Prayer and power

[Bri]

The belief is not supported by and evidence.

That isn't quite true. There is evidence, but not evidence that you (or I) would accept. But then again, I don't think an opinion must be supported by evidence to be rational.

Sorry Bri, believing in something that is counter to the laws of physics IS irrational by definition.

Which definition of "irrational" are you using? I can't find a definition that refers to the laws of physics.

BTW, have you ever seen a pig fly?

No, I haven't.

I appologize. It does say obvious.

Not a problem.

NO, THEY CAN'T! This is silly and is itself irrational.

Well...OK then! Tell us what you really think!

-Bri

 

[empeake]

The premise... ...may sometimes be true yet I've given one example (and there are many) of where it isn't true. To draw conclusions based on an idea that at times isn't true will only give you a viable conclusion accidentally.

And yet, you are doing the exactly same thing: basing your discussion on the Bible, that at times isn't true. Nice double standard.

Now I really suspect that Ossai is a sock puppet and not inclined to do their own thinking...

Could you be kind enough to clarify this statement, both for me and Ossai?

...so as far as I can tell the matter is settled.

What matter? Or is it just an excuse to avoid a rational discussion?

 

[empeake]

Seriously, I understand your point, but I still cannot say that under no circumstance would it be rational to hold an opinion that something that seems to violate the laws of physics is possible. It is, after all, possible.

Could you rephrase this? I'm really confused about what you trying to say.

 

[I less than three logic]

Just wanted to state I gave you all fair warning. I found that getting him to answer a question directly is only slightly less painful than pulling teeth.

I would warn you though, that debating AgingYoung is truly an exercise in futility. It is, however, not without its entertainment value.

 

[empeake]

Just wanted to state I gave you all fair warning. I found that getting him to answer a question directly is only slightly less painful than pulling teeth.

Yes, and thanks for the warning. However, as a skeptic (and occasional intellectual masochist), I had to see it for myself.

 

[Genesius]

Just wanted to state I gave you all fair warning. I found that getting him to answer a question directly is only slightly less painful than pulling teeth.

I would warn you though, that debating AgingYoung is truly an exercise in futility. It is, however, not without its entertainment value.

True, but what else can one do for amusement around here? All the really entertaining woos are in the CT threads. No more "Interesting" Ian, no more Iacchus. . .

 

[Bri]

Could you rephrase this? I'm really confused about what you trying to say.

I'm saying that it is possible that violations of the laws of physics occur, although there is no confirmed evidence of it. Therefore, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that such violations exist, despite a lack of confirmed evidence. Similarly, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system even though there is no confirmed evidence of it.

-Bri

 

[AgingYoung]

empeake,
To your point ....

And yet, you are doing the exactly same thing: basing your discussion on the Bible, that at times isn't true. Nice double standard.

AgingYoung
Since all those premises are based on the bible, the bible, or at least large sections, are obviously not true, other sections contradict more current knowledge and other parts contradict itself then the only conclusion to be drawn is that the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

Ossai

Is there some other way to address an allegation about the bible without then looking at this same bible?

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm saying that it is possible that violations of the laws of physics occur, although there is no confirmed evidence of it. Therefore, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that such violations exist, despite a lack of confirmed evidence. Similarly, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system even though there is no confirmed evidence of it.

-Bri

I would say that it is possible that our current understanding of the laws of physics could be flawed. Finding something that violated them would require us to change the law, this is what science is all about. However, I don't believe anything can actually violate the laws of physics, only defy our current definition.

 

[empeake]

Is there some other way to address an allegation about the bible without then looking at this same bible?

I do not agree with Ossai's line of reasoning to conclude that the Bible is a lie, but I do agree with him/her that it does contain many falsehoods, discrepancies, and inconsistencies, and therefore it must not be taken at face value.

In your specific case, the double standard I'm referring to is that you brush aside Ossai's arguments by pointing out parts of the Bible that are true (all of them archaelogical references, so far), and at the same time fail to address the parts that Ossai has pointed out to be false. You take the Bible at face value when it suits you, but forget about it when it doesn't, resorting to straw men.

BTW, you still haven't explained your "sock puppet" comments (another prime example of the straw men you like so much).

 

[AgingYoung]

empeake,

In your specific case, the double standard I'm referring to is that you brush aside Ossai's arguments by pointing out parts of the Bible that are true(all of them archaelogical references, so far), and at the same time fail to address the parts that Ossai has pointed out to be false.

If every instance of information we get (adding to the collective 'current knowledge') would disprove the bible then there would be no reason to think that some future information would substantiate the bible. In as much as the premise

• 2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

is sometimes true and sometimes false I see no reason to use it to base any decision on; either for the veracity or against it of the Bible.

• A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

I'd be glad to explain the facts of the sock puppet as soon as you can relate it to ...

BTW, you still haven't explained your "sock puppet" comments (another prime example of the straw men you like so much).

a misrepresentation of any idea that Ossai has.



Gene

 

[empeake]

• A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

I'd be glad to explain the facts of the sock puppet as soon as you can relate it to ...

a misrepresentation of any idea that Ossai has.

Read your own words:

Now I really suspect that Ossai is a sock puppet and not inclined to do their own thinking so as far as I can tell the matter is settled.

You are misrepresenting Ossai's position the moment you accuse him/her of not doing his/her own thinking. Your logical fallacy is that Ossai is a sock puppet. Does it get any clearer than this?

And you still keep avoiding an explanation of a) why you accuse Ossai of being a sock puppet, and b) why you do it when replying to one of my posts, instead of addressing Ossai directly.

 

[AgingYoung]

BTW, you still haven't explained your "sock puppet" comments (another prime example of the straw men you like so much).

And you still keep avoiding an explanation of a) why you accuse Ossai of being a sock puppet, and b) why you do it when replying to one of my posts, instead of addressing Ossai directly.

Well, you asked.

Gene

 

[empeake]

Well, you asked.

And you still have failed to provide an answer.

*Sigh*

Trying to have a rational discussion with you has been very enlightening: now I understand the purpose of the "Ignore list".

 

[Genesius]

And you still have failed to provide an answer.

Join the club. He's been ignoring/avoiding me & thaiboxerken all day. . .

 

[Tricky]

I'm saying that it is possible that violations of the laws of physics occur, although there is no confirmed evidence of it. Therefore, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that such violations exist, despite a lack of confirmed evidence. Similarly, it is not necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system even though there is no confirmed evidence of it.

-Bri

Here is what I see as the difference between these two scenarios.

As regards the laws of physics, let us ask some questions.

• Have we observed things that conform to the known laws of physics? Yes
• Have we had many such observations? Yes
• Have we observed things which fall outside the known laws of physics? Vanishingly few, and they have always been because we were unaware of the laws of physics.

Now compare that with life on other planets

• Have we observed life on other planets? No, but we've only closely examined one other planet.
• Have we many observations of other planets to determine if there is life? No.
• Have we observed planets on which life (as we know it) is highly unlikely. Yes, but only a few.

So as you can see, these are two very different questions. One is based on numerous observations while another is based on almost no data at all. So to say that finding exceptions to the laws of physics is just as likely as there being life on other planets is not even close to being correct. It is comparing lots of information versus virtually no information.

 

[empeake]

Join the club. He's been ignoring/avoiding me & thaiboxerken all day. . .

And Ossai, and Meffy...

 

[AgingYoung]

AgingYoung
How about addressing the specific examples I gave instead of slaying thy men of straw.
I specified sections, not the entire bible. My second premise stands untouched. I even game examples supporting my statement. You on the other hand, must prove the bible 100% true in order to defeat my second point.

Ossai

AgingYoung
Since all those premises are based on the bible,
the bible, or at least large sections, are obviously not true,
other sections contradict more current knowledge and
other parts contradict itself
then the only conclusion to be drawn is that
the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

Ossai

Do you honestly think calling your premise a point yet also saying that I restated your premise in any way (ye men of straw) would led to any meaningful debate? You're joking, right?

You may want to explain how I misrepresented your premise. Don't take that hand out of your backside and ask it.

Gene

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung

2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

may sometimes be true yet I've given one example (and there are many) of where it isn't true. To draw conclusions based on an idea that at times isn't true will only give you a viable conclusion accidentally.

It was a general statement that may sometimes be true. You are claiming that one section may have been proven true therefore the general statement is false. Sorry, but that’s illogical.
An example of what you are stating and your strawman.
O: Some cars are green.
AY: I see a blue car, therefore no cars are green.
You are taking the AY statement as disproving the O statement. There is no contradiction involved at all between the two statements.

What I’m actually saying.
O: Some cars are green.
AY: I see a blue car.

The presence of some green cars does not exclude other colors. You are arguing ‘all cars are green’ when that was never stated.

Now I really suspect that Ossai is a sock puppet and not inclined to do their own thinking so as far as I can tell the matter is settled.

I’m not a sock puppet. Check my join date and past posts verses anyone else. Now how about answering the allegations put forth.

The following can clearly be stated about the bible and the information contained within:
1. God, as portrayed by most Christians is omniscient
2. Some believers state that the bible is divinely inspired by
3. All information from one source, god, although the presentation and style would vary depending on the human being used to write the message the information originated directly from god.
4. Sections of the bible are not true as defined in two areas
a) Old information that more modern information refutes (see previous list)
b) Internal biblical contradictions (see previous list)

Given the above, the logical conclusion to be drawn is that the source of the information lied about the information or lied about being omniscient. Either way, god lied.


Bri

Christian belief in prayer is consistent with our observations of the real world given that they don't require any and all prayers to be granted.

Ah, but they want their prayer to be answered and a large number of people expect it. If they didn’t then they are suffering (or at least acting as if suffering) from a mild form of mental illness.

empeake

BTW, you still haven't explained your "sock puppet" comments (another prime example of the straw men you like so much).

Psst, the sock puppet comment was a combination of ad hominem and poisoning the well, varying degrees of each.

Ossai

 

[AgingYoung]

It was a general statement that may sometimes be true. You are claiming that one section may have been proven true therefore the general statement is false. Sorry, but that’s illogical.

psst, that's still not a strawman as you alleged. I didn't restate your weak point that it seems you now admit may sometimes be true. It equally can sometimes be false. Not the sort of premise I'd base any meaningful conclusion on.

Gene