Prayer and power

[Bri]

I know. But their beliefs are irrational unless they are based on evidence that it did happen.

The Christian belief in prayer is based on evidence that it does happen. Even if it wasn't, I don't know that it would be irrational since belief that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy isn't irrational despite a lack of evidence that it does exist.

It is irrational because it is belief based on faith alone.

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "based on faith alone." I don't see that it is based on any less evidence than the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Both are based on speculation.

You were the one who threw out the the "there is no evidence that prayer never works." That is irrational too, but for a different reason. It is irrational because uses the the impossibility of verifying an infinite number of negatives as evidence of the positive.

And yeah, Christians try this tack from time to time too.

Please let me be VERY clear on this. I've stated it several times already. I have not said, nor do I believe, that the lack of evidence that prayer never works constitutes evidence that it does work. I'll repeat: A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE POSITION. Attempting to attribute that ridiculous concept to me is a straw man.

Although I don't doubt that some Christians have tried this tack from time to time, I have not.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Again, let's look at what you said.

Lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything.

I've already responded to this. Once again, you might try to avoid taking what I said out of context. Here's the entirety of what I said:

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

(emphasis added) This was in response to Tricky, and my point was simply that Christian belief in prayer often (if not always) includes the belief that God doesn't want us to know of his existence. In no way did I mean to imply that absence of evidence is evidence -- only that absence of evidence might be expected, and therefore wouldn't constitute evidence of the opposite position.

No one is arguing that lack of knowledge is evidence of inteligent life elswhere in the galaxy, unless I missed it. But if they did, you let me know and I will give 'em hell. Fair enough?

Fair enough, since I agree completely and have never said otherwise.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

That's not what you said. If you had I wouldn't have responded.

I wish you had actually looked at what I actually said. See the previous post.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work ALL the time.

There is no evidence that prayer NEVER works.

The point that there is no evidence that prayer never works is silly and beside the point.

I agree. Both are opinions, but only one is based on strong evidence.

No, that is not correct. Lacking any evidence to the contrary and understanding that prayer would fly in the face of all that we understand then it would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent to the notion that prayer is irrational.

Your comments throughout this thread were reason to question whether you believe that prayer is necessarily irrational.

I have been clear and concise from the beginning and I resent this. If you have a problem with comprehension then that is your problem. I have stated over and over that I hold all things provisionally. I have stated over and over that all things that are not logically impossible are possible.

If you had simply agreed earlier that belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational rather than disagreeing, then the thread would have been much shorter.

No. This all started when you said that I had overstated my case. I had not overstated my case. I would not use the provision "not necessarily irrational" because it simply clouds the issue and does not represent my view. Since all things are possible it can be said that nothing is necessarily impossible. But to make that point is really meaningless. Invisible unicorns are possible. There's little point to stating that they are not necessarily impossible. School text books don't make the point that all things are possible and therefore all sorts of bizarre notions are necessarily impossible.

Prayer is irrational.
There are no invisible unicorns.
There are no faeries.
There are no leprechauns.
There are no demons under my bed.
Aliens don't take you away every night to anal probe you.
The real does exist.

The inverse of all of these things are possible. I'm not overstating my case to reject any of them them and I don't need to add a provision that none of them are necessarily impossible. That has been my position from the beginning and it will remain my position whether you like it or not or whether you understand it or not.

 

[Bri]

Bri, I did read the whole thing. I just quoted the part where your logic jumped the tracks. Look at these two quotes:

They are substantially different.

No they're not, since the second is a clarification of what I meant in case you misunderstood the first.

I wouldn't argue too much with the logical soundness of the second, but I'll reiterate that the first is nonsensical. The fact that we don't know for certain that god exists is solid evidence for one thing only: That we aren't aware of any solid evidence that he does exist.

I completely agree. Please note that the original statement includes the proposition "If God exists" at the beginning. My point to Tricky was exactly the same point that you're making: that a lack of solid evidence isn't evidence at all -- it's simply a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer works, nor is it evidence that prayer never works.

The whole "god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence" deal is just a copout to explain why god doesn't appear in burning bushes or directly intercede in the lives of humans anymore. Just another way of saying the ultimate Christian copout: "God works in mysterious ways."

While I tend to agree, the belief that "God works in mysterious ways" isn't at all inconsistent with the Christian notion of God.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I've already responded to this. Once again, you might try to avoid taking what I said out of context. Here's the entirety of what I said:

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

And I have explained to you that the conditional changes nothing. Ignorance is ignorance and is evidence of nothing. See bolded text. What does "the fact that we don't know...is solid evidence" mean.

In no way did I mean to imply that absence of evidence is evidence -- only that absence of evidence might be expected, and therefore wouldn't constitute evidence of the opposite position.

YES YOU DID!

Lood at your words. "is solid evidence". What does "is solid evidence" mean.

 

[RandFan]

I wish you had actually looked at what I actually said. See the previous post.

I wish you would actually look at your post. The fact that you use a hypothetical does not change the facts.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Using a conditional does not fix the bolded line.

You clearly state that our ignorance is proof of something.

 

[Bri]

The existence of a single example dramatically increases the probability of other examples.

Only if you make certain speculations. There is no way to calculate the probability of other examples without speculating as to what might and might not be necessary for intelligent life to emerge.

As I've said over and over again, everything except logical contradictions is possible. We are dealing in probabilities. See above.

I know, yet you keep pointing out evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere rather than evidence of ingelligent life elsewhere.

You would know that worms existed in your lawn. You would know that other lawns (that from a distance resembled yours) existed. It would not be "sheer speculation". It would be a data-supported extrapolation.

I might know that other lawns existed, but it would be sheer speculation on my part as to how similar those other lawns are to my lawn. I would also have to speculate on how the exact the conditions would have to be to my lawn in order to support the worms.

Is it just as rational to believe that cherubs exist as that worms exist on other lawns? One is based on no evidence. One is based on an extrapolation of evidence. I'm hoping you realize this important difference and that you are just arguing for the sake of being contentious, but so far, I have no evidence for that.

I have no way of calculating how rational or irrational either belief is since there is little evidence of either.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Prayer is irrational.
There are no invisible unicorns.
There are no faeries.
There are no leprechauns.
There are no demons under my bed.
Aliens don't take you away every night to anal probe you.
The real does exist.

The inverse of all of these things are possible. I'm not overstating my case to reject any of them them and I don't need to add a provision that none of them are necessarily impossible. That has been my position from the beginning and it will remain my position whether you like it or not or whether you understand it or not.

All of these are, of course, your opinion. When you said that "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't just your opinion, you were certainly overstating your case.

Otherwise, I think we are in agreement according to your recent posts.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And I have explained to you that the conditional changes nothing. Ignorance is ignorance and is evidence of nothing. See bolded text. What does "the fact that we don't know...is solid evidence" mean.

YES YOU DID!

Lood at your words. "is solid evidence". What does "is solid evidence" mean.

RandFan, I've explained several times now what I meant. The paragraph is entirely based on the assumption that the Christian belief that God exists is true. I was responding to Tricky, and was pointing out that most Christians hold their belief in prayer along with the belief that God exists, and therefore likely also hold the belief that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. IF God exists as Christians believe, then it would follow the God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. That's all I was saying.

If you're going to insist that I meant otherwise despite my explanation of what I did say, then I'll have to assume that there's a reason that you prefer to argue against this straw man rather than against my actual position.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I wish you would actually look at your post. The fact that you use a hypothetical does not change the facts.

Using a conditional does not fix the bolded line.

You clearly state that our ignorance is proof of something.

Yes, and it is. The fact that we don't know that God exists is proof that if God exists and is omnipotent, he might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Which is exactly what it says!

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

Bri

The Christian belief in prayer is based on evidence that it does happen.

Please provide the evidence. Until the evidence is provided your statement is unsupported assertion, nothing more.

I'll repeat: A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE POSITION.

Yet that is your position, and has been your position for a number of pages.

Attempting to attribute that ridiculous concept to me is a straw man.

Not true, go check your previous posts yourself.

Ossai

 

[Tricky]

Only if you make certain speculations. There is no way to calculate the probability of other examples without speculating as to what might and might not be necessary for intelligent life to emerge.

You don't have to calculate an exact probability. But having two important ingredients for life (a planet and a sun) goes a long way towards increasing the probability. If you like, add to that the obvious fact that things which make copies of themself tend to stay around. This also greatly increases the chance that you will find self-reproducing things in other places.

I know, yet you keep pointing out evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere rather than evidence of ingelligent life elsewhere.

No, I keep showing you that important ingredients for life exist elsewhere. You continue to insist that even with only a partial list of ingredients for life and an example recipe, the liklihood of extraterrestrial life is just as remote as it would be with nothing on the list and no examples. Frankly, I have a hard time accepting that you are seriously arguing this position.

I might know that other lawns existed, but it would be sheer speculation on my part as to how similar those other lawns are to my lawn. I would also have to speculate on how the exact the conditions would have to be to my lawn in order to support the worms.

No you don't have to know the exact conditions, and that is the point. The fact that you know that other lawns exist which superficially resemble yours is enough to GREATLY increase the probability that worms exist on them. It is reasonable to extrapolate that if the distant lawns have some of the more remotely visable characteristics in common, like green grass, trees and shrubs etc., then they may have other characteristics in common. If you have a map handy, you might observe that there are millions of houses that you can't even see from where you are! That too greatly increases the probability that worms exist on other lawns.

I ask you this then: How much would you have to know about other lawns before you would consider it probable that worms existed on them? Would not every bit of data you found which indicated that other lawns were similar to yours add to the probability, or would you require actually seeing the worms before you would list them as "probable"?

I have no way of calculating how rational or irrational either belief is since there is little evidence of either.

It sounds like your calculator only considers things where you have 100% of the evidence. I think you need a new one. One that works with rational numbers.

 

[elliotfc]

It is not "necessary", but since it fits the definition of irrational, it makes sense to call prayer irrational. Why should we rewrite definitions because some Christians don't like them?

ENOUGH

It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.

I thought I'd check on this thread just to check on it, without replying. I did check on this thread. But now you are saying something that is false. So I won't even check on this thread anymore because it's not even stultifying. It's past that. Now it's being dishonest. I expected more.

-Elliot

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.

I just checked dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster, according to the definitions listed in both, prayer is in fact irrational.

What dictionaries did you check?

Ossai

 

[Tricky]

ENOUGH

It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.

I thought I'd check on this thread just to check on it, without replying. I did check on this thread. But now you are saying something that is false. So I won't even check on this thread anymore because it's not even stultifying. It's past that. Now it's being dishonest. I expected more.

-Elliot

Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

and

Main Entry: 1rea·son
Pronunciation: 'rE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.

Nobody is being dishonest here Elliot. You may have an honest disagreement about the meaning of words. You are the last person who I expected to sink to personal attacks or to stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la I'm not listening to you". I'm so sorry.

 

[Bri]

You don't have to calculate an exact probability. But having two important ingredients for life (a planet and a sun) goes a long way towards increasing the probability. If you like, add to that the obvious fact that things which make copies of themself tend to stay around. This also greatly increases the chance that you will find self-reproducing things in other places.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy or whether it is greater than or less than the probability of prayer working.

Although I might personally estimate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy to be greater than the probability of prayer working, my estimation is based purely on speculation on my part. Even if one had a higher probability than the other, it doesn't necessarily follow that the one with the lower probability is irrational as you seem to be implying.

Frankly, I have a hard time accepting that you are seriously arguing this position.

I understand what you're saying. I really do. I simply disagree that it's nearly as cut-and-dry as you apparently believe it is. Certainly not enough so that I would proclaim one belief to be irrational and the other to be rational.

No you don't have to know the exact conditions, and that is the point. The fact that you know that other lawns exist which superficially resemble yours is enough to GREATLY increase the probability that worms exist on them.

Your entire argument is based on a knowledge of other lawns. Do we know of the existence of other planets that even superficially resemble ours? Without knowledge of other planets that are similar to ours, nor even knowledge of what about our planet allowed it to give rise to intelligent life where there was none previously, there is no reason to assume that intelligent life currently exists on other planets in the galaxy.

I ask you this then: How much would you have to know about other lawns before you would consider it probable that worms existed on them? Would not every bit of data you found which indicated that other lawns were similar to yours add to the probability, or would you require actually seeing the worms before you would list them as "probable"?

It sure would, and if we had evidence of other planets that were similar to ours, it might very well increase the probability.

It sounds like your calculator only considers things where you have 100% of the evidence. I think you need a new one. One that works with rational numbers.

No, I said that knowledge that intelligent life exists on earth doesn't provide enough evidence to estimate the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. There is certainly evidence that the probability is greater than 0%, but there is little evidence to indicate what the probability might be beyond that.

According to Wikipedia, some estimates on the fraction of planets in our galaxy which can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life are 0.00002%, which means that according to some estimates, there are 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can communicate with us (making the chances extremely unlikely of even a single one). If I accept those numbers, then it would certainly seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Luckily, I don't have to accept those numbers to be rational.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

According to Wikipedia, some estimates on the fraction of planets in our galaxy which can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life are 0.00002%, which means that according to some estimates, there are 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can communicate with us (making the chances extremely unlikely of even a single one). If I accept those numbers, then it would certainly seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Luckily, I don't have to accept those numbers to be rational.

Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life. The Drake equation uses many mitigating factors for communication such as the liklihood that our periods of intelligence overlap in such a way that the signal they sent when intelligent would be recieved by us (many many light years away) while intelligent. They also limit the lifetime of an intelligent civilization to 10,000 years (rather Drakonian, wouldn't you say? ). Throw in the inverse square law which means signals get weaker the farther away they are (note that the calculation is only for planets in our galaxy, not the whole universe), and the odds of finding a chat-room partner become prohibitive.

I agree, that the liklihood of communication is many many orders of magnitude lower than the liklihood of intelligent life ever existing anywhere else in our universe. But because of the sheer size of the universe, the odds go WAY up when you are talking about the mere existence of intelligence.

 

[I less than three logic]

Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life. The Drake equation uses many mitigating factors for communication such as the liklihood that our periods of intelligence overlap in such a way that the signal they sent when intelligent would be recieved by us (many many light years away) while intelligent. They also limit the lifetime of an intelligent civilization to 10,000 years (rather Drakonian, wouldn't you say? ). Throw in the inverse square law which means signals get weaker the farther away they are (note that the calculation is only for planets in our galaxy, not the whole universe), and the odds of finding a chat-room partner become prohibitive.

No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.

 

[Tricky]

No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.

The lowest estimate of what? The fraction of planets we could have a chance of communicating with? That's not really a very small number, when you consider this:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
Thas orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide.
We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.


The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!