The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[MikeG]

Many people take out patents. The important thing is whether it was a commercial success, and was not challenged....

Mine hasn't been challenged, but the company who was going to build it and distribute it in SA and Oz has gone bust, whilst still tooling up for production. So, we're in limbo. So what? My point is that having an invention doesn't give you any particular insight into the question of the supernatural.

 

[abaddon]

Many people take out patents. The important thing is whether it was a commercial success, and was not challenged.

And mine have been. So what? You are going to find that lots of members here hold patents. Claiming that your holding a patent confers some sort of legitimacy on your other claims will not fly. Perhaps you have not encountered such an erudite and accomplished a membership at other venues, but frankly, bringing that up is plainly utter bollocks.

The companies I worked for did not take out patents on other "inventions" of mine. Easier to just get the lead when there are only a few companies in that market. We had a problem in that we would have to sue our customer for using company patents that were copied by a smaller competitor.

Again, so what? This is off topic, not relevant and a blatant attempt to bolster your argument with an appeal to (irrelevant) authority.

 

[MikeG]

......My ability to be rational was challenged. Do you see any problems?

Yes, I do see problems. If you start out with a false premise (your numbers 1, 2 & 3), then however good your logic you'll end up with a false result.

 

[Donn]

Yes, I do see problems. If you start out with a false premise (your numbers 1, 2 & 3), then however good your logic you'll end up with a false result.

It's a type mismatch error in line one of the programme. 'Tain't gonna run.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I am a rational problem solver. I have a US patent for solving a problem and it was highly successful commercially, and have solved problems that corporate engineers said were not possible. I reduce problems to the basics, and think them through.

Okay, so do you think that engaging in ad hoc hypotheses is rational? Again, let's go back to the leprechaun example.

If someone wants to believe in leprechauns, they can avoid ever being proven wrong by using ad hoc hypotheses (e.g., by adding "they are invisible", then "their motives are complex", and so on).

Does the above seem rational to you?

So what is your rational deduction or theory?

The rational explanation of the fact that prayer appears identical to placebo is that prayer is a form of placebo.

 

[MikeG]

Yes, I do see problems. If you start out with a false premise (your numbers 1, 2 & 3), then however good your logic you'll end up with a false result.

I failed to edit that in time. The false premises are just 1 & 2.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Histoplasmosis tests must be different where you are, because the tests I went through, blood and urine, only took a few days to come back from the lab.

Blood an urine tests results "where we are" are, are available the next day or two. The test for the fungus is standard globally. It is extremely difficult to culture. Hence the four weeks.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Okay, so do you think that engaging in ad hoc hypotheses is rational? Again, let's go back to the leprechaun example.

Does comparing the existence of God to the existence of a creature, that only exists in fairy tales for children, seem logical and rational to you?

Do you know anyone (apart from maybe yourself) that thinks there is any logic to the possibility that leprechauns created the universe?

Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

 

[MikeG]

......Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

That's an extremely weak argument, PS. You now not only have to show that "so many scientists believe there is a god", but you are at the mercy of the counter argument "so many more don't".

 

[abaddon]

Does comparing the existence of God to the existence of a creature, that only exists in fairy tales for children, seem logical and rational to you?

Yup. god only exists in fairy tales for children also.

Do you know anyone (apart from maybe yourself) that thinks there is any logic to the possibility that leprechauns created the universe?

Makes as much sense as invented sky-daddy, i.e. none.

Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

They don't. About 95% of them do not. This tallys with the idea that more education correlates with less belief in superstition.

 

[Thor 2]

Yup. god only exists in fairy tales for children also.

Makes as much sense as invented sky-daddy, i.e. none.

They don't. About 95% of them do not. This tallys with the idea that more education correlates with less belief in superstition.

This may be a worldwide figure and I stand corrected if it is. As I have read in the USA, (God obsessed country), the figure is more like 85%.

This is startling none the less given that in the general population 85% do believe in the sky-daddy.

 

[jimbob]

Does comparing the existence of God to the existence of a creature, that only exists in fairy tales for children, seem logical and rational to you?

Do you know anyone (apart from maybe yourself) that thinks there is any logic to the possibility that leprechauns created the universe?

Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

Yup. god only exists in fairy tales for children also.

Makes as much sense as invented sky-daddy, i.e. none.

Yes, there is also the question as to which deity or group of deities. As you are well aware...however Part Skeptic doesn't seem to be. Some of which have sets of beliefs that are patently ridiculous, whilst others only seem reasonable due to the patina of age. Is a talking snake in Genesis any less ridiculous than an Elephant God? I think either is more reasonable than Xenu

The story of Xenu is covered in OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to advanced members who have undergone many hours of auditing and reached the state of Clear followed by Operating Thetan levels 1 and 2.[7][12] It is described in more detail in the accompanying confidential "Assists" lecture of October 3, 1968, and is dramatized in Revolt in the Stars (a screen-story -- in the form of a novel -- written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1977).[7][22]

Hubbard wrote that Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago, which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as "Teegeeack".[5][8][23] The planets were overpopulated, containing an average population of 178 billion.[1][4][6] The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with aliens "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth.[24]

Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of psychiatrists, he gathered billions[4][5] of his citizens under the pretense of income tax inspections, then paralyzed them and froze them in a mixture of alcohol and glycol to capture their souls. The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth).[5] The appearance of these spacecraft would later be subconsciously expressed in the design of the Douglas DC-8, the only difference being that "the DC8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't".[21] When they had reached Teegeeack, the paralyzed citizens were unloaded around the bases of volcanoes across the planet.[5][8] Hydrogen bombs were then lowered into the volcanoes and detonated simultaneously,[8] killing all but a few aliens. Hubbard described the scene in his film script, Revolt in the Stars:

Simultaneously, the planted charges erupted. Atomic blasts ballooned from the craters of Loa, Vesuvius, Shasta, Washington, Fujiyama, Etna, and many, many others. Arching higher and higher, up and outwards, towering clouds mushroomed, shot through with flashes of flame, waste and fission. Great winds raced tumultuously across the face of Earth, spreading tales of destruction ...
— L. Ron Hubbard, Revolt in the Stars[7]

The now-disembodied victims' souls, which Hubbard called thetans, were blown into the air by the blast. They were captured by Xenu's forces using an "electronic ribbon" ("which also was a type of standing wave") and sucked into "vacuum zones" around the world. The hundreds of billions[5][25] of captured thetans were taken to a type of cinema, where they were forced to watch a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for thirty-six days. This implanted what Hubbard termed "various misleading data"' (collectively termed the R6 implant) into the memories of the hapless thetans, "which has to do with God, the Devil, space opera, etcetera". This included all world religions; Hubbard specifically attributed Roman Catholicism and the image of the Crucifixion to the influence of Xenu. The two "implant stations" cited by Hubbard were said to have been located on Hawaii and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.[26]

In addition to implanting new beliefs in the thetans, the images deprived them of their sense of personal identity. When the thetans left the projection areas, they started to cluster together in groups of a few thousand, having lost the ability to differentiate between each other. Each cluster of thetans gathered into one of the few remaining bodies that survived the explosion. These became what are known as body thetans, which are said to be still clinging to and adversely affecting everyone except Scientologists who have performed the necessary steps to remove them.[8]

A government faction known as the Loyal Officers finally overthrew Xenu and his renegades, and locked him away in "an electronic mountain trap" from which he has not escaped.[14][23][27] Although the location of Xenu is sometimes said to be the Pyrenees on Earth, this is actually the location Hubbard gave elsewhere for an ancient "Martian report station".[28][29] Teegeeack was subsequently abandoned by the Galactic Confederacy and remains a pariah "prison planet" to this day, although it has suffered repeatedly from incursions by alien "Invader Forces" since that time.[5][30][31]

In 1988, the cost of learning these secrets from the Church of Scientology was £3,830, or US$6,500.[10][32] This is in addition to the cost of the prior courses which are necessary to be eligible for OT III, which is often well over US$100,000 (roughly £60,000).[14] Belief in Xenu and body thetans is a requirement for a Scientologist to progress further along the Bridge to Total Freedom.[33] Those who do not experience the benefits of the OT III course are expected to take it and pay for it again.[27]

ETA: and below, from a different thread is RogueKitten's description of Genesis - it seems pretty accurate to me:

Okey dokey. Here's my useful thoughts:

There were at least three gods in the old testament, but let's pretend for a minute they're all the same individual. This dude poofed people into existence because he was lonely (even though he was speaking to other gods in the first chapter of genesis) and placed them into the perfect garden. In this garden he placed two trees, the tree of eternal life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because reasons. He tells the peeps he placed there (two different stories about how he made them, BTW, but carry forward) not to touch them instead of like, using his magic god poof powers to move the trees elsewhere or whatever. Again, reasons.

Talking snakes shows up. No other creatures (other than humans, who aren't considered animals here, even though we are literally primates and thus, animals) can talk, but Eve is like What up talking snake? And snake says, eat this! And eve knows literally zero, girl was actually born yesterday, for reals, so she eats it. Eve is nice enough to share with her husband (who she didn't get to pick, BTW, so if she didn't like him, oh *********** well deal with it!)

And poof! God is pissed because he left the electrical socket unconvered and baby stuck his (her) finger in! Like, for an all-knowing diety, that was pretty stupid. He could have at least taken away the snakes talking privileges, like what the hell? Adam and eve had the deck stacked against them. Edenite's lives matter, bro!

So anyway, god boots them out of eden so he can live there alone with his trees, and makes the woman suffer in childbirth for listening to the snake (talk about a stupid punishment, that has nothing to do with her "crime"! And if god wants them to "go forth and multiply" wouldn't making labor easy and quick be a better idea?)

adam and eve have kids who apparently marry each other because where else could the people have come from, unless god had this kind of tree racket going on all over the planet and kept torturing people who know nothing for eating! Anyway, kids grow up, and one is a farmer. Farmer dude and his brother the rancher go to give god tribute for not killing them that year or whatever and god is like, your tribute is weak! To farmer dude!

Farmer dude gets bent out of shape because rancher dude is all Mr perfect, and also because god didn't give them any standards or anything to say what he wants, just makes him guess. So he hits his brother in the head with a rock. Of course nobody has ever died before, he couldn't have had any clue what would happen, but god (predictably) punishes him.

More time goes on, and farmer dude and his parents must have been serious about that "multiplying" biz because there's people everywhere! and god can't stand them! Like, okay, you created them in your image so maybe you need some inner love? Idk but he decided to kill everybody except one guy and that guy's family. Drowns them. Can you even picture that for a moment? Every person on earth drowned. Like, the ark must have been surrounded by bodies. Must have been like that scene from the first LOTR when they walk over bodies in a lake. That's just ********** up, seriously.

I have made it through chapter 6 of the first book of the bible. The rest is pretty much the same, the highlight at the end being a schizophrenic being killed by the romans and god getting all pissed at a curtain in the temple. Messed up stuff.

Going off this, being "god breathed" or whatever, I'd have to say god is a sick **** who needs serious therapy and maybe a shot of klonopin in the ass. His purpose seems to be to do as much bad **** to people as possible and then blame their great great great great great great x 3201 grandparents for it, which is also sick. Killing your own son is sick. Worshiping this sick **** is sick. The whole misogynistic, brainwashed, mindless, idiotic load of garbage is sick.

Youre welcome!

 

[Pup]

Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

Then why don't they take that into consideration in their experiments and mention him in their papers? Used to be, early 19th century and before, they did, but that's out of favor now and it would be very odd to read it in a report. I expect that there has been a realization that the idea of God was interfering with progress in science and scientists who do still profess a belief do so in their personal life only.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Does comparing the existence of God to the existence of a creature, that only exists in fairy tales for children, seem logical and rational to you?

Do you know anyone (apart from maybe yourself) that thinks there is any logic to the possibility that leprechauns created the universe?

Why do so many rational scientists believe there is a God? And that he intervenes?

Please try to stay focused. I'm not saying God and leprechauns are the same thing, or that they even have very much in common. I am analyzing thought processes.

When it comes to your beliefs, you are happy to employ ad hoc rationalization as a defense mechanism. However, when it comes to ideas you don't agree with, you appear to dismiss it. That's extremely inconsistent.

So I'll ask again:

If someone wants to believe in leprechauns, they can avoid ever being proven wrong by using ad hoc hypotheses (e.g., by adding "they are invisible", then "their motives are complex", and so on).

Does the above seem rational to you? Please provide an answer instead of distractions this time. Thanks.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Post 923

Thanks for the link. I find these studies to be problematic. First, they are tests, and God (if he exists) would know it and refuse to take part.

Post 941

You have know way of knowing this. You made it up. You have personified your imagination.

Further reading for those that care about being rational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

…Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them.
…An ad hoc hypothesis is not necessarily incorrect;
…Falsificationism means scientists become more likely to reject a theory as it becomes increasingly burdened by ignored falsifying observations and ad hoc hypotheses.

Post 968

Does comparing the existence of God to the existence of a creature, that only exists in fairy tales for children, seem logical and rational to you?

Do you know anyone (apart from maybe yourself) that thinks there is any logic to the possibility that leprechauns created the universe?

Post 974

Please try to stay focused. I'm not saying God and leprechauns are the same thing, or that they even have very much in common. I am analyzing thought processes.

When it comes to your beliefs, you are happy to employ ad hoc rationalization as a defense mechanism. However, when it comes to ideas you don't agree with, you appear to dismiss it. That's extremely inconsistent.

So I'll ask again:

Does the above seem rational to you? Please provide an answer instead of distractions this time. Thanks.

Okay. Let me respond.

In answer to your challenges that I am using ad hoc hypothesis.

A - I am not proposing a scientific theory. There is no “predictive power”.

B - I am offering a construct of a possible explanation for supernatural phenomena, and the widespread belief in God, spirits and prayer.

C - I base my construct on my own experiences, the experiences of others as told directly to me, the historical writings such as the gospels, and then various other belief systems.

In answer to your belief in leprechauns (I know you don’t believe ).

D – This is a variation of the Celestial Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Unicorns and so on regarding burden of proof.

E – These are things have an almost zero probability of existing. The number of people who might actually believe in these things is nearly zero.

F – People see ghosts. People have mystic religious visions. People have premonitions. People argue that intelligent design is an answer to scientific mysteries. People say prayer helps. People have divine inspiration. Science has been able to argue the possibility we exist in a simulation. Jesus was a historical person who led an amazing life (as did a number of other prophets). There are reasoned arguments to support the possibility of God.

G – And you want to assert that the evidence for my construct (however unscientific) is on an equivalent scale to your evidence for leprechauns? That the ad hoc hypothesizing for leprechauns is similar to what I am doing? Is this what you mean by "analytical thought process"?

Probability is the differentiator in these “burden of proof” examples. From the ridiculous and the sublime, to "real" life experiences and logical philosophical thought.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I will give an example of the efficacy of prayer in a day or two. What happened to me last night. Nothing major, so don't hold your breath. I do not want to add too many posts at once.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Two days should be enough to embellish a non-event.

 

[I Am The Scum]

F – People see ghosts. People have mystic religious visions. People have premonitions. People argue that intelligent design is an answer to scientific mysteries. People say prayer helps. People have divine inspiration. Science has been able to argue the possibility we exist in a simulation. Jesus was a historical person who led an amazing life (as did a number of other prophets). There are reasoned arguments to support the possibility of God.

G – And you want to assert that the evidence for my construct (however unscientific) is on an equivalent scale to your evidence for leprechauns? That the ad hoc hypothesizing for leprechauns is similar to what I am doing? Is this what you mean by "analytical thought process"?

Probability is the differentiator in these “burden of proof” examples. From the ridiculous and the sublime, to "real" life experiences and logical philosophical thought.

It seems like your contention is that people see ghosts, miracles, etc., and so any conversation about leprechauns just completely misses the point.

So if I could show you a large group of people claiming to have directly observed a leprechaun, and attesting to its power to turn invisible, would you then say that belief in leprechauns is reasonable?

 

[PartSkeptic]

So if I could show you a large group of people claiming to have directly observed a leprechaun, and attesting to its power to turn invisible, would you then say that belief in leprechauns is reasonable?

Can you? If you could, it would move it up the scale of probability a fraction. And it would have to be consistent in the logic for its existence and lack of scientific proof.

But it would not have a history coming anywhere near the history of the phenomena I have given regarding God.

I do not believe that crop circles are an alien phenomenon. First, they are recent. Second, about 98% were shown to be hoaxes. Third, the hoaxers demonstrated how they could be done.

 

[abaddon]

Can you? If you could, it would move it up the scale of probability a fraction. And it would have to be consistent in the logic for its existence and lack of scientific proof.

Sure. http://leprechaunevidence.blogspot.ie/

Besides which, there are plenty of scientologists, a religion invented out of whole cloth. Believe in Xenu do you?

But it would not have a history coming anywhere near the history of the phenomena I have given regarding God.

Nope. You have provided trivial anecdotes and demonstrated nothing. You have not figured out that anecdote does not equal evidence and the plural of anecdote is not data.

I do not believe that crop circles are an alien phenomenon. First, they are recent. Second, about 98% were shown to be hoaxes. Third, the hoaxers demonstrated how they could be done.

And using the same techniques as religionists to cultivate faith. Funny that.