, it is not necessary to argue that prayer must be seen to work every time, simply that our experience should show that prayer makes a difference in a statistically significant number of cases.
    ...and that's exactly why that Templeton-funded study looked at almost two thousand people over several years in order to see if different types of prayer did make "a difference in a statistically significant number of cases". And emphatically, prayer was not found to improve people's medical condition.
    PDN wrote: »
    That is my experience.
    If your experience is not the simple and straightforward case of selection bias that people like me tend to think it is, then it may well be the much more interesting possibility that your prayers are effective when the prayers that were the subject of the study were not.

    Could you suggest some good reasons why you believe that you're not subject to selection bias?


  • #77
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, it is a huge leap of logic for you to suggest that everyone who is prayed for should get better?

    There are many possible reasons for why some prayers are not answered and, as Fanny Cradock has said, they have been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. However, the point here at hand is whether we know an incident of answered prayer is genuine or not.

    I know logic has been dragged through the muck on this thread, but let's try to look at this logically:

    In science it is not necessary for something to work every time for it to be considered as sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. For example, not everyone who smokes ends up contracting cancer, but the numbers of those who do is sufficient for most of us to conclude that a link exists.

    So, if we apply similar logic to prayer, it is not necessary to argue that prayer must be seen to work every time, simply that our experience should show that prayer makes a difference in a statistically significant number of cases. That is my experience.

    Also, sometimes only one incident of something is necessary to provide evidence. If I wrote a series of 1000 letters to Richard Branson asking for him to pay off my mortgage - then one reply would be sufficient evidence that my begging letters had worked. If the bearded one sent me a cheque, complete with his signature, for the exact amount I requested then that would be sufficient evidence for me, even if the other 999 letters received no reply whatsoever.

    So, logically it is not necessary for every prayer to be answered for me to see answered prayer as convincing evidence. I have seen hundreds of smaller prayer requests answered - certainly enough to convince me. I have also seen one or two of the 'Richard Branson' type prayers answered - sufficiently dramatic and miraculous as to be convincing in their own right.


    This shows a fundimental misunderstanding of how science works. If something is not repeatable, it is not science.
    The evidence that is out there has shown that ciggerettes contain carcinogens, this can be measured. The evidence out there has also shown us that carcinogens increase our chances of developing cancer (hint: the clue is in the name).

    The scientific reliability of this is very easilly handled via the use of clinicial trials. Get 1000 people, 500 of whom smoke, 500 of whom do not, but both parties of whom live otherwise comparable lifestyles. This will obviously show that the smoker group will have a higher percentage of cancer. Now, this is interesting, but it is not yet enough to declare it 'good science'. For this experement to be consisidered scientific it has to be repeatable. If you repeat the experement another 5 times, using different groups (For example in the second situation both groups are also overweight, or from another social group, or from mixed people) and the percentage of people from the smoking group affected by cancer, versus the percentage of people from the non smoking group remains (within a reasonable range of) the same. Then, and only then are you in a position to claim something is fact. Otherwise it is the result of a single study, and thus, while it may be likely, it is also probable that some other factor might be skewing the result.

    Now, for prayer to be considered effective, similar trials would need to show real results. And *shock, horror* they have not.

    Around 1870, an English man, Francis Galton declared that prayer was ineffective, and he gave the following reasons.
    1. People pray for eachother
    2. Most people (at the time) pray for the health of the royal family
    3. It is logicial to assume that the royal family recieve more prayers than any other group in England (at the time)
    4. By that reasoning, if prayer works, the royal family should be drasticly healthier than other people (specificially, other people who could avail of the same facilities, doctors etc).
    5. Guess what? They are not. They got sick just as much as anyone else did, and all died within the range that was expected of them for the time

    Don't forget, the King or Queen of England is also head of their church, so don't give me any crap about 'people probably were not praying for them'. That's like people not praying for the pope (100 years ago).

    Now, these studies have been carried out (many times). For example, you collect 1500 people, typicially cancer patients, or some other normally life threatening illness that can not be medicially cured 100% of the time. You tell 1000 of them that they are being prayed for, and then you get large groups of people (commonly churches or prayer groups) to pray for 500 of them.

    The reason 500 who are being prayed for know about it, and 500 who are being prayed for don't know about it is to account for the placebo effect.

    This can also be carried out in what is known as a 'double-blind' test, in which neither the people being prayed for, or the examiners, know who is being prayed for, and who is not until the conclusion of the experement.

    The results of these have varied considerably. Sometimes the prayed for group showed a higher percentage of recovery, sometimes they experience a lower percentage, and sometimes there was no difference at all.

    That tells us, that statistically, when repeated, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

    Refrence:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9375429 : Significiant positive correlation between prayed for group against non prayed for group.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761499 : Prayer has no significant effect
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11565401?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed : No difference


    Scientificially, evidence has shown that there is NO significant difference between groups that are prayed for, and groups that are not. (That can be attributed directly to prayer (ie: discounting placebo and other outside influences)).


  • #78
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    So, logically it is not necessary for every prayer to be answered for me to see answered prayer as convincing evidence.
    I don't know what makes you think that's logic. May I ask if you said something like that to your fellow Christians would any of them point out your mis-use of logic?


  • #79
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't know what makes you think that's logic. May I ask if you said something like that to your fellow Christians would any of them point out your mis-use of logic?

    That would depend if their grasp of logic was as poor as yours.


  • #80
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    ...and that's exactly why that Templeton-funded study looked at almost two thousand people over several years in order to see if different types of prayer did make "a difference in a statistically significant number of cases". And emphatically, prayer was not found to improve people's medical condition.If your experience is not the simple and straightforward case of selection bias that people like me tend to think it is, then it may well be the much more interesting possibility that your prayers are effective when the prayers that were the subject of the study were not.

    Could you suggest some good reasons why you believe that you're not subject to selection bias?

    The Templeton-funded study demonstrated that the group of people they selected did not see statistically significant instances of answered prayer. To try to extend that to argue that no prayer works is unreasonable.

    For example, let's say that Free Presbyterianism (a purely hypothetical example) is the only true version of Christianity. Unless the Templeton-funded study included a significant number of Free Presbyterians then its results would be meaningless.

    I think I am in a better position than you to know my experiences of prayer and to assess them. However, if it makes you happier to assume I'm a victim of selection bias then go ahead. I'm tolerant enough not to get bent out of shape because others view things differently from myself.


  • #81
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oeb wrote: »
    If something is not repeatable, it is not science.
    Is the big bang repeatable?

    Around 1870, an English man, Francis Galton declared that prayer was ineffective, and he gave the following reasons.
    1. People pray for eachother
    2. Most people (at the time) pray for the health of the royal family
    3. It is logicial to assume that the royal family recieve more prayers than any other group in England (at the time)
    4. By that reasoning, if prayer works, the royal family should be drasticly healthier than other people (specificially, other people who could avail of the same facilities, doctors etc).
    5. Guess what? They are not. They got sick just as much as anyone else did, and all died within the range that was expected of them for the time

    Don't forget, the King or Queen of England is also head of their church, so don't give me any crap about 'people probably were not praying for them'. That's like people not praying for the pope (100 years ago).

    So the official prayers of Anglicanism didn't work? So what? I have made no claims as to the prayers of Anglicanism. My personal experience is that my own prayers make a significant difference.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    PDN wrote: »
    I think I am in a better position than you to know my experiences of prayer and to assess them. However, if it makes you happier to assume I'm a victim of selection bias then go ahead. I'm tolerant enough not to get bent out of shape because others view things differently from myself.

    I dissagree with this point.

    You are at a dissadvantage when you asses your experiences of prayer. You are already convinced that your prayers are answered by a divine being, therefor you are not open to any other explination. You are falling prey to something that for some reason Christians like to attribute to Athiests. Close-mindedness.

    You claim prayer could be the only reason that some things you hope come to pass (and others don't), to the extent that you grasp at straws and attempt to find responses in deliberate misinterpritation and semantics.

    If I insist that the world is flat, to the stage of point blank ignoring the evidence that it is not, that makes me stupid. But if I do the same thing with prayer and religion, that makes me convicted? Go figure.


  • #83
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    That would depend if their grasp of logic was as poor as yours.
    Is that the best you can do?


  • #84
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    PDN wrote: »
    Is the big bang repeatable?

    No, but the big bang is also not fact. The big bang is a 'best guess', it is merely a model, a theory. The fact however is as far as science it is the best supported one, falling in line about what we do know. (For example, the universe is expanding). The pieces add up to the big bang. It will not be declared fact until they can reproduce it.

    PDN wrote:
    So the official prayers of Anglicanism didn't work? So what? I have made no claims as to the prayers of Anglicanism. My personal experience is that my own prayers make a significant difference.

    If your prayers work, and no one else do, then that does not indicate that there is a god, it indicates that you are super-human. You have powers no one else does. Do you now claim to be a miracle worker? Are you a devine being here to save us all?


  • #85
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    For example, let's say that Free Presbyterianism (a purely hypothetical example) is the only true version of Christianity. Unless the Templeton-funded study included a significant number of Free Presbyterians then its results would be meaningless.
    For that to happen, one has to conclude that your claim that all christians believe largely the same thing, and that the differences are, on the whole, fairly minor, is false.
    PDN wrote: »
    However, if it makes you happier to assume I'm a victim of selection bias then go ahead.
    Good heavens, "assuming" my conclusions again? Sheesh!

    I'm not assuming that you're subject to the same selection bias, I am concluding that you probably are. I'm trying to find out why you believe that you are not.

    And if you believe that your prayers are uniquely effective, then would you be prepared to have your beliefs about yourself tested?


  • #86
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    oeb wrote: »
    You are falling prey to something that for some reason Christians like to attribute to Athiests. Close-mindedness.

    Oh, please! The same accusation could be levelled at you.


  • #87
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Oh, please! The same accusation could be levelled at you.

    That's nonsense.

    We will listen to anything you say, as long as you can back it up by evidence. That is what makes the difference between something being true and a wild guess unsuported by any facts.

    That's the wonders of science, we can adapt. If you can prove to me, in a scientific manner, that your god exists or that prayer works, then I will accecpt that.

    Religion is based on faith, faith is not open mindedness, it is following blindly. If I tell you there is a dragon in my attic and you tell me that I must be an idiot for believing that, does that make you close minded?

    I am willing to accecpt nearly anything. You just need to prove it to me.

    There is not a single significant piece of proof that indicates prayers work.
    There is not a single significant piece of proof that a god exists.

    Present me with that proof, and I will examine it, and I may accecpt it. Psudoscience and religious dogma is not proof.

    Open mindedness is not mindless, it is the willingness to accecpt other positions. There is not one compelling part to your argument


  • #88
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    So, if we apply similar logic to prayer, it is not necessary to argue that prayer must be seen to work every time, simply that our experience should show that prayer makes a difference in a statistically significant number of cases. That is my experience.
    It is?

    You have record all your prayers and worked out the statistical correlation in a controlled manner using double blind tests?

    Really?
    PDN wrote: »
    Also, sometimes only one incident of something is necessary to provide evidence. If I wrote a series of 1000 letters to Richard Branson asking for him to pay off my mortgage - then one reply would be sufficient evidence that my begging letters had worked. If the bearded one sent me a cheque, complete with his signature, for the exact amount I requested then that would be sufficient evidence for me, even if the other 999 letters received no reply whatsoever.

    If God actually sent you a cheque then yes that would be evidence for his existence. But I suspect it wasn't actually God who sent you the cheque.

    What would be interesting would you be sending 1000 letters to someone you know doesn't exist, and seeing if during that time any of the requests in your letter were actually answered.
    PDN wrote: »
    So, logically it is not necessary for every prayer to be answered for me to see answered prayer as convincing evidence.

    Yes but what is necessary for you to have to make any claims about correlation between prayer and the existence of God is a proper method of analysis that could detect if prayer actually did produce a statistically more likely chance of such and such event happening.

    Your "experience" that this happens is rather useless from a scientific point of view. You could just be wrong or delusional or mad or making stuff up.
    PDN wrote: »
    I have seen hundreds of smaller prayer requests answered - certainly enough to convince me.

    Well yes but I'm not sure you are the most unbiased person in the world :pac:

    And before you say "Neither are you!", that is of course the point. Even if you were the most unbiased person in the world it wouldn't matter, because you could still just be wrong.

    The personal opinion and assessment of people cannot be trusted as reliable. Which is why science doesn't trust people. Your personal opinion that miracles have been answered is ultimately irrelevant. You could just be wrong. If you have the ability to demonstrate you aren't wrong then we would need to be relying on your personal opinion in the first place.

    What is important is being able to demonstrate it independently of your personal assessment. So far no one has been able to do that.


  • #89
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    oeb wrote: »
    That's nonsense.

    We will listen to anything you say, as long as you can back it up by evidence. That is what makes the difference between something being true and a wild guess unsuported by any facts.

    Ha! So atheists can not be closed-minded? You, based on your position, don't presuppose anything?

    You may be interested to read some of the opinions given in this thread
    oeb wrote: »
    That's the wonders of science, we can adapt.

    Who do you include in this 'we' business?
    oeb wrote: »
    Religion is based on faith, faith is not open mindedness, it is following blindly. If I tell you there is a dragon in my attic and you tell me that I must be an idiot for believing that, does that make you close minded?

    I would first ask you what happened to the lion in your attic. But if you want to believe there is a dragon or lion in your attic, then that's just great. However, I suspect that there may be little in the way of faith on your part if you were pressed on the matter. Still, if billions of people also claimed that there was a dragon in their attic it would most certainly be worth investigating.
    oeb wrote: »
    I am willing to accecpt nearly anything. You just need to prove it to me.

    There is not a single significant piece of proof that indicates prayers work.
    There is not a single significant piece of proof that a god exists.

    Present me with that proof, and I will examine it, and I may accecpt it. Psudoscience and religious dogma is not proof.

    I'm not sure there is proof for anything - be it an accepted scientific theory or with religious faith. There is evidence, however. Evidence, for example, that prayer works. But personal testimony like PDN's is dismissed as delusion, chance or bias. I don't know about your circumstance, but I have heard this claim to open-mindedness before, yet I just have to wonder if they have done anything much to personally test the veracity of Christianity.

    It's funny, though, that you say if proof of God was presented to you you may accept it. In light of the claims of closed-mindedness you level at Christians, I find this quite ironic that you state you would still only consider Gods existence after it was proved to you.

    There certainly arguments for Gods existence. These range from a finely tuned universe to more personal experiences. However, based on your posts thus far, I'm quite sure that they would fall outside what you consider "significant proof". Indeed, I refer you back to the link at the top of this post in this regard.
    oeb wrote: »
    Open mindedness is not mindless, it is the willingness to accecpt other positions. There is not one compelling part to your argument

    What argument? I merely implied that you may not be as open-minded as you would have us believe.


  • #90
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Ha! So atheists can not be closed-minded? You, based on your position, don't presuppose anything?

    You may be interested to read some of the opinions given in this thread

    Anyone can be close minded. Of course I pre-suppose, but I am also willing to hear out the other side with an open mind. If it is a load of bull however, I will call them on it.

    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Who do you include in this 'we' business?
    I will happilly include anyone that feels the same way.

    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I would first ask you what happened to the lion in your attic. But if you want to believe there is a dragon or lion in your attic, then that's just great. However, I suspect that there may be little in the way of faith on your part if you were pressed on the matter. Still, if billions of people also claimed that there was a dragon in their attic it would most certainly be worth investigating.
    And billions of people believed that when the days started getting shorter in the winter that if they did not pray to god the day would never come back. And people believed that the world was flat, and the sun orbited the earth. Without challenging our beliefes we stagnent. Science is not a democracy, something does not become fact by vote. It either is, or it is not.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm not sure there is proof for anything - be it an accepted scientific theory or with religious faith. There is evidence, however. Evidence, for example, that prayer works. But personal testimony like PDN's is dismissed as delusion, chance or bias. I don't know about your circumstance, but I have heard this claim to open-mindedness before, yet I just have to wonder if they have done anything much to personally test the veracity of Christianity.
    What? There is evidence that prayer is irrelivant. I have addressed this in an earlier post on this thread. I have read the bible, I have been to church, hell, I was a practicing christian for the first half of my life. I prayed. Have I noticed since I renounced religion and decided it was all a load of crap that the things I want are less likely to come about? Of course not.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It's funny, though, that you say if proof of God was presented to you you may accept it. In light of the claims of closed-mindedness you level at Christians, I find this quite ironic that you state you would still only consider Gods existence after it was proved to you.
    Ahhh, but what you consider proof is not always proof. That is what I ment by that statement. For example PDN's prayer statement, he sees that as evidence, I see it as his imagination. All proof is not created equal.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    There certainly arguments for Gods existence. These range from a finely tuned universe to more personal experiences. However, based on your posts thus far, I'm quite sure that they would fall outside what you consider "significant proof". Indeed, I refer you back to the link at the top of this post in this regard.

    And their are arguments AGAINST gods existance. I have examined both sides, and I find one side to be unrealistic. Bet you can not guess which one?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What argument? I merely implied that you may not be as open-minded as you would have us believe.

    Maybe argument was the wrong term. I was refering more in general to the christian belief system. (devine creator et al)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Ha! So atheists can not be closed-minded? You, based on your position, don't presuppose anything?

    You may be interested to read some of the opinions given in this thread
    I did not read the whole thread but those that I did seemed to have a similar opinion to myself. If it was proven beyond doubt I might very well believe that he existed, but I would probably not follow him.

    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    There certainly arguments for Gods existence. These range from a finely tuned universe to more personal experiences.
    They might be arguments for god's existence if you are looking for arguments to support gods existence. However, if you are not starting form a position where god exists they don't look so good.


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    However, based on your posts thus far, I'm quite sure that they would fall outside what you consider "significant proof". Indeed, I refer you back to the link at the top of this post in this regard.
    The fact that the universe we live in is suitable for us to live in is not proof of god. PDN meeting a mate in a filling station in the States is not proof of god. The voice in Wolfsbane’s head telling him that god exists is not proof that god exists.

    I would imagine that, should he desire it, god could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he existed. Being an all powerful being capable of creating a finely tuned universe kind of means you would be able to do some fairly impressive things. I am sure he could do something to convince even the most hardened disbeliever, but, that does not mean that everyone would follow him. The thread you linked to asked if people would follow god if it was proven he existed, not would you believe god existed if it was proved that he existed.

    MrP


Advertisement