Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

1.) It could make 180982 women with different appearences for the 180982 men and appear to be the most beautiful woman in the world individually for each man and vice versa for the women. While making it impossible for these people to not meet their counterpart and fall in love.

Good answer. I was thinking more about objective beauty...a beauty so objective that all subjective opinions would recognize it.

It could make it so that there would be no need for money to survive and allow each person who prayed to have all the money in the world to obtain it for a brief period of time until they spent it....Or atleast allow every person to have special skills and the proper environment to make a wealthy living if they decided to act upon their desire of wealth.

Good answer. I coulda phrased it in more absolutist terms, maybe like, a person praying to have all the money that has ever existed and will ever exist to such an extent that it no other person would have any money, not even a fake penny, because the person would have all of the money that ever has and ever will exist for all of eternity and in every conceivable dimension.

Thanks for helping me tighten these guys up.

It could allow you to die a very painful death and then be brought back to life moments after and force you to move locations so the neighbor is rid of you.

Good answer. Sure, God *could* do lots of things.

2.) If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God existed it does not seem reasonable one bit.

I disagree, based on at least the working Christian theology. Omnipotence does not mean whether or not God *will* do any and everything. Let's say I gave you a list of 5000 things to do. One of them is push a shopping cart off of a cliff, another would be to learn Farsi, another to perform lude and lascivious acts with the neighbor's dog. If you didn't do these things, it wouldn't be because you *couldn't*, but you didn't want to, because it would go against your nature and/or why the HELL should you do something just because I tell you to do it.

Anyways, back to reasonable/unreasonable, it's not because of the omni-words, but because God also has a particular nature and he won't grant any and all requests particularly outrageous ones just to satisfy our desire. The omni-words are above reason (and morality), but ours is a reasonable God.

3.) But in my opinion christians do expect to control their God. If a christian asks for forgiveness do they not expect to be forgiven even when they repeat the offense a second or third time?

Yes, because of what God told us through Christ. Also, we have to *forgive others* in order to be forgiven. It's not just throwing a pebble into a pond to get forgiveness.

You're right in a way. A person can say that he/she controls the justice system because he or she can decide to act lawfully or unlawfully, therefore the justice system is contingent on them. That's kind of true, but not really, God's stated equations (forgive others and you will be forgiven) are greater than us, and we can enter into the framework if we choose. We can also choose not to. Are we controlling gravity if we decide to jump off a building and let gravity "work" on us? No, gravity is what it is.

Do christians not try to "appease" their God by following scripture and expect it not to toss them into a lake of fire?

Sure, some do.

When it comes to control the relationship between God and christians are very similar to that of a whore and a client of a whore. A whore appears to be the controlled and the client the master but in the end the client pays the whore and the whore gets what they wanted all along.

Wow, I'm sorry you think that way!

As for the whole Gods "will" thing then obviously his will is not of good intention at times.

You can subjectively make that statement, sure. I agree that you may judge an intention of God's to be a bad intention.

What one may judge as good another could just as easily judge as bad as you have stated in 1.) with your prayer scenerio's which were completed by a mere mortal.

Exactly. If you believe in subjective judgment sure, you can judge anything to be good or to be bad.

Explain to me an exact deinifition of God's will. How is a person who has an abortion not God's will?

Well, we believe that abortion is a sin, and sin goes against God's will.

What if the child to be born were to become the next hitler?

Humans have free will, they can become the next anything.

What if God's will has already been set into place and whatever event or decision already made or about to be made has been forseen and dealt with since the creation of the universe?

Some people believe this. I actually believe this in my own way. I think we all have free will, God has granted and allowed us this free will, and in his omniscience he knows about every event that has ever happened (in his own particular way of course) but we still had/have free will.

Seems like a lot of words to describe something that could easily be described as non existant.

Sometimes it takes a lot of words to explain things, I have a hell of a lot of science textbooks to prove it! I think the number of words used is irrelevant.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, such resuscitations invariably happen within a short time span of clinical death. Similarly, severed limbs have been successfully grafted back onto their original owners, again within a short period after separation. Wonderful thing, this medical science.

Totally! I think God expects us to use our talents. If it were only miracles, why the hell develop our talents? Down with the slackers!

Yes, but not of complex structures on complex life forms. The arm of a starfish is hardly as complex as that of a person.

My point was that regrown limbs is not unheard of in nature is all, and that's all.

There's no reason to suppose that limb regrowth should occur instantaneously in order for it to qualify as miraculous. If it occurred at all it would be a wondrous thing.

Agreed.

Nobody is calculating probabilities here - it is sufficient to say that they are close to nil.

With what we have observed, sure.

Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below.

I don't believe in giving reality human attributes like caring.

Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

I reckon it's never been measured before.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I am told repeatedly that God (meaning the Christian God) wants us to know Him and His son. An omnipotent God could easily let us know Him, yet He chooses not to. (And I mean "know" as objective knowledge, not faith) This is strong evidence against the Christian concept of God.

I'm trying not to intrude on other's conversations...but in this instance...

God wants us to know him through FAITH. That is the Christian concept of God. You are asking for knowledge independent of faith. So your conclusion does not follow in the slightest.

-Elliot

 

[slingblade]

Here's what I know.

I'm a mom. When one of my kids is huddled in a corner, crying his eyes out in total despair, I comfort him. I'm right there. I hold him, I talk to him, I try to help him. Even if he's crying because he did something wrong, something I don't approve of, I still comfort him. I love him. He matters to me, and I show that.

I do not tell him that if he wants help, he's going to have to ask me in a certain way, and that I'll only help him if it happens to be what I want for him, and I just might not want him to feel better.

I don't sit silent in my chair, in another room altogether where he can't even see me, doing nothing for him. I don't allow him to sink deeper and deeper into despair, thinking no one cares, and no one will help. I don't make him beg, I don't make him plead, I don't make him give me money first or dance any other crazy dance to appease me first. I am there for him, and I make sure he knows it. Period. Regardless. He is my child. I promised to love him, and promised always to care for him. And I keep that promise, even if he's made me angry.

I do believe that the New Testament is called a covenant, right? That's an agreement between two or more people, right? The agreement I made, once upon a time, was that I would worship and obey God, and in return, he would love me and help me.

I kept my end. God didn't.

I said once before that this left me with only two alternatives: God hates me, or God isn't there.

I stand by that, and by my choice to believe God isn't there.
If he is, all he has to do is say so. If he is, he's the most cruel and neglectful parent I've ever heard of, and I have no use for one more ounce of cruelty in my ravaged life, thanks.

[PITY PARTY EDIT. Carry on]

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I think God expects us to use our talents. If it were only miracles, why the hell develop our talents? Down with the slackers!

Yes, our allotments of miracles decrease in size, content and quality as our sophistication increases. There is something at work here that merits our deep suspicion.

I don't believe in giving reality human attributes like caring.

Fair enough, though I expect that you knew my intended meaning.

So now it is my turn to be pedantic, yes? I don't believe in crediting unsubstantiated presuppositions with any reality other than as conjectures.

I reckon it's never been measured before.

And if our physical theories and models are accurate representations of reality, we never shall; in fact, we should not be able to measure it even if it did occur. The metaphysical (I hesitate to use that much-abused term) value here is that either we've established a particular limit to what can be achieved physically in this context, or our understanding thereof (i.e. of that physical reality) is faulty. Either option constitutes valuable knowledge, but note that the latter, if unequivocally observed, would in a sense be a bona fide miracle until such time as we have an improved model of reality.

'Luthon64

 

[Bri]

Thanks for your usage. I can't find that definition in any dictionary but that is fine. As long as we all know what you are talking about. A rose by anyother name.

The Free Dictionary (def. 1b).

I'm not going to parse and debate this. I really don't see the point. The important thing is that Drakes equation is a rational means to calculate the probability of intelligent life out side of our galaxy.

(emphasis mine). You should have parsed at least the first sentence. Here's what I said (since you didn't want to parse it):

First, and most important, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy. It returns the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing in the galaxy as input (particularly variables fl, fi, fc, and fL).

From your own source:

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Your summary of Drake's equation is simply wrong.

It is accepted by the scientific community because it relies on our understanding of our world, the planets in our solar system, planets near us as well as many other objective criteria, and the probabilities of similar worlds in the galaxy, and again, that is just the galaxy.

Probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system? Pretty good when you consider the sheer number of ALL of the suns in the universe. That's something that science can objectively consider.

You must still enter the probabilities of intelligent life existing in our galaxy using Drake's equation. Sorry, the equation doesn't calculate it. "Current estimations" of the probability of intelligent life existing in our galaxy (according to your own source) is 0% to 100%. Big surprise there!

Prayer? Nothing to factor.

Here's a formula for prayer that accurately calculates the number of prayers granted by God:

N = P* np fi

N is the number of prayers that are granted by God

• P* represents the number of people praying
• np represents the number of prayers by each person
• fi represents the fraction of prayers prayed that are granted by God. (Current estimates range between 0% and 100%)

Does that now make it rational to believe in prayer?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

How are you the arbiter of Christian belief? Are you talking true Christians? I don't buy that there is any such animal as "Christian belief". With all of the denominations and debates and the history of killing people because of differences in opinion I find that it really is difficult to say what "Christian belief" is. I would say that it is perhaps in line with some percentage of "Christian belief".

I didn't say "all Christian belief" -- I said "Christian belief." Given that you have yet to show a single Christian belief that this isn't in line with, I'd guess it's in line with a pretty high percentage of Christian beliefs, but that's only a guess.

To answer your question, it raises a very important question to those with a scientific mind, why? This is the rational response. Of course, faith doesn't need to question anything much less God. God can help you find your eye glasses but never heal a child born without limbs. For the faithful it means nothing. For those who are willing to challenge their faith it means a lot.

And yet there are plenty of answers to "why" that fit with reality (I've listed many in previous posts). Besides that, Christian belief is based on faith and the belief in an omniscient being, so not only is it not necessary for Christians to know the answer, it's not possible to know the answer.

And of course you are wrong, it does no such thing. The analogy demonstrates that perfectly. You are trying to make a false dichotomy. I'm not. The world isn't so black and white. We have day, night and in between.

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality?

Of course not. No more than a gradient between day and night renders day equal to night.

I was using your definition: rational means that there is a degree of rationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of rationality?

I have no idea what your day equals night analogy refers to.

Irrational. There is no such thing as the probability that it is possible.

Of course there is. The probability of a true statement being true is 100%. By Tricky's Scale O' Rationality, the ONLY beliefs that should be at the far end of the "rational" scale are those based on true logical statements.

None one of those fit the definition. You are using definition #1.

No I'm not. Reason #3 is "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." The second half of each of those sentences is a true fact or cause that provides logical sense for the belief.

That something is a motive does not mean that it provides logical sense.

Sorry, but the basis/motive is that part that comes after the "because." The "there is reason to believe in prayer because..." is definition #3. Again, you don't have to agree that what comes after the "because" (the reason #1) is good enough, but the entire statement is still reason #3.

??? Yes, I have. You can simply deny it but it is not reasonable to deny it. You have not given a logical rebuttal to my argument which is simply out of the dictionary btw. You should contact Websters to let them know that their use of the word is wrong.

Their use of the word isn't wrong -- your use of the definition is wrong.

One more time, I cannot show that Santa Claus isn't real. That I can't does not render the irrational rational. And yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

You seem to be missing the point and I don't know how else to explain it. You cannot use the dictionary definition if "superstition" that you posted to show that prayer is irrational. You cannot even use the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it unless you can show that prayer fits the premise (you already admitted that you can't).

Only in your mind. This is not accepted by the scientific community or the psychiatry community. This is simply a contrived notion with no basis in logic or reason.

No idea what you're talking about, since terms like "superstition" aren't scientific terms (at least not by the definition you posted), and as far as I know there is no scientific means of determining whether something that is unfalsifiable is superstition. You cannot prove that prayer is superstition by that definition, therefore you cannot prove that prayer is irrational by that definition.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

What variables are completly unkown. I don't think you understand stastics and probabilities.

In any event, the word subjective isn't really appropriate here but that is fine.

Bri already answered the question regarding the unknown variables. As far as using the word "subjective" here, it is completely appropriate for this context. Until about a year ago I was teaching college level statistics and would introduce the term "subjective probability" in my intro classes every semester as the usage is well-known and understood in statistics. Bayesian statistics in particular build heavily on the use of subjective probabilities.

 

[Bri]

This is not how I would use the word irrational and it is not how scientists, mathematicians, or psychologists use the word.

Please post the scientific, mathematical, or phsychological definition of "irrational" and then prove that belief in prayer necessarily fits the definition. I'll then agree with you wholeheartedly.

There was observation. The world seemed flat. Absent contrary evidence, that was a rational conclusion.

There are very few opinions for which there is no contradictory evidence. In this case, someone might have looked out at the ocean and noticed that they couldn't see forever and therefore surmised that the world was round. So, would they have been necessarily irrational as you claimed?

Absent evidence to the contrary it would have been viewed as irrational. Remember, truths are held provisionally. Relativity was seen as irrational by man when it was first suggested.

Of course there was evidence to the contrary, just not evidence that everyone accepted. That's exactly my point. When it was first suggested, relativity may have been seen as irrational, but was never irrational. Anyone claiming that relativity was irrational would have been stating an opinion not a fact!

Belief is insufficient. There must be an underlying logic using deduction or induction that logically leads us to make a conclusion beyond the notion that all things are possible. That doesn't tell us anything. That is a non starter.

Logic using deduction or induction will not lead to any conclusion concerning prayer other than the possibility that prayer works. At best, it will lead you to realize that the question cannot be answered with any certainty. Now, you can then claim that in order to be rational one must be agnostic about the question of prayer, witholding both opinion for and opinion against prayer. But then the same would hold about all opinions for which there is no definitive evidence, including some that you've already held are rational. If you want to admit that all of those opinions that you have previously claimed are rational are actually irrational, then you might have a point (albeit one based on a definitions of "rational" and "irrational" that few use).

Having a belief that all things are possible is not necessarily irrational so long as you don't act on that notion.

It's possible that I could win the lottery tomorrow. Acknowledging that fact isn't irrational. Spending my rent money to play the lottery is.

Although I personally don't play the lottery, spending a buck now and again on the lottery compared with the benefit if you happen to win isn't necessarily irrational. Nor is praying that someone will recover from cancer when weighed with the benefit if prayer works necessarily irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

The Free Dictionary (def. 1b).

Ok, let's go back.

Subjective (as opposed to "objective") means "particular to a given person; personal." The choices of values for the variables are based on personal opinion rather than any scientific consensus or known fact.

The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

Your summary of Drake's equation is simply wrong.

No, it is not wrong.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

"Current estimations" of the probability of intelligent life existing in our galaxy (according to your own source) is 0% to 100%.

Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

Here's a formula for prayer that accurately calculates the number of prayers granted by God:

N = P* np fi

N is the number of prayers that are granted by God

• P* represents the number of people praying
• np represents the number of prayers by each person
• fi represents the fraction of prayers prayed that are granted by God. (Current estimates range between 0% and 100%)

Does that now make it rational to believe in prayer?

No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

 

[Cuddles]

Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below. Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

This is a poor example. The definition of temperature means there is no such thing a temperature below 0K. It is not that such a mechanism is unknown or problematic, the whole concept is meaningless. In the same way that there is no way of going north from the north pole.

 

[Cuddles]

Ok, let's go back.
The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

No, it is not wrong.

What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

The variable are entirely personal. Drake's equation is ignored by most scientists because the only fact known is that life exist here. Any estimates of the number of planets, the number of these inhabited and the chance of life becoming intelligent are entirely made up since there is essentially no data to base such estimates on.

All we can say is that there are planets around one star, and probably some around at least a few others. We can say that life appeared on at least one planet, but have no idea what conditions were required for this, let alone what other conditions may allow different kinds of life. We know intelligence developed at least once, but do not understand how or why.

Edit : You consider odds anywhere between 0% to 100% to be decent? I hope you never start gambling.

 

[I less than three logic]

All we can say is that there are planets around one star, and probably some around at least a few others.

No probably about it, there are planets around other stars. So far we've discovered 184 planets (this only includes planets around main sequence stars) and 97 planetary systems.
http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm

 

[RandFan]

I didn't say "all Christian belief" -- I said "Christian belief." Given that you have yet to show a single Christian belief that this isn't in line with, I'd guess it's in line with a pretty high percentage of Christian beliefs, but that's only a guess.

What "Christian belief"? This is non-sensical. Christians believe all sorts of things. There is no true Christian belief. Beliefs range from absolute blind faith to skepticism. I can't prove any single belief. I know lots of people who fervently believe that God regularly grants their prayers in the affirmative. I don't think many of them have given any thought to this. I don't think most even have such concrete thoughts about prayer. In any event, I can't prove what people believe. I can only show you logical inconsistencies.

And yet there are plenty of answers to "why" that fit with reality (I've listed many in previous posts).

None that are reasonable.

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality?

I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

I have no idea what your day equals night analogy refers to.

Well, answer this question, when does day exactly become night?

Of course there is. The probability of a true statement being true is 100%.

That is silly and tautalogical. The probability of a black cat being black is redundant and tells us nothing that we don't know by simply stating that the cat is black.

No I'm not. Reason #3 is "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." The second half of each of those sentences is a true fact or cause that provides logical sense for the belief.

We can't use induction or deduction to arrive at a conclusion that the premises are true.

If the moon is made of green cheese then it is edible. That is a valid hypothetical but the premise is not true so the proposition that the moon is edible is false.

I believe that the moon is made of green cheese because I prayed and that was the answer that came to my mind.

1. "I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe that the Bible says so."
2. "I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I prayed for my mother to recover from her cancer despite the doctor giving her 1 week to live and she did."
3. "I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe in God."

I believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this.

That is definition (#1) and not (#3).

Your statement # 1: We can't use induction or deduction to conclude that prayer works. In the end it is just your belief. However, WE CAN use induction to conclude that it doesn't work because all studies demonstrate that it doesn't work.

Your statement # 2: Clearly and demonstrably anecdotal. We can ignorantly use induction but not deduction to come to a conclusion that the prayer cures cancer. However, once someone understands the problems inherent with anecdotal evidence it is no longer rational to draw such a conclusion.

Your statement # 2: We can't use induction or deduction to validate your belief. It is just your belief. It is no more valid than believing that you can live without food.

Sorry, but the basis/motive is that part that comes after the "because." The "there is reason to believe in prayer because..." is definition #3. Again, you don't have to agree that what comes after the "because" (the reason #1) is good enough, but the entire statement is still reason #3.

No for (#3) Yes for (#2). The "reason" must be logical. We must be able to use induction or deduction to arrive at the validity of the premise to use (#3).

I believe that I can live without eating food because other have done it.

You cannot use the dictionary definition if "superstition" that you posted to show that prayer is irrational.

Prayer fits the definition so yes, I can.

You cannot even use the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it unless you can show that prayer fits the premise (you already admitted that you can't).

No I did not.

No idea what you're talking about, since terms like "superstition" aren't scientific terms (at least not by the definition you posted), and as far as I know there is no scientific means of determining whether something that is unfalsifiable is superstition. You cannot prove that prayer is superstition by that definition, therefore you cannot prove that prayer is irrational by that definition.

I can only make the argument. It is demonstrable that prayer fits the definition.

 

[Bri]

Ok, let's go back.
The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

OK, let me ask you. What values did you place in fl and fi (the two variables that define the probability that intelligent life has ever existed on the planets in the galaxy which are capable of sustaining life)? What objective criteria did you use to determine this, since the "current estimates" range from 0% to 100% for both of those?

Likewise, in my admittedly silly equation concerning prayer below, it is up to the user to place a value for the probability of a prayer being granted by God.

No, it is not wrong.

You said that "Drakes equation is a rational means to calculate the probability of intelligent life out side of our galaxy." It isn't. It's a means to calculate the number of intelligent civilations in the galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing on the number of planets given that are capable of supporting life.

What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

Read what I wrote carefully. It has nothing to do with the communication part of the equation.

Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

Between 0% and 100% are the exact same odds that prayer works, I hate to say. According to your logic, given the vast number of additional prayers prayed each day, the odds must go up that one of them will be answered. No, if the value of even one of the variables is "0" then the number is always "0" no matter how many galaxies you throw in.

No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

Nor do you have a single example of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, using objective criteria or otherwise.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

Intelligent life existing in one place is weak evidence at best of intelligent life actually existing elsewhere. Yes, I can give you weak evidence that prayer works too.

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

The values you place on the variables is your personal opinion and is not selected by objective criteria. There is no objective means by which one calculates the "correct" value. That's why the estimates range so wildly.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

The variable are entirely personal. Drake's equation is ignored by most scientists because the only fact known is that life exist here. Any estimates of the number of planets, the number of these inhabited and the chance of life becoming intelligent are entirely made up since there is essentially no data to base such estimates on.

Demonstrably untrue.

Edit : You consider odds anywhere between 0% to 100% to be decent? I hope you never start gambling.

Give me the equivalent of all of the galaxies in the universe and I would happily take that bet.

 

[RandFan]

OK, let me ask you. What values did you place in fl and fi (the two variables that define the probability that intelligent life has ever existed on the planets in the galaxy which are capable of sustaining life)? What objective criteria did you use to determine this, since the "current estimates" range from 0% to 100% for both of those?

What you fail to understand Bri is that we can make estimates for each of the variables using logic and reason. It is not exact science but it is science.

Likewise, in my admittedly silly equation concerning prayer below, it is up to the user to place a value for the probability of a prayer being granted by God.

The difference is that the probability of prayer using your equation is completely arbitrary. There is no reason to assume those variables. Scientists can come up with reasonable estimates based on their understanding of the universe. Huge difference.

The values you place on the variables is your personal opinion and is not selected by objective criteria. There is no objective means by which one calculates the "correct" value. That's why the estimates range so wildly.

It's not that simple, scientists can use objective criteria to arrive at reasonable estimates.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

This is a poor example. The definition of temperature means there is no such thing a temperature below 0K. It is not that such a mechanism is unknown or problematic, the whole concept is meaningless. In the same way that there is no way of going north from the north pole.

Please do your homework properly before posting. It helps in minimising the incidence of fatuous statements such as the above.

'Luthon64

 

[RandFan]

Bri already answered the question regarding the unknown variables. As far as using the word "subjective" here, it is completely appropriate for this context.

It really, really isn't.

 

[Bri]

What "Christian belief"? This is non-sensical.

Oh boy. I meant Christian belief as in your statement that Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. The statement you made about God having the power to grant any prayer but choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does not seem to contradict any Christian belief that I've seen.

None that are reasonable.

They're all reasonable and logical. Any one of them could be true. Or there could be a reason that none of us knows about that could be true.

I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

So, I was right when I said that all beliefs are irrational by that definition. Then I agree that according to your definition that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality, belief that prayer can affect events and belief in gravity are both irrational.

Well, answer this question, when does day exactly become night?

I understand the analogy, but when did I ever claim that day = night? I simply said that the above definition renders the word "irrational" fairly meaningless in the statement "belief that prayer can affect events is irrational" since "belief that prayer can affect events is rational" would also have to be true.

That is silly and tautalogical. The probability of a black cat being black is redundant and tells us nothing that we don't know by simply stating that the cat is black.

Exactly my point. The third item on the list was tautalogical as worded, and therefore should have been first on the list.

We can't use induction or deduction to arrive at a conclusion that the premises are true.

Nor can you use induction or deduction to arrive at the conclusion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is true. You can only show that it is possible, not that it is true.

If the moon is made of green cheese then it is edible. That is a valid hypothetical but the premise is not true so the proposition that the moon is edible is false.

Exactly. And if I don't accept your premise of the probability of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, then the proposition that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is also false.

I believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this.

That is definition (#1) and not (#3).

If you reword it as "I have reason to believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this" then the word "reason" is definition #3. You can argue over how strong the reason (#1) is after the "because" but the word reason falls under definition #3.

Your statement # 1: We can't use induction or deduction to conclude that prayer works. In the end it is just your belief. However, WE CAN use induction to conclude that it doesn't work because all studies demonstrate that it doesn't work.

Your statement # 2: Clearly and demonstrably anecdotal. We can't use induction or deduction to come to a conclusion that the prayer cures cancer. We can use induction to come to a conclusion that the premise is not true because all studies demonstrate that it is not true.

Your statement # 2: We can't use induction or deduction to validate your belief. It is just your belief. It is no more valid than believing that you can live without food.

All arguments concerning the strength of the reasons. I happen to agree with your assessment of the reasons, but that's just my opinion.

No for (#3) Yes for (#2). The "reason" must be logical. We must be able to use induction or deduction to arrive at the validity of the premise to use (#3).

Oh, I didn't see that criteria in the definition #3. It simply said "an underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." All of the reasons (#1) listed after "because" are underlying facts that provide logical sense for the premise "prayer works," therefore the statements themselves are examples of definition #3.

Prayer fits the definition so yes, I can.

Evidence, please. Because you say it's so doesn't make it so. IF prayer fits the definition THEN prayer is irrational. So show that prayer fits the definition. You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. So how can you show that prayer fits the definition of "superstition" in order to support your claim that prayer is irrational by that definition?

No I did not.

I apologize. You said that you cannot show it for rabbit's feet:

Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative.

I made an assumption that since you can't show it for rabbit's feet that you can't show it for prayer, which might not be the case. So, by all means please show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it.

I can only make the argument. It is demonstrable that prayer fits the definition.

Then please demonstrate it.

-Bri