Prayer and power

[Bri]

Bri, your argument with Pascal's wager seems to be that it can be rational to believe something because of rational conclusions drawn from fallacious arguments.

Pascal's wager was brought up by drkitten here, not by me. I wasn't using Pascal's wager to draw any conclusion.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I know it's for a single galaxy, which is why I said "in the galaxy." As you know, I was talking about the belief that intelligent life exists in the galaxy.

Actually it has been demonstrated that you started talking about inteligent life outside of our solar system. Is there a reason why we can't stick with that? Do you reject your earlier assertion?

In any event, I have shown why it is rational to consider inteligent life outside of solar sytem whether you consider just a galaxy or the entire universe.

To some degree probable. Given how many galaxies there are in the universe the degree of probability is a great deal higher. Prayer has NO degree of probabilty. We can only conclude that it is possible and very unlikely considering the evidence agaisnt it and the fact that pryer would go against the laws of physics. Inteligent life existing outside of our solar system wouldn't.

1.) Belief in Inteligent Life outside of our [solar system].

• We have a model for it.
• We understand the mechanisms for it (evolution, natural selection).
• We understand the elements necassary for life and inteligent life.
• We know that these elements exist everywhere we can look.
• We can reason and infer to determine the likelyhood of inteligent life outside of our universe.
• There is no evidence against it.
• It DOESN'T contradict "the order and lawfulness of the world of experience" (see quote above).

2.) Belief in prayer.

• No model
• No mechanism
• No reason to infer likelyhood
• Lot's of evidence against it.
• It DOES contradict "the order and lawfulness of the world of experience (see quote above)."

Bri: #1 = #2

 

[RandFan]

Of course these If-Then statements really arn't very telling. for example using the wikipedea example of paul lieing.

If paul does not lie then he is speaking the truth.....

really great bit of information there, who would have thunk it

Anyway, I hope that makes sense, I'll be back on monday afternoon I think, have a good night sirs.

Agreed, Bri's argument, if stated precisely, is logically valid but materially fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

#4 is evidence that if the other premises are true, the leprechaun doesn't actively desire for you to know that he is there.

If you don't accept the premises as true, then #4 isn't evidence of anything.

Lacking any basis for assuming #1 then the argument is materially fallacious just like your's.

You are in effect trying to prove an attribute of something not proven. F-A-L-A-C-Y

Fact: The truth of #4 can't be established by assuming #1. We can only state that the argument is logically valid.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed that is a false dichotomy (actually, you used the term "false disjunction"). This is untrue, as above. The light is either red or not-red; we can argue later about what type of not-red it might be.

I will concede that the statement is not a false dichotomy.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed that is a false dichotomy (actually, you used the term "false disjunction"). This is untrue, as above. The light is either red or not-red; we can argue later about what type of not-red it might be.

So, it is valid to say that God actively desires for me to know or God does not actively desire for me to know.

The statement, God does not actively desire for me to know includes God actively desiring for me to not know and not caring at all whether I find out.

1.) God wants me to know.
2.) God doesn't care if I know.
3.) God wants not for me to know.

So long as we accept that both 2 & 3 are possibilities then I accept hyver's disjunction. In the end we can accept that the disjunction is logically valid and the statements that comprise the argument are logically valid but it is also a material fallacy. The truth of the statement relies on an assumption that can't be proven true by the very structure of the argument. In other words, not only is the argument unproven it can never be proven because should the existence of God ever be established it would render the "proof" false.

 

[Bri]

Lacking any basis for assuming #1 then the argument is materially fallacious just like your's.

You are in effect trying to prove an attribute of something not proven. F-A-L-A-C-Y

Fact: The truth of #4 can't be established by assuming #1. We can only state that the argument is logically valid.

One more time -- and this is the last time I'll explain this. I was assuming Christian belief in response to a post by Tricky. He asked why I would think that Christians would believe that God doesn't actively desire for us to know for certain of his existence. Because the question was about Christian belief, I am assuming the Christian belief that God exists and that God is omnipotent as premises. Based on these premises, a Christian would likely view the lack of knowledge of God's existence to be evidence that God doesn't actively desire for us to know for certain of his existence.

Yes, my conclusion was based on an assumption of the premises, and I have never claimed otherwise. However, the conclusion does imply that Christians (if they believe that God exists and is omnipotent) have no reason to believe that there would be evidence of prayer working even if prayer works.

PS: I think you meant F-A-L-L-A-C-Y. Normally I'm not a stickler for spelling, but when you spell it out like that, you might as well get it right.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Based on these premises, a Christian would likely view the lack of knowledge of God's existence to be evidence that God doesn't actively desire for us to know for certain of his existence.

And they would be engaging in a material fallacy for the reasons I stated.

PS: I think you meant F-A-L-L-A-C-Y. Normally I'm not a stickler for spelling, but when you spell it out like that, you might as well get it right.

Thank you, I agree. I have no excuse.

 

[Bri]

And they would be engaging in a material fallacy for the reasons I stated.

No idea what material fallacy you're referring to.

If someone had actually implied that the fact that Christians might believe that God doesn't actively desire for them to know for certain of his existence was evidence that prayer works, you might have a point. But nobody claimed that.

The only conclusion that has been drawn from this argument is a valid one, namely that Christians likely have no reason to expect there to be scientific evidence that prayer works.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Actually it has been demonstrated that you started talking about inteligent life outside of our solar system. Is there a reason why we can't stick with that? Do you reject your earlier assertion?

Asked and answered in an earlier post.

In any event, I have shown why it is rational to consider inteligent life outside of solar sytem whether you consider just a galaxy or the entire universe.

All the points in your list have been addressed in previous posts. To summarize:

If you're referring to Drake's equation as the "model" for belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, I've already presented a similarly valid model for prayer. We do not understand the mechanisms by which intelligent life emerges. Specifically, we have no idea how specific conditions must be to those on earth for intelligent life to develop. We cannot use reason to infer the likelihood that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. The same equations that you might use in to provide you with a probability that suggests that intelligent life might exist elsewhere in the galaxy can also yield probabilities that it probably doesn't. In fact, the likelihood that can be inferred from Drake's equation are exactly the same as the likelihood that can be inferred from guessing, namely between 0% and 100%. There's little evidence against intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and there's also little evidence for it. The same is true of belief that prayer works.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

No idea what material fallacy you're referring to.

If someone had actually implied that the fact that Christians might believe that God doesn't actively desire for them to know for certain of his existence was evidence that prayer works, you might have a point. But nobody claimed that.

The only conclusion that has been drawn from this argument is a valid one, namely that Christians likely have no reason to expect there to be evidence that prayer works.

-Bri

You used the word "proof". Words have meaning. A logically valid argument can be made from ignorance but such arguments are materially fallacious.

Begging the question

• Suppose Paul does not lie when he speaks.
• Paul speaks.
• Therefore, Paul is speaking truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth." which is nothing more than a tautology.

It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle.

It is not convincing to say that if A existed the lack of any evidence of the existence of A would somehow prove an attribute of A.

 

[RandFan]

Asked and answered in an earlier post.

You mean evaded in an earlier post. It is a fact that you started the argument about extra-solar intelligent life. It is a fact that you now wish to move those goal posts.

If you're referring to Drake's equation as the "model" for belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, I've already presented a similarly valid model for prayer.

No.

We do not understand the mechanisms by which intelligent life emerges.

Not true. We don't have complete understanding but we have a damn good theory and mechanism. It's called natural selection. You are now playing the role of the ID proponent.

Specifically, we have no idea how specific conditions must be to those on earth for intelligent life to develop.

Argument from ignorance. Same as ID proponents.

We cannot use reason to infer the likelihood that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

False.

The same equations that you might use in to provide you with a probability that suggests that intelligent life might exist elsewhere in the galaxy can also yield probabilities that it probably doesn't. In fact, the likelihood that can be inferred from Drake's equation are exactly the same as the likelihood that can be inferred from guessing, namely between 0% and 100%. There's little evidence against intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and there's also little evidence for it. The same is true of belief that prayer works.

Not true.

Also, scientists believe that intelligent life is to some degree likely. Not true of many if not the vast majority of Christians who believe that God exists, hears their prayers and give credit to God for the good things that do happen when they pray and ask for that very same thing.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Scientists are busy trying to communicate with extra terrestrial intelligent life but they are waiting for proof before they accept that anyone is listening or before they state that there is extra terrestrial intelligent life.

Christians live their lives as if they know. They believe, not looking for or expecting proof. They pray expecting God to be listening and hoping for answers. Ask any Christian if God is likely listening or IS listening and they will say God IS listening. Ask a scientist if extra-solar intligent life forms are likely listening and they will say NO.

Now, Bri, when a Christian loses his or her glasses, prays for help to find the glasses, then finds them, do they not thank God? Do they not give God the credit? Do they really wonder if that was simply a coincidence?

 

[RandFan]

5 Ways God Answers Prayer

1. No, I love you too much.

...

2. Yes, but you'll have to wait.

...

3. Yes, but quite different from how you thought I would answer.

...

4. Yes, and here's more!"


...

5. Yes, I thought you'd never ask.

My friends Esteban and Carmela Tosoni were driving one of the highest mountain passes in the world when their car broke down at dusk. They were twenty miles from the nearest town. So the Tosoni family prayed for God to send help. When they opened their eyes, a mechanic appeared out of nowhere, walked straight over to their car, immediately asked if he could help, fixed their gas filter, then departed.

Coincidences? Hardly!

The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16).

Christians believe that God does answer prayers. Not the way they want for every prayer but certainly for many prayers.

This belief that prayer works simply does not equate with the belief that there is a probability that there is inteligent life outside of our solar system because scientists are not sitting around pretending to communicate with aliens and pretending that sometimes the aliens are answering when in fact there is no OBJECTIVE proof that they are.

 

[Bri]

You used the word "proof". Words have meaning. A logically valid argument can be made from ignorance but such arguments are materially fallacious.

It is not convincing to say that if A existed the lack of any evidence of the existence of A would somehow prove an attribute of A.

That wasn't my argument, nor is every argument that assumes a premise begging the question. From the same Wikipedia article:

In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

Note that the proposition to be proved must be assumed in one of the premises in order to qualify for this fallacy. In the example you provided, the proposition that Paul doesn't lie is assumed in the premise.

My argument was that if God exists and is omnipotent, then a lack of evidence of God's existence is evidence that God doesn't actively wish us to know for certain that he exists.

Nowhere in the premises (that God exists and that God is omnipotent) is it assumed that God doesn't actively wish us to know for certain that he exists.

OK, let's try this example: If ET's exist and have the means to clearly communicate with us, then a lack of communication is evidence that such ET's don't want to communicate with us.

Yes, it is based on two assumed premises (that ET's exist and have the means to clearly communicate with us), but the proposition isn't stated in the premise, and therefore it isn't an example of begging the question.

The Argument from Evil is another example of an argument that assumes premises (that God exists, that God is omnipotent, and that God is benevolent) but is not an example of begging the question because the proposition isn't stated in the premises.

-Bri

 

[Freethinker]

OK, let's try this example: If ET's exist and have the means to clearly communicate with us, then a lack of communication is evidence that such ET's don't want to communicate with us.

Not unless you also assume they are aware of our existence.

 

[Bri]

Not unless you also assume they are aware of our existence.

True. I assumed that part of having the means to communicate with us would be knowing of our existence, but it would have been clearer had I stated it explicitly in the premises. How about this:

If ET's exist, have the means to clearly communicate with us, and know of our existence, then a lack of communication is evidence that such ET's don't want to communicate with us.​

This is still not an example of begging the question even though the premises are assumed in order to arrive at a conclusion because the conclusion isn't stated in the premises.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Reference, please.

Already asked and answered -- see the biblical quotations earlier.

For a better and more authoritative history of "petitionary prayer," I recommend reading Rick Ostrander. The Life of Prayer in a World of Science: Protestants, Prayer, and American Culture 1870–1930. (Religion in America Series.) New York: Oxford University Press. 2000.

That particular period describes specifically the development of "prayer" as an accepted doctrine
as it impacted (and lost to) the sciences that were demonstrating that it simply didn't work.

To quote from a trade journal review : "Beginning in the late 1850s, some intellectuals began to question the possibility of prayer affecting the physical world. By the 1870s, this critique had become formalized in the famous prayer gauge challenge in which the Victorian scientist John Tyndall challenged that the physical power of prayer be put to a scientific test. By the 1920s, Protestant Modernists, according to Ostrander, were abandoning the notion of petitionary prayer in any traditional sense." (emphasis mine).

"Ostrander argues that both parts of the liberal agenda failed: the apologetic for petitionary prayer eviscerated any true notion of prayer. (emphasis again mine).

 

[drkitten]

Where has it elsewhere been amply demonstrated that those people who maintain that they get tangible benefits here and now from their belief in prayer are mistaken?

Start with Galton in the mid 19th entury.

Please be clear that you brought up Pascal's wager, not me.

No. You brought it up. You said that it is "rational" to believe in God because the benefits of such belief outweigh the costs.

That is Pascal's wager. You offered it as a rational reason to believe in got.

I did not mean to imply that belief in God is justified because of Pascal's wager. I said that because some Christians might use Pascal's wager to justify their belief in God doesn't indicate that all reasons Christians may have for belief are irrational.

All right. GIven that we jointly accept that Pascal's wager is not a rational reason to believe in God -- and for that matter any "appeal to consequences" is not a rational reason to believe in God -- my original challenge still stands. I claim that there is no rational basis for belief in God. So far, you're zero-for-one.

 

[Bri]

Start with Galton in the mid 19th entury.

Please post a link where it has been amply demonstrated that those people who maintain that they get tangible benefits here and now from their belief in prayer are mistaken.

No. You brought it up. You said that it is "rational" to believe in God because the benefits of such belief outweigh the costs.

That is Pascal's wager. You offered it as a rational reason to believe in got.

Sorry, no. You brought it up. I did not say that belief in God is justified because of Pascal's wager. What I did say was that the Wikipedia article implies that receiving benefits from belief in God that are at least equal to benefits from disbelief in God may be a valid reason to believe in God.

All right. GIven that we jointly accept that Pascal's wager is not a rational reason to believe in God -- and for that matter any "appeal to consequences" is not a rational reason to believe in God -- my original challenge still stands. I claim that there is no rational basis for belief in God. So far, you're zero-for-one.

Again, I didn't bring up Pascal's wager, I disagree that Pascal's wager is an appeal to consequences, and the topic of this thread concerns belief in prayer, not specifically belief in God.

I did list a valid and rational reason for belief in prayer (that prayer might help the believer cope with illness) and suggested that there are likely many others that might be listed by Christians. Of course, you're going to simply claim that none of the reasons are rational, which is fine but would only be your opinion.

You (and others in this thread) have suggested that belief in prayer is irrational, so it is up to you to provide evidence if you want to convince others of your position.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

.

I did list a valid and rational reason for belief in prayer (that prayer might help the believer cope with illness)

Disproven by Galton himself over a century ago.

You're now zero for two.

You (and others in this thread) have suggested that belief in prayer is irrational, so it is up to you to provide evidence if you want to convince others of your position.

The complete inability of proponents to provide rational reasons when challenged is evidence enough for me.