- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evidence that they are even footprints.So you say. In another we are shown " evidence " for human
footprints in the cretaceous.
Faith is a seperate secular measurable characteristic.It seems the equivocation game with " faith"
will never end, until the theists realize it weakens their case.
Sure. That's faith.I provisionally accept that the studies overall were not misleading and were sufficiently well conducted to detect significant differences, had there been any.
Of course. Lets suppose the results where 100% that prayer works.I provisionally accept the evidence of well-conducted random control trials and meta-analyses. If prayer was shown to be beneficial for healing, it would be very useful - whatever the causality. ISTR the disappointment after studies into whether a positive attitude would aid recovery from cancer showed that it didn't...
I notice you bolded 'report' - are you implying that there might have been positive effects that were not reported?
That's possible. No telling what God would consider best. If I could tell you then I could predict God.Yes, I got that; I thought you were implying that it could work on the individual who was praying to be healed...
Faith can be extremely dangerous.An identity tautology - the most compact circularity. Saying nothing, going nowhere. How apt.
Maybe, but AV used the Bible as evidence for the HS.The HS communicates with no Bible needed.
I think you're equivocating 'faith'. But if you're going to reject the scientific evidence without contrary evidence or a reasoned argument why the results might not be reported correctly, then there's really nothing to discuss.Of course. Lets suppose the results where 100% that prayer works.
We have to have faith in each link in the data that it even gets reported.
Indeed it can.Faith can be extremely dangerous.
Just ask those in Tokyo or New York or Jonestown.
This should help you then:Do you understand what equivocation means?
So how do you know the HS is communicating with you?
But was anybody telling the truth at all? That was my question.I provisionally accept that the studies overall were not misleading and were sufficiently well conducted to detect significant differences, had there been any.
Perhaps every person was healed.I provisionally accept the evidence of well-conducted random control trials and meta-analyses. If prayer was shown to be beneficial for healing, it would be very useful - whatever the causality. ISTR the disappointment after studies into whether a positive attitude would aid recovery from cancer showed that it didn't...
I notice you bolded 'report' - are you implying that there might have been positive effects that were not reported?
Because I'm questioning your source. Yes, I get it. I'm not allowed to question your sources.I think you're equivocating 'faith'. But if you're going to reject the scientific evidence without contrary evidence or a reasoned argument why the results might not be reported correctly, then there's really nothing to discuss.
That's the same standards I use for answered prayer. Thank you.Not really. It's a judgement of the balance of probabilities.
It wasn't a question.Well, I addressed that already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?