Prayer and power

[empeake]

empeake
Psst, the sock puppet comment was a combination of ad hominem and poisoning the well, varying degrees of each.

Thanks.

 

[AgingYoung]

empeake
Psst, the sock puppet comment was a combination of ad hominem and poisoning the well, varying degrees of each.
Ossai

Ossai,
If you like I'll sort thru the thread and post a link of the point where you deferred your thinking to someone that imagined they saw a straw man; making the point that I had restated your premise or ...

...distorting it down to a single example

I wasn't attacking you yet only noting the fact that you were reposting someone elses fallacious ideas. If it weren't a fact you might be correct in saying I was poisoning the well.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

If it weren't a fact you might be correct in saying I was poisoning the well.

Gene

I know I'm replying to no one, but I'll continue to do so for the sake of others reading this nonsense. Even if it is a fact you're still deploying a poisoning the well fallacy. You are still guilty of arguing against the merits of the arguer and not the merits of the argument.

 

[RandFan]

Christian belief in prayer is consistent with our observations of the real world given that they don't require any and all prayers to be granted.

Requiring or hoping any prayer to be granted is NOT consistent with our observations of the real world. Your claim is demonstrably false.

Note that a particular category of irrational belief is a superstition by your definition. Prayer would not be a superstition unless it fell into this category of irrational belief. To claim that belief in prayer is irrational by assuming it to be a superstition is circular logic. According to Christians, prayer is related to God, which is related to a course of events that result.

Ahhh.... no. Sorry Bri. No.

God doesn't magically make the irrational rational. I don't assume prayer to be superstitious. Prayer is superstitious by definition.

If I keep a rabbits foot with the hope that events will more likely work in my favor then that is superstition.

If I pray with the hope that events will more likely work in my favor then that is superstition.

Bri,

According to the people that practice Voodoo the voodoo is related to a course of events that result.
According to the people who keep lucky charms the charms are related to a course of events that result.
According to the people who cross their fingers their fingers are related to a course of events that result.
According to the people who follow astrology, astrology is related to a course of events that result.
According to the people who read Tarot Cards, the Tarot Cards are related to a course of events that result.

It just doesn't wash Bri, If you can explain the mechanism to me then I will agree that prayer is not irrational. Or if you can prove to me that prayer works then I will agree that prayer is rational. If you can't explain it to me other than to say that it is God that does it then that is no better than to say that the stars did it, that the rabbits foot does it, that the horseshoe does it.

It is all superstition.

Bri, you don't even know if God is there. What is more irrational than talking to a person that doesn't exist? The schizophrenic believes that the voices are real. Believing doesn't make something rational.

One more time, belief doesn't make something rational.

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung

Is there some other way to address an allegation about the bible without then looking at this same bible?

It would be nice if you would actually point out the allegation and stick to a point of discussion instead of all the massive field work you’ve been doing.

If every instance of information we get (adding to the collective 'current knowledge') would disprove the bible then there would be no reason to think that some future information would substantiate the bible. In as much as the premise

Again, stick to the premise, no one has claim every instance yet you are arguing against the none-point.

psst, that's still not a strawman as you alleged. I didn't restate your weak point that it seems you now admit may sometimes be true. It equally can sometimes be false. Not the sort of premise I'd base any meaningful conclusion on.

I made a general point, large sections of the bible have been refuted.
You posted one specific instance in which the bible may be right.
You have not addressed the general point. You used another point entirely in an effort to refute a statement I did not make. I.E. You used a straw man.

Apparently you need to work on your reading skills. (I admit I need to work on my typing.) But you either accidentally missed the entire point or willfully ignored it. Now, since my initial statement has been quoted by you a number of times, the only conclusion to draw is that you willfully ignored the point made.

If you like I'll sort thru the thread and post a link of the point where you deferred your thinking to someone that imagined they saw a straw man; making the point that I had restated your premise or ...

You’re strengthening my previous statement. Read the thread, both your straw man argument as well as the ad hominem / poisoning the well statement has been pointed out. (Without knowing your direct motivation, it could be either.)

Ossai

 

[RandFan]

Gullible, perhaps, but not irrational. Seriously, I understand your point, but I still cannot say that under no circumstance would it be rational to hold an opinion that something that seems to violate the laws of physics is possible. It is, after all, possible.

By your definition there is no such thing as "irrational". Everything is, after all, possible. By your definition what would otherwise be defined as superstition is not superstitious. You have simply redefined the words to fit your world view. That's fine but please understand that there is reason for others to use this word. You can believe that there is no such thing as irrationality but sadly, there is.

 

[AgingYoung]

AgingYoung
Now how about answering the allegations put forth.

The following can clearly be stated about the bible and the information contained within:
1. God, as portrayed by most Christians is omniscient
2. Some believers state that the bible is divinely inspired by
3. All information from one source, god, although the presentation and style would vary depending on the human being used to write the message the information originated directly from god.

Given the above, the logical conclusion to be drawn is that the source of the information lied about the information or lied about being omniscient. Either way, god lied.

Ossai

This is certainly going to be an uphill battle. Why would you want to put conclusions in your premises ...
3. All information from one source

and also base that conclusion on

• Some believers state...
• ...as portrayed by most Christians

much less conclude from the very beginning that ...

• The following can clearly be stated about the bible and the information contained within

Where in the Bible does it state what 'some believers state' or 'how God is portrayed by most Christians?' Speaking to your third premise Newton noted a marginal note that crept into the text of the bible and I believe I first became aware of that from a translation of the Racovian Catechism (circa 1800). So the bible as we have it isn't without error.

But I'll answer your question as I understand it. Current knowledge is dynamic and as I pointed out that knowledge at times confirms what the bible has said. With those particular confirmations what once was current knowledge becomes obsolete. Your false dilemma is rooted in the idea that man has a pretty good handle on what reality is. I think you're betting quite a bit on that. Some contradictions are readily explained by a difference in the meaning that some want a word to have compared to what the word meant when it was originally used. Language changes.

I am fully persuaded that some contradictions are the result of people deliberately not wanting an answer yet persisting with a faulty conclusion. It's not that there is a contradiction yet there is a philosophical disagreement.

Gene

 

[Meffy]

Gene, just so in future you don't make the same mistake, a little information. A "sock puppet" is an extra account set up by an existing forum member, used to post in support of the existing member's arguments, pretending to be a separate individual. It is not a person who agrees with another.

If you don't know what a term means, either

1) don't use it at all or, better,
2) look it up before using it.

 

[AgingYoung]

AgingYoung
I made a general point, large sections of the bible have been refuted.
You posted one specific instance in which the bible may be right.
Ossai

You made a generalization (that which you call a general point) and drew conclusions from it. Your generalization of a premise isn't always true. I cited a specific instance where it's not the case. I just noticed you're saying the generalization is ....

• large sections of the bible have been refuted.

this is too funny.

The generalization you made was ...

• 2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

Well, if you want to draw conclusions from generalizations that clearly aren't always that case that's your business. If you want to now deny your premise and equivocate all the while accusing me of being the one restating your case well...

I thought you were having a fit of honesty. You sure fooled me.

Gene

 

[RandFan]

That isn't quite true. There is evidence, but not evidence that you (or I) would accept. But then again, I don't think an opinion must be supported by evidence to be rational.

The opinion must be logical and reasonable. Just because I believe that I can fly doesn't mean that I can. Believing in something that is counter to objective evidence is irrational. You can excuse the irrational belief due to ignorance but it is still irrational.

Which definition of "irrational" are you using? I can't find a definition that refers to the laws of physics.

I'm trying Bri, and I'm trying to keep cool. Bear with me and I'll tone down the emotion.

ra·tion·al
adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

Please see #3. Any notion that violates the laws of physics is not reasonable.

Ok, let's try something. If I patronize then I ask your forgiveness. Please consider the following conditional statement. If I were a fertile and healthy woman I could bear children. This is a logically valid hypothetical. However there is a problem. I am not a woman. So, while the hypothetical might be logically valid it is not true. It would be irrational for me to believe that given the current state of human technology and understanding that I could bear children.

Ok, are you with me? The human mind is capable of thinking logically and rationally about the illogical and irrational.

If there were an omniscient and omnipotent being he/she could answer prayers. Is this a logically valid hypothetical? We'll that is a bit sticky. We could fill pages and pages of argument as to whether or not that is a logically valid hypothetical, however, let's for the sake of argument assume that an omnipotent being could answer prayers (so long as it was not an illogical impossibility/paradox). Ok? Does he? Good question, right? Before we answer that one let's try one more.

If a rabbits foot has supernatural powers then a rabbits foot could bring a person good luck. Is this a valid hypothetical? Yes!

Are you with me? Any questions so far?

All available evidence demonstrates that keeping a rabbits foot for good luck won't do anything. Oh, it might make you feel good. It might give you confidence but the rabbits foot can't alter or change the laws of physics no matter how much we believe. The keeping of a rabbits foot is superstitious for two reasons.

1.) There is no known mechanism for a rabbits foot to alter events.
2.) There is zero scientific evidence that rabbits feet alter events.

Now, let's get back to God.

1.) Is there a known mechanism for God to alter events?
2.) Is there any scientific evidence that praying to God will alter events?

Well...OK then! Tell us what you really think!

Sorry Bri, it just gets frustrating.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The generalization you made was ...

• 2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

How many legs to insects have?

 

[Anacoluthon64]

• large sections of the bible have been refuted.

this is too funny.

Yes, it is hilarious how you don't understand plain English. Are you being purposely obtuse? "Large sections" is hardly synonymous with "the whole shebang."

• 2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

Well, if you want to draw conclusions from generalizations that clearly aren't always that case that's your business.

Side-splittingly festive. Again, "other" ain't the same as "all."

Geddit?

'Luthon64

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung

Where in the Bible does it state what 'some believers state' or 'how God is portrayed by most Christians?'

You are not reading what I actually wrote, again. Try it sometime you may actually learn something instead of going off on a tangent and skewering men of straw.

Speaking to your third premise Newton noted a marginal note that crept into the text of the bible and I believe I first became aware of that from a translation of the Racovian Catechism (circa 1800). So the bible as we have it isn't without error.

There are quiet a few more translational error than just the one you’ve pointed out. And then one must ask, which translation? What about edits that were deliberately made, do they count as errors?

this is too funny.

And your amusement results from what? How many examples do you want to ignore this time?

Ossai

 

[AgingYoung]

You are not reading what I actually wrote, again.

Below is what you actually wrote; you can click on the link if you like yet why you want to deny it is beyond me. I can only guess you're not interested in honest debate. If you won't admit what you've written I see no reason to move on with your absurd reasoning. Have a nice day.

AgingYoung
.....
Since all those premises are based on the bible,

(a)the bible, or at least large sections, are obviously not true,
(b)other sections contradict more current knowledge
(c)and other parts contradict itself

then the only conclusion to be drawn is that the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

Ossai

Large sections are actually confirmed by more current knowledge and many former criticisms have been dismissed.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I did have another thought along the lines of this thread. People for philosophical reasons reject the idea of prayer being valid or the existence of God. They won't accept any idea that suggests it has authority over them. Some people clearly refuse to allow reason to have authority over them. They won't listen to reason. It is funny to watch an absurd display but ultimately it isn't.

Gene

 

[Freethinker]

Some people clearly refuse to allow reason to have authority over them. They won't listen to reason. It is funny to watch an absurd display but ultimately it isn't.

Gene

Exactly. Kathy has competition for the Pot/Kettle Award.

 

[AgingYoung]

Freethinker,

I do admire the faith though, calling words they've said as though they didn't, then attempting to put those very words in my mouth as though I said them (strawman). I wish I had that much faith to actually distort the past. Real power.

Is that what you had in mind or would you mind being specific? I know it's the habit of some to draw grand sweeping generalized conclusions based on other grand generalizations.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Some are impressed with their cleverness but for the record I'd like to point out that it's old hat. Whether you think it's written myth or the truth it is a fact that it was written some time ago.

Mar 12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in [his] words.

Very old hat. One note annie.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

Some are impressed with their cleverness but for the record I'd like to point out that it's old hat. Whether you think it's written myth or the truth it is a fact that it was written some time ago.


Very old hat. One note annie.

Gene

One can only admire your unparalleled ability to make the utterly pointless seem even more so.

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung

Large sections are actually confirmed by more current knowledge and many former criticisms have been dismissed.

I provided a short list of the items that have not been confirmed by current knowledge and you continue to ignore them. Exactly what former criticisms have been dismissed? References please.

Below is what you actually wrote; you can click on the link if you like yet why you want to deny it is beyond me. I can only guess you're not interested in honest debate. If you won't admit what you've written I see no reason to move on with your absurd reasoning. Have a nice day.

Wow, either your reading comprehension really is that low, or you take great pleasure in attempting to twist what I wrote. Do you get a discount when you buy all that straw in bulk?

If you would actually bother to read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote, this discussion may actually advance. Well, that is assuming that you would actually state your position.

Ossai