Be a good little atheist...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

FTFY.

I totally agree that there's evidence that prayer doesn't work during scientifically controlled experiments. That, of course, is a much different claim than "prayer doesn't work".

No, there isn't.

 

[Malerin]

Why is god sneaking around?

Ask God.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ask God.

Tail chasing.

 

[tsig]

The fact that experiments have shown prayer doesn't work doesn't really mean that there is evidence that prayer doesn't work?! Is Malerin taking the piss?

His god is a urinal.

 

[qayak]

Do you admit that a supernatural being could interact with the universe and could not be easily detected? If not, I want evidence for your assertions.

No, I do not admit that at all. It is a claim you make so you are required to provide evidence. Please do so.

A being, existing inside our universe without being governed by the laws of our universe would be very easy to detect. Just think about what happens when you suspend the laws of the universe in one area. What does that do to the rest?

I'm not trying to provide evidence.

Which is why your claim is failing miserably. Without evidence you have a claim that is not supported by available evidence.

Something is always happening. What exactly do you want me to show is "happening"?

You're the one making the claim so please provide evidence that verifies your claim. Your claim not only relies on what "could" happen but it relies on all the other "coulds" being wrong. So, it could be the tooth fairy saving the kids from falling which is also a strike against your god's intervention. other strikes would be the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Puff the Magic Dragon, etc.

It wasn't mean to be evidence. Just an anecdote. I don't know if God messes with people in this way. Maybe my wife played a trick on me.

"An argument must be, for or against, something to have any meaning." You make claims and provide evidence (anecdotes are evidence by the way) and then when that evidence is debunked you claim the evidence wasn't meant to support your point.

The burden of proof is on YOU to show why a supernatural being would be "quite easy to detect".

Already done. It just requires a little thinking on your part. Think about the consequences of what you are saying. Let's say god suspended the laws of gravity on Mars . . . what would happen to the rest of the solar system?

Let's say god performed on of the bible miracles again. Let's say he stopped the sun again. What would the consequences be. Ooooops! That miracle was based on ignorance by the author. God didn't stop the sun, did he? he stopped the Earth because it is the rotation of the Earth that makes the sun appear to move. What would the consequences of that be?

By the way, the bronze aged people didn't actually detect that one. No other reference is given, anywhere in history for that having happened and you would think that if the Earth stopped rotating, the consequences of that would not only be felt all over the world but would be worthy of reporting. And yet, nothing.

One person making up a story and idiots 3000 years later believe it.

So you admit your assertion is wrong?

No, I am asking you to provide evidence to the thing you claim is happening.

You fail to understand simple logic. Even if you had managed to debunk my claim it doesn't support yours. Until there is evidence for yours, we can rule that out as happening. People have been looking for thousands of years for the evidence you need and they haven't found it.

I don't really care about the Christian Bible. Did you assume I did for some reason?

Well then, it would appear it is time for you to define what you mean by the word "god" if you are going to ask me questions about it. Rest assured, any god you point to will have a set of beliefs that go along with it. I suspect their definition of "dead" is going to be pretty much the same as what the men who created them thought in regard to death.

For instance, if you are talking about the jewish god, well, there is no eternal life. Dead is dead.

 

[qayak]

His god is a urinal.

More likely the sink.

 

[tsig]

Because he doesn't want anyone to catch him.

If you had his rap sheet you'd be on the lam, too.

If I was god I'd just blame it all on you.

 

[tsig]

Ask God.

Did.

 

[tsig]

Tail chasing.

This sums up the mystical search. When you can get your nose completely up your anus and convince yourself that no one has ever smelt a scent like that you have achieved enlightenment.

 

[Malerin]

Do you admit that a supernatural being could interact with the universe and could not be easily detected? If not, I want evidence for your assertions.

No, I do not admit that at all. It is a claim you make so you are required to provide evidence. Please do so.

Whoah, stop right there. Logic lesson incoming: asserting the possible truth of a logically consistent proposition does not require evidence.

Is it possible there's a Flarng who likes Quargs living in the Adromeda Galaxy? Yes, so long as the existence of "Flarng" and "Quargs" does not create a logical contradiction. Do I have to provide any evidence? No. In modal terms, there's at least one possible world where a Flarng living in the Andromeda Galaxy likes Quargs.

Is a supernatural being who only acts when undected a logical contradiction? No. Am I claiming such a being exists? No. Am I claiming it's possible such a being exists. Yes.

Does that invalidate your claim that a supernatural being would* be easy to detect? Yes.

So you have two moves at this point: You can back up your claim or argue that a supernatural being who intervenes when not being detected is logically impossible. Either one requires much more evidence/argumentation than you've given so far.

*Note here that you do not say COULD be easy to detect, but rather the more assertive WOULD. The use of "would" means you're making an actual claim about supernatural beings (that if they exist, they are easy to detect). This is called an "assertion". It is typically followed by some kind of reasoning or evidence. Maybe you meant to say "could". Did you?

 

[tsig]

Whoah, stop right there. Logic lesson incoming: asserting the possible truth of a logically consistent proposition does not require evidence.

Is it possible there's a Flarng who likes Quargs living in the Adromeda Galaxy? Yes, so long as the existence of "Flarng" and "Quargs" does not create a logical contradiction. Do I have to provide any evidence? No. In modal terms, there's at least one possible world where a Flarng living in the Andromeda Galaxy likes Quargs.

Is a supernatural being who only acts when undected a logical contradiction? No. Am I claiming such a being exists? No. Am I claiming it's possible such a being exists. Yes.

Does that invalidate your claim that a supernatural being would* be easy to detect? Yes.

So you have two moves at this point: You can back up your claim or argue that a supernatural being who intervenes when not being detected is logically impossible. Either one requires much more evidence/argumentation than you've given so far.

*Note here that you do not say COULD be easy to detect, but rather the more assertive WOULD. The use of "would" means you're making an actual claim about supernatural beings (that if they exist, they are easy to detect). This is called an "assertion". It is typically followed by some kind of reasoning or evidence. Maybe you meant to say "could". Did you?

It is however totally irrelevant.

 

[qayak]

Whoah, stop right there. Logic lesson incoming: asserting the possible truth of a logically consistent proposition does not require evidence

Whoah! Stop right there. Your claim is not logically consistent. It hinges on things that are logically inconsistent.

 

[Malerin]

Whoah! Stop right there. Your claim is not logically consistent. It hinges on things that are logically inconsistent.

See, now we're getting somewhere. But again, you've only asserted something. You have to follow this up by explaining which "things" are logically inconsistent and why they're logically inconsistent.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm interested too. Although I don't believe in the undectable supernatural being(s) and think they're physically impossible, I don't see what would make them logically impossible.

 

[thaiboxerken]

FTFY.

I totally agree that there's evidence that prayer doesn't work during scientifically controlled experiments. That, of course, is a much different claim than "prayer doesn't work".

If it doesn't work during experiments, why would it work outside of experiments?

 

[Malerin]

If it doesn't work during experiments, why would it work outside of experiments?

You're assuming a supernatural being wouldn't care if it's interventions in the world are being scrutinized. You don't know that. It may have a very good reason for staying on the periphery of scientific inquiry.

That is why you can only conclude prayer is not efficacious in a scientifically controlled setting. Concluding anything else is presuming to know the mind and motives of a supernatural being. It's quite possible that outside of scientific studies people who are prayed for have a 20% better chance of recovery than those that aren't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh.. so you just like to dismiss scientific endeavors into whether or not your version of a god exists or can answer prayers. Gotcha.

 

[qayak]

See, now we're getting somewhere. But again, you've only asserted something. You have to follow this up by explaining which "things" are logically inconsistent and why they're logically inconsistent.

I'm still waiting for you to define what you mean by "God."

And you need to define what constitutes "proving it" to you which you have also been remiss in doing.

 

[Malerin]

I'm still waiting for you to define what you mean by "God."

I thought we were talking about supernatural beings that could intervene in the physical world undected? That seems pretty straightforward. No need to get bogged down in God-talk.

So I ask again: where's the logical contradiction?

And you need to define what constitutes "proving it" to you which you have also been remiss in doing.

Define "proving it"? What on Earth for? If your argument for the logical inconsistency of the aforementioned supernatural being is valid and sound, I'll congratulate you and change my mind.
So far you haven't given an argument. So I repeat: what are the logical inconsistencies of such a being and why are they logically inconsistent?

And you have an audience besides me now. Mr. Agenda wants to know too

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're assuming a supernatural being wouldn't care if it's interventions in the world are being scrutinized. You don't know that. It may have a very good reason for staying on the periphery of scientific inquiry.

That is why you can only conclude prayer is not efficacious in a scientifically controlled setting. Concluding anything else is presuming to know the mind and motives of a supernatural being. It's quite possible that outside of scientific studies people who are prayed for have a 20% better chance of recovery than those that aren't.

You do know, I hope, that this is an example of an apology for why one sees no evidence of God. Maybe God is hiding from being seen.

Let's look closer at that claim.

It is the God of the Bible people are praying to that we are talking about.

Is there anything in the Bible that says, God wants you to have faith in Him and a lack of evidence is somehow key to that faith?

No. Supposedly the people who fled the Pharaoh in Egypt after God performed numerous miracles from killing first borns to parting a sea, the people quickly forgot all that and built an inanimate golden calf to worship.

Just where is it from the Garden of Eden on that God gives instruction in the Bible to believe in Him without evidence from here on out?