A Parable about Age

[Nathan Poe]

an atheist posted an absurd study claiming prayer has no effect. I pointed out the very nature of the claim demonstrates a lack of understanding.

And then when asked to explain how, you provided nothing but excuses not to.

 

[Nostromo]

You contradict yourself here. It is only the second definition we measure, since as you point out in the first sentence here the first definition escapes us. (Over long periods) Your logic backs up AV's claim, rather than refuting it as you would like.

It's not a contradiction because the second definition implies the appearance of age with the knowledge that time didn't pass to create that appearance.

 

[Nostromo]

I have defined Embedded Age as: maturity without history.

Maturity is what comes with history. There is no such thing as inate maturity.

I can't stamp out a coin with the year 1930 on it, make it grubby and worn and then say it's 81 years old.

 

[sandwiches]

Exactly! You can not possibly. The only problem this causes, is the same world holds people who have had such experience(s), and those that have not. And the answer to this that has escaped our species for so long, is to respect those differences. We can see varying degrees of that all across CF, and right here in this thread! (Is this our current frontier of evolution?)

We should respect each other's opinions and views but keep in mind that our views and opinions can be wrong and that without the evidence you claim to have experienced there is no reason for me to believe anything you say regarding your religion, at the moment.

Well, that is what I meant. Sorry if my wording pointed to something else. At the same time, your phrase "believing in faith," does that reveal your mindset at the time? There really are Christians who actually believe in Faith, and they struggle. While it may seem like semantics, believing in God is quite a different thing, and then Faith develops.

Miswording. I lost my faith in part because I didn't see any effects of the god that supposedly exists. I wanted to so badly, though. Just never happened.

 

[sandwiches]

"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments."

You're only considering half the meaning of the word. Observation can take place in daily life, outside of a lab.

It's irrelevant where it happens. If empirical observation by humans is possible, then scientific analysis is possible

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity is what comes with history.

Not in Embedded Age, it doesn't.

There is no such thing as inate maturity.

That's why it had to come from an outside Source.

I can't stamp out a coin with the year 1930 on it, make it grubby and worn and then say it's 81 years old.

You're not God, either.

 

[sandwiches]

Exactly! You can not possibly. The only problem this causes, is the same world holds people who have had such experience(s), and those that have not. And the answer to this that has escaped our species for so long, is to respect those differences. We can see varying degrees of that all across CF, and right here in this thread! (Is this our current frontier of evolution?)

Well, that is what I meant. Sorry if my wording pointed to something else. At the same time, your phrase "believing in faith," does that reveal your mindset at the time? There really are Christians who actually believe in Faith, and they struggle. While it may seem like semantics, believing in God is quite a different thing, and then Faith develops.

Now. I noticed you didn't answer this question:

1) Are personal experiences by others, which contradict yours, evidence that what they're saying is true?

What's your answer to this?

 

[Nostromo]

Not in Embedded Age, it doesn't.

Yeah, I was talking about the real world.

That's why it had to come from an outside Source.

Except there's no such thing as embedding age into things, regardless of where you think it might come from.

You're not God, either.

No, and you're not God's translator, if he exists at all.

There is no difference between Omphalos and Embedded Age

 

[Jazer]

I can't stamp out a coin with the year 1930 on it, make it grubby and worn and then say it's 81 years old.

Really, well I got a great deal for you on some "antique" coins. Better order up, how many of them would you like? In fact I have a friend that was selling off some 2000+ year old roman coins that they just dug up out of the ground. They are still a bit dirty but we can get you a great deal on them.

 

[Nostromo]

You seem to be under the illusion that you're making some kind of point.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sorry but here you completely fail to comprehend the nature of prayer

I thought prayer was pretty simple as it applies to "undeniable" "effects on reality" as you put it.

Here's your statement:

It's really not that difficult. I have seen many, many "effects on reality" from prayer. Indisputable, countless times. Things ranging from life-saving miracles in dire emergencies, to the trivial and mundane.

If it has an "undeniable effect on reality" then it automatically can be observed and if observed, tested.

Pretty straightforward.

, which goes back to how this odd de-rail got started in the first place: an atheist posted an absurd study claiming prayer has no effect.

There's a difference here: Remember if prayer impacts reality in such a way that it cannot be observed or tested then it is without value as evidence of prayer's effectiveness.

If you pray for a good rain to water your fields tomorrow after a 3 year drought and it rains tomorrow you can claim it had to do with prayer. OR it could have been just the fact that droughts usually end at some point and the "coordination" of your prayer and the rain is just pure chance.

It could have been prayer, who knows?

But if we atheists are not allowed to know if it isn't prayer then the believers are, by the same rules of logic, not allowed to know it is prayer.

Does this make sense? You have a feeling it is prayer that had all the "undeniable" effects on reality you experienced, but how do you provide evidence that it was prayer?

NOW, suppose you pray for things and about 99% of the things you pray for happen. This happens repeatedly, over and over and over again. At some point the possibility of "random chance" being the explanation between your prayers and what happens in the world falls apart. It becomes increasingly less likely with each event that this is mere random chance!

Of course at that point it kind of becomes "testable". It becomes a matter of science.

But if your experiences are only occasionally then it could be random chance.

I'm not saying it is, just that it could be.

Remember in most "inferential tests" we start with the assumption that there is no effect and test to see how likely we are wrong. Can we reject this assumption?

I pointed out the very nature of the claim demonstrates a lack of understanding.

So can we "test" if prayer has an effect on reality?

If so, how? If not, why not?

Again I will reiterate that I can think of absolutely no concept or being who is more important than God. If God is real, why is it so hard to test for this most fundamental and important of beings? ESPECIALLY In light of the fact that this God presumably loves us so much he became his only begotten son and sacrificed himself to himself on the cross to atone his creation (us) to him.

 

[thaumaturgy]

See those big, red words? What part of those words do you fail to see does not pertain to the topic of prayer?

See my post above.

But can I ask you why God would make anything not amenable to science? Why would God so dislike science that after humans have found the most powerful tool to help us understand the world around us, God would deem that the most important part of the universe (Him) would be unverifiable by this tool?

It's even more complicated than that:

(John 1:18) "No man hath seen God at any time"

I am always intrigued by that, because it seemed rather different for Abraham in Gen 18:1-3. But I'm sure there's some exegetical explanation for that.

What makes you think He is any less obvious? IOW, you've heard of "third eye blind?"

Oh, you mean the "third eye", the part of the ajna chakra in Hinduism? Yeah, I've heard of that.

I'm sorry I don't believe in the Hindu gods and mysticism either.

 

[Split Rock]

Not in Embedded Age, it doesn't.

That's why "embedded age" doesn't exist.

That's why it had to come from an outside Source.

No, that's why its a figment of your imagination.

You're not God, either.

Can God do the impossible? Does he do the impossible at your request? If there is an alternative to the impossible, such as an earth that really has been around for 4.5 billion years, why do you conclude the impossible is correct?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's not a contradiction because the second definition implies the appearance of age with the knowledge that time didn't pass to create that appearance.

Nostromo, AV's concept of embedded age appears to only make sense to AV (maybe a few others), but in general over the past couple of years since AV started trying to "explain" "embedded age" he has run into just about every variant of your debate points multiple times.

He "wins" the debate by simply refusing to allow the point that words ahve meaning.

This "embedded age" thing is a word-game. Pure and simple. It is "double-think", it is the workings of a mind that wants desperately to hold two opposing ideas in one brain without any problem or acquiescence that the points are in direct opposition to one and other.

He wants a young earth but doesn't want to go against science he doesn't really understand. He recognizes he can't debate the science per se without having to give up some things he likes and he doesnt' want to come right out and be a "YEC".

I can understand his conundrum, but you will probably never solve it for him any moreso than any of us who started debating him on this topic a few years back.

It's not an "impossible nut to crack" in that he has provided nothing of "philosophical value" or any sort of enigmatic deeper thought, he simply takes jarringly opposing concepts, mashes them up and comes up with sui generis definitions of standard terms and goes on his merry way.

But keep on plugging.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Maturity is what comes with history. There is no such thing as inate maturity.

I can't stamp out a coin with the year 1930 on it, make it grubby and worn and then say it's 81 years old.

Ahh, here's where AV has put some work into his "pet hypothesis". He'll come back and tell you only God can embed age!

If the hypothesis weren't already devoid of much in the way of philosophical content it has now become compeletly unfalsifiable and therefor has no scientific content either!

It's close to being a perfect "religious" hypothesis, though!

 

[Belk]

Ahh, here's where AV has put some work into his "pet hypothesis". He'll come back and tell you only God can embed age!

If the hypothesis weren't already devoid of much in the way of philosophical content it has now become compeletly unfalsifiable and therefor has no scientific content either!

It's close to being a perfect "religious" hypothesis, though!

Well except for the fact that he fails to understand that all our dating methods date history, which he claims embedded age does not contain. I have tried repeatedly to explain that if his hypothesis was correct then we would get dates no further back then 6000 BC. I, of course, have had no success but I am sure that really does not surprise anyone.

 

[Freodin]

Not in Embedded Age, it doesn't.

That's why it had to come from an outside Source.

You're not God, either.

So why do you keep posting these challenges?

In the last one, you presented us with a rock that was radiodated to 10.000 years.

So what do you think "radiodating" does? How is it able to detect "embedded age"? How does it distinguish it from "faked age"?

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up and it's quite possible it will go through a further cleaning. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember the Board Rules when posting.

Also, if you see a post that you feel is in violation of board rules, please report and do not respond to it. Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gracchus]

If you pray for a good rain to water your fields tomorrow after a 3 year drought and it rains tomorrow you can claim it had to do with prayer. OR it could have been just the fact that droughts usually end at some point and the "coordination" of your prayer and the rain is just pure chance.

It could have been prayer, who knows?

When I was a boy, I had to go to church every Sunday. Toward the end of the summer the priest would begin saying the rosary after mass, as a prayer for rain, and he would continue this practice every Sunday until it rained. So, it must have rained because of the prayer, right? Of course the vinyardists who had raisins out to dry were praying against us, so sometimes the rain was long in coming, and we would spend extra hours sweating in a church that had no air conditioning.

 

[quatona]

Nostromo, AV's concept of embedded age appears to only make sense to AV (maybe a few others), but in general over the past couple of years since AV started trying to "explain" "embedded age" he has run into just about every variant of your debate points multiple times.

He "wins" the debate by simply refusing to allow the point that words ahve meaning.

This "embedded age" thing is a word-game. Pure and simple. It is "double-think", it is the workings of a mind that wants desperately to hold two opposing ideas in one brain without any problem or acquiescence that the points are in direct opposition to one and other.

Sure, but there shouldn´t be much of a problem to demonstrate the differences between his beliefs and scientific findings (despite his desperate attempts to veil them by using obscure language):
Does he believe that the earth has been existing for a couple of million years? No, he doesn´t.