Prayer and power

[Bri]

Bri, that's just not honest. You know better. If you go back and look at the record you will find that you said outside of our solar system at least a dozen times. Outside of our Galaxy didn't get brought up until I noted Drake's equations.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

Actually, yes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...99#post1816499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...75#post1832975
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...41#post1830441
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...09#post1829409

Please quote the relevant part of any of the above posts where I claimed that I didn't say outside of the solar system before you mentioned Drake's equation. No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation.

Both are valid counter-examples to the proposition that belief with little or no evidence is irrational, unless you believe that one of them is irrational. Do you?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I didn't say that there wasn't evidence that prayer doesn't work. Certainly there have been studies that have shown that prayer doesn't work in some instances. What I said was that there is no evidence that prayer never works.

This really is meaningless as to whether or not belief in prayer is irrational.

Prayer

For an *SB to intercede would be for a being from the supernatural world to cause things to happen in the natural world that would not happen naturally.

...

Second, and more important, if *SBs could intervene in nature at will or if invisible energies could be directed by our intentions, then the order and lawfulness of the world of experience and of the world that science attempts to understand would be impossible. We are able to experience the world only because we perceive it to be an orderly and lawful world. If that order and lawfulness were impossible, then so would be the experience and understanding of it.

*Super Being

 

[Bri]

I could only find one example.

Tautological. Lacking knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

So, my point stands.

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

-Bri

Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to pull these out aren't you? I don't know about you, but I'm when attempting to understand something, lacking knowledge is the exact same thing as needing more knowledge.

 

[Bri]

Clearly, how else could she argue that what is otherwise damning to her argument is a plus.

My argument is that Drake's equation just as easily shows that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational depending on what estimates you use for the variables. In other words, the values of the variables is entirely speculation. This line from the Wikipedia article is quite telling:

f_i, f_c and L, like f_l, are little more than guesses.

Therefore, the suggestion that something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it would be have to be true of the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. All available evidence indicates that the probability of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is greater than 0% and less than 100% -- the exact same probability that prayer works.

If you're willing to concede that it is irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, then I'll concede that belief that prayer works is irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation.

Not true.

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.

1st August 2006, 07:17 AM (not your first reference but this will do).

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

First mention of Drake's equation: 1st August 2006, 04:49 PM

 

[RandFan]

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

Do you even know what the word Tautological means? It is a fallacy Bri.

 

[Bri]

I believe that your first discussion was about "extrasolar life". Dang, where are those goalposts. They were here a minute ago.

Yes, I did first discuss extrasolar life. As I already explained, Drake's equation doesn't include other galaxies, so it makes sense to discuss whether it is irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. This belief is also a belief with little evidence, so as long as you accept that it is a rational belief it is also a valid counter-example to your argument.

So, do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

BTW, it's easy to remove the term concerning whether or not the intelligent civilizations can and are willing to communicate (by setting it to 1.0), so there's no need to insist on it being part of the discussion unless you want to, although it would also be valid to discuss whether it is irrational to believe (as members of SETI likely do) that other communicating civilizations exist in the galaxy. This belief is also a belief with little evidence, so as long as you accept that it is a rational belief it is also a valid counter-example to your argument.

So, do you think that belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation.

Not true.

???

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.

1st August 2006, 07:17 AM (not your first reference but this will do).

This quote shows me talking about intelligent life elsewhere without restricting it to the galaxy.

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

First mention of Drake's equation: 1st August 2006, 04:49 PM

This quote shows you afterwards mentioning Drake's equation.

Isn't that an example of what I said (that we started talking about intelligent life within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation)? I admit that after you mentioned Drake's equation we started talking about both (since Drake's equation mentions only intelligent life within the galaxy and we had previously discussed intelligent life anywhere in the universe), but I don't recall restricting the discussion to intelligent life within the galaxy before you brought it up, and your example doesn't indicate otherwise.

Nonetheless, we have talked about many examples that would seem to counter the argument that belief with little evidence is irrational. The example of belief in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy seems to be a valid counter-example, as would the example of the belief held by many SETI members in the existence of communicating intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Do you even know what the word Tautological means? It is a fallacy Bri.

Perhaps you'd better define it for me as you're using it. I don't think that "lacking knowledge" and "needing more knowledge" is a tautology. It seems to me that one can lack knowledge without needing more knowledge, but perhaps you're correct and I don't know what the word means.

Meanwhile, here's another example: My lack of knowledge of driving large vehicles is evidence that I should refrain from driving a bus. Still a tautology?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

This belief is also a belief with little evidence...

This is an assertion that is not accepted and it has been explained time and time again to you why we don't accept it. There is reason based on observation of empirical evidence and statistics. You don't have to like that but it is so.

There is no similar observation of empirical evidence and statistics for prayer.

So, do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

Let's stick to the universe. Drakes question deals with the Galaxy but since you originally dealt with the universe we can easily apply his equation to the universe which only increases the likelihood that there is intelligent life in the universe.

So, do you think that belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

It's rational to come to a belief that their is a probability of life in the universe and therefore it is rational.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't that an example of what I said (that we started talking about intelligent life within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation)?

Please do try and keep up.

Okay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

Yes, there IS a need to bring the entire universe into the equation because that was the initial premise.

 

[Bri]

This is an assertion that is not accepted and it has been explained time and time again to you why we don't accept it. There is reason based on observation of empirical evidence and statistics. You don't have to like that but it is so.

You say there is evidence, I say that the evidence is entirely speculative given that it shows that the number of such civilizations are far fewer than 1 given certain estimations of the values.

There is no similar observation of empirical evidence and statistics for prayer.

Did I miss the observation of empirical evidence and statistics for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? I must have missed it. What I've seen is all speculation, just like the evidence that prayer works. Can you please post the evidence that isn't speculation?

Let's stick to the universe.

Naaah, let's stick to the galaxy. Unless you are saying that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational. Is that what you saying?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Please do try and keep up.

Yes, there IS a need to bring the entire universe into the equation because that was the initial premise.

No, the initial premise is and always has been that I can provide examples that are counter to the suggestion that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it.

Until you brought Drake's equation into it, the example I was using was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (among others, such as the Deist God and belief that there are no gods). Now, the example I am using is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. Unless you are claiming that the latter is irrational, it's still within the initial premise.

You're not claiming that the latter is irrational are you?

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

So, "you want to help me" is "you actively desire to help me".

So, you either actively desire to help me or you don't.
You are either with me or you are against me.

Yes, and no. Someone who has never heard of you does not actively desire to help you -- but is not against you, either.

I want to eat a candy bar.
I want to lose weight.

Which is true?

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires.

You're still wrong, rhetoric and bluster aside.

 

[Kopji]

BERLIN - A seven-member family faces eviction from an east Berlin apartment tower after neighbors complained about loud prayer sessions that keep the whole building awake at night, a German newspaper said on Thursday.

“I really don’t want to disturb the neighbors but the high volume is needed in the battle against the devil,”...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14387512/

I think that prayer could have a measurable effect if it is understand as a meditation that moves them to action or commitment - to actually do something or strengthen commitment to an endeavor. The kind of prayer in Berlin seems a little silly, but if it moved the family to do certain things it might have a measurable effect.

The 'workingness' of prayer says nothing about the existence of a deity though. If prayers are answered, we answer prayers.

An implication of the dialog between Bertrand Russell and the lady is that a deity that asks for faith needs at least to show why other deities with different demands - are inferior.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you'd better define it for me as you're using it. I don't think that "lacking knowledge" and "needing more knowledge" is a tautology.

Useless repetition; "to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology"

It seems to me that one can lack knowledge without needing more knowledge, but perhaps you're correct and I don't know what the word means.

This would seem to be at odds with your original argument.

Meanwhile, here's another example: My lack of knowledge of driving large vehicles is evidence that I should refrain from driving a bus. Still a tautology?

I will grant that your lack of knowledge supports the proposition that you should not drive a bus.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, and no. Someone who has never heard of you does not actively desire to help you -- but is not against you, either.

I'm not talking about someone who knows me. Please to stick with the context of what I'm talking about. It is possible to actively desire to help someone and to actively desire not to help someone.

When George Bush uttered, you are either against us or you are for us he was engaging in a false choice. NOT because those he was speaking to did not know us.

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires.

Please to explain?

And please to reconcile with the following:

The fallacy of this type of argument is that it tries to eliminate the middle ground. A typical false choice is the assertion "You are either with me or you are against me." The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment. Thus, the possibility of compromise is discounted. Such absolutism is applicable in science and mathematics, in which problems can have one and only one solution. In philosophy, however, there are few if any absolutes.

Can you do a bit better than gainsaying?

You're still wrong, rhetoric and bluster aside.

Mr. Pot, please meet Mrs. Kettle.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires.

This one has really got me stumped. Incompatible but not formally contradictory?

Ok, then please to answer the question. What do I want?

John actively desires to go to the fair.
John actively desires to keep his job.
If John goes to the fair he will lose his job.

What does John actively desire?

 

[RandFan]

No, the initial premise is and always has been that I can provide examples that are counter to the suggestion that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it.

Which you acknowledge was the belief that there was inteligent life in the universe, right? Let's stick to that.

You're not claiming that the latter is irrational are you?

No, I just think a much better argument can be made for the universe so if you don't mind let's put the goal posts back to where they were, ok?