- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,176
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ya -- I get sick of their bogus, johnny-on-the-spot, made-up claims.They would claim the goldfish never died.
Upvote
0
Ya -- I get sick of their bogus, johnny-on-the-spot, made-up claims.They would claim the goldfish never died.
What's the real reason you want him to give an example, quatona?
It's really not that difficult. I have seen many, many "effects on reality" from prayer. Indisputable, countless times.
None of this was under controlled circumstances, nor is it repeatable, nor is it under human control in any sense of the word, which places it squarely outside the realm of science.
So you can just play the Arbitrary Denial card and add a notch to your ego?
Who are you really trying to kid here?
I'm sure your ineffectual, myopic science is going to suddenly confirm or deny his claim, isn't it?
Let science do what it does best -- build us a better moustrap -- and keep their ten-cent clipboards out of our Bibles, eh?
Personally, I don't really care if you tell us or not what experiences you've had that have convinced you of your faith. However, keep in mind two questions: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.
You have things backwards. I became an atheist BECAUSE of the lack of personal experience with faith or miracles, (among many other things.) I DID NOT stop believing in faith because I was an atheist or wanted to become an atheist.None of this was under controlled circumstances, nor is it repeatable, nor is it under human control in any sense of the word, which places it squarely outside the realm of science.
You (the collective you here can be used just as well) on the other hand, claim to be a former Christian. You also claim 0 first-hand experience with either prayer or Faith making a whit of difference.
Funny definition of "christian," that. No, this does not make you a "former Christian," but it does bolster your atheism which is understandable.
(And apparently I missed AV's statement that the Bible was written to an audience of 5 year olds. Got link?)
Your 2 sentences do not logically follow. In the first sentence, you accurately paraphrase that understanding prayer is not a scientific pursuit, nor does it involve scientific requirements. The fact that this is outside the realm of science does not mean we "can't detect any effects from prayer."
They would claim the goldfish never died. If there was a test they would claim there was a false reading on the test. If someone in Africa is cured of aids they say the test was in error and they never had aids in the first place.
Ya -- I get sick of their bogus, johnny-on-the-spot, made-up claims.
1) Are personal experiences by others, which contradict yours, evidence that what they're saying is true?
Well, when you live in a little white room with everything having rounded edges and no ropes or anything allowed -- there isn't much I can do about it, is there?
Depends on your perspective. Here is a photo of the universe at the very beginning of time.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.
As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.
THE BIG BANG
the only thing you're saying here that even comes close to making sense, is that you personally have found no value in prayer, and therefore you don't pray. Even so, surely you can "detect a difference between praying and not praying." I mean, it doesn't take a highly accurate detector.
Stand back world, we're going to try science! No, there is no objective measure here.
So you do see my point. (I knew you could)
True! This is precisely why the "one True Church" TM types grieve me so.
The only reason i commented on a claim re: a studying researching the effectiveness of prayer, was to point out this is NOT science, and the results can't be meaningful.
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.
None of this was under controlled circumstances, nor is it repeatable, nor is it under human control in any sense of the word, which places it squarely outside the realm of science.
Your 2 sentences do not logically follow. In the first sentence, you accurately paraphrase that understanding prayer is not a scientific pursuit, nor does it involve scientific requirements. The fact that this is outside the realm of science does not mean we "can't detect any effects from prayer."
Just came across a wonderful literal translation straight from the Greek, that describes not only what sandwiches and I have been discussing, but what is happening here; all in the same breath:
"If-ever any ye should be asking in My name, I shall be doing. If ever ye may be loving Me, the My commands be keeping and I shall be asking the Father and another comforter, the spirit of the truth, He shall be giving to ye that may remain with ye into the age, which the world not is able to be receiving, that not it is seeing it, neither is knowing it. Ye yet are knowing it, that beside ye is abiding and in ye shall be."
lol, how about you get someone to make that claim first, huh? Funny how you always resort to saying that a person citing something impossible should convince people that God is real, and yet such claims never pop up, do they?
Nothing in the real world is outside the realm of science unless we choose to keep it apart from science.
They may have been real or not, but you will probably fail to convince anyone who is not already primed to "believe".
Yet you seem to be reluctant when it comes to telling us about those "indisputable" effects. That gives me the impression that they are indeed disputable - you just don´t want to see them put to scrutinity and disputed.
Then I am immediately suspect. His claim is one of "indisputability" but then he systematically and unilaterally disallows any way of "disputing" it.
It is only meaningful for something to be "indisputable" if, indeed, there is some way to test that.
This comes back to the idea of "Falsifiability". In science if I make an hypothesis it has to have built into it some way to disprove it if it is indeed incorrect.
Just saying that asking the question is part of what we do in trying to understand the world.
Here's a bigger question: If God is real and He truly wants humans to know and love him and it pains Him to see people fail to believe in him and suffer the consequences, why would he make himself only clearly visible to some?
Science is the only way we pitiful "mere humans" have to verify things for ourselves. So since God is omnipotent what possible good would it do to make himself anything less than as obvious as gravity ?
So why is God different?
Especially when the stakes are so high and God himself doesn't want us to be mislead?
My fear is that whenever someone constructs an artificial (and yes, arbitrary) barrier against science
2) Should I be able to believe what other people believe based on experiences they claim to have had, which I haven't experienced myself?
Why should I have the same faith you do without the experiences you have had? How can I?
I became an atheist BECAUSE of the lack of personal experience with faith or miracles, (among many other things.) I DID NOT stop believing in faith ...
I'm afraid you misunderstand what science is and how it works, then. Anything that can be empirically observed can be scientifically analyzed. Conversely, anything that cannot be scientifically analyzed cannot be empirically observed.
Then we aren't sciencing!
Again, we aren't sciencing.
Remember - if it has an effect on reality, then it can be measured, and thus is science.
Ask God in God's name to move Mount Everest to the Australian outback for one month. If it happens, then I will believe.
I appreciate that Freodin has already responded to this but I missed it the first time round and thought I'd add to it.That's because we don't have a working definition of "old".
Whatever "old" entails, is whatever "old" entails.
For example, if "old" means that the atoms that make something up are "loose", then they're loose.
If it means the strong [or weak] nuclear force is weaker than the same force in a new object -- then that's what it means.
If it means they don't bond as well, then they don't bond as well.
And umgekehrt as well; if something (like a tree) is stronger due to stronger nuclear bonding, then an ex nihilo tree with the same chemical strength should suffice for embedded age.
There's no difference whatsoever between an electron that has been around since the dawn of the universe and one made yesterday.
As a result, there is no property inherent to materials that we call age. The age of something is the amount of time that has passed while it's been around. The appearance of age is the result of physical processes occurring during that passage of time, altering the configuration of components.
If we go by the (your) dictionary's definition of old, we have to accept that either something is old 1) as a result of time passing, or 2) it appears to have aged. The second definition doesn't appear in any dictionary I've seen.
See those big, red words? What part of those words do you fail to see does not pertain to the topic of prayer?
It's even more complicated than that:
(John 1:18) "No man hath seen God at any time"
And yet false gods have been visible to some, at times.
These are not only reasonable questions - but excellent ones! Finding answers to such this is very possible, but I'm not at all sure I'm the person to even attempt to put those into words. In my experience, it takes God Himself to answer that, and with me, He doesn't resort to words.
Sorry but the context here is still what I clearly showed to be not measurable by any scientific means. There is no falsely constructed barrier, or anything else.
Nope. And you agree with me, per the above.
Again, based on merely the 2 Scripture passages already cited in this thread, it can be demonstrated this does not meet the criteria for a prayer God would answer in the positive. Science has no way of knowing that.
Science therefore cannot measure the effectiveness of prayer.
Nah. The types here would simply pretend it never happened.
No, it's not.That would mean that, as we've said all along, embedded age is Omphalos.
I agree --Your logic backs up AV's claim, rather than refuting it as you would like.