Prayer and power

[Bri]

What you fail to understand Bri is that we can make estimates for each of the variables using logic and reason. It is not exact science but it is science.

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%. I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason. Sorry, logic and reason don't help at all when there is no evidence upon which to use them. No objective criteria can make any particular value you place there better than any other (except perhaps "0" given the lack of evidence).

The difference is that the probability of prayer using your equation is completely arbitrary. There is no reason to assume those variables.

Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation. That's my point. Given the current (lack of) evidence, there is no objective criteria upon which to base such a decision.

Scientists can come up with reasonable estimates based on their understanding of the universe. Huge difference.

What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence).

It's not that simple, scientists can use objective criteria to arrive at reasonable estimates.

But not when there is little or no evidence. Sorry, science can't arrive at reasonable estimates out of thin air any more than Christians can arrive at a reasonable estimate for the percentage of prayers that are answered by a God who might not want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%. I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason. Sorry, logic and reason don't help at all when there is no evidence upon which to use them. No objective criteria can make any particular value you place there better than any other (except perhaps "0" given the lack of evidence).



Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation. That's my point. Given the current (lack of) evidence, there is no objective criteria upon which to base such a decision.



What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence).



But not when there is little or no evidence. Sorry, science can't arrive at reasonable estimates out of thin air any more than Christians can arrive at a reasonable estimate for the percentage of prayers that are answered by a God who might not want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100. So you can't have 0% nor 100%, and you wouldn't need 50%, given the size of the universe having a .000000000001% chance of having an Earth-like planet form around a Sun-like star you could still expect to find countless numbers of them. Also, I think you're not giving any weight to the fact that life exists here on Earth, which like it or not, is just another, very small, part of the universe. That, along with the possibility of other Earth-like planets, provides some, albeit a very small, amount of evidence supporting the idea that life may exist within other parts of the universe.

 

[Beth]

My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100.

My understanding of Drake's equation is that 0 and 100 are possible values for some of the variables.

 

[Bri]

My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100. So you can't have 0% nor 100%, and you wouldn't need 50%, given the size of the universe having a .000000000001% chance of having an Earth-like planet form around a Sun-like star you could still expect to find countless numbers of them. Also, I think you're not giving any weight to the fact that life exists here on Earth, which like it or not, is just another, very small, part of the universe. That, along with the possibility of other Earth-like planets, provides some, albeit a very small, amount of evidence supporting the idea that life may exist within other parts of the universe.

Yes, you're right. 0% would mean that there is no chance at all that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system (i.e. 0% would mean that it's impossible). By the same token, the chances of God existing and of prayer working are greater than 0% also (meaning that it's possible).

I agree that there is weak evidence that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system -- enough that in my opinion a belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system cannot be considered necessarily irrational. It is also my opinion that the weak evidence for other beliefs such as prayer or God cannot be considered necessarily irrational for the same reason.

My point is that which beliefs you would consider to be "more rational" than others would be a matter of opinion, based on how you interpret the little evidence that is available.

My other point is that a statement such as "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't very meaningful when applied to unfalsifiable opinions unless you apply it to ALL unfalsifiable opinions, including those that might be generally considered rational. We all hold such opinions, and I don't think that the only rational opinion on such matters is to not have one.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

My understanding of Drake's equation is that 0 and 100 are possible values for some of the variables.

Yes, but only if you have reason to believe that any of the variables are impossible (i.e. that life cannot evolve on any other planets, that intelligent life can never evolve from that life, that intelligent life can never communicate with us, etc). The only reason I can think of to put 0% would be because of a complete lack of evidence, but even that isn't really a good reason to insist that it's impossible.

At any rate, the site doesn't allow you to put a 0% into its interactive calculator, although I imagine that numbers lower than the allowed values (0.0001%) could be reaonably argued. If you put in 0.0001% into fl and fi, leaving the others at their default, you get 0.00000001 communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Bottom line: if you believe that any of the variables have a very low probability of occurring, the equation will result in a very low probability of even 1 communicating civilization in the galaxy.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Well, I guess meaning is relative then. I will just insist that something can work without us knowing how it works...if you believe the earth is billions of years old this is pretty much the way it has *always* been, with the knowledge of how things work being a blip of a blip of a blip. Things have always worked, definitions notwithstanding.

Yes. But we still know what “working” means, even if we don’t know how, and we can show specific, objective outcomes which indicate working or not-working. With prayer, which at the minimum includes communication with God, you cannot tell if it is working because there is no specific, objective outcome that can be shown.

And if irrationality (as you and others see it) is not demonstrably irrational for everyone, how can you possibly call it irrationality?

The word to use isn't *can*, because clearly people can call things anything they want. Also, objective truth, imo, doesn't have to be demonstrably true for everyone.

Properly defined, irrationality can be demonstrated for everyone.

But we are going to get into semantics again if we pursue this. I strongly disagree with your concept of objective truth. I could say “the world is flat, but I don’t have to demonstrate it for it to be true.”

I guess the analogy breaks down at "if it were exposed as a fake"...also, the heartfelt communication would be independent of outside intervention...as, with the letter, you'd need another *person* to get the letter to the son, whereas with prayer it's about the individual and God and nobody else.

I’m aware that for many people, there is nothing that would expose God as a fake. Not the ineffectiveness of prayer, not theodicy, not anything.

Your phrase..."rational for them to believe it".

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Not rational *independent* of the individual, but rational *for* the individual.

I said this to Bri, and I’ll say it again. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational. (IMO, as always). I do not agree that “rational” varies from person to person. If it did, there would be no insane asylums.

Maybe. Again, I'd prefer right or wrong. Right and wrong are independent of thinking process, which I think is the difference between rational and right/wrong. Rational/irrational is a process, right and wrong just are.

I wouldn’t want to confuse those concepts. Right and wrong are most often thought of as moral judgments. You can be rational, but still wrong (by my moral standards).

I'm trying to determine the vitality of the particular charge of irrationality. That may or may not be relevant. Since I view rationality/irrationality as closely associated with the individual, I'm also interested in the consequences of the matter to the individual.

Consequences? I think I may see how you are using the word “rational”. You could say, “It is rational to believe in God because I’ll feel better if I do, and I want to feel better.” I suppose I can’t dispute that such a situation can be described as “rational”. Problem is, it makes everything rational. Substitute “kill my parents” for “believe in God” in the above sentence and it’s still rational, by that definition. I don’t think that is a particularly good way to define the word.

Of course I accept that God is an imaginary being to some.

This is why I ask you if you have a definition of the phrase “imaginary being”. Start with the definition. See if God fits that definition. If He does, He is imaginary. If he doesn’t, try some other things like unicorns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters, and if they also come up as “not imaginary”, then your definition may need some work.

Good question! I can't recall my/me ever saying, or telling someone, that something is imaginary. I'm sure I have. But nothing is coming to mind. Even with Santa Claus, and I've talked to several kids about Santa Claus...I've never told a kid that Santa Claus is imaginary. You look around and you see Santa Clauses. You talk about it reasonably with the kid...and whaddya know...at a certain age the kid comes to a realization and you don't have to be pedantic about it. No need to label the idea either.

Now, do I consider the idea of Santa Claus (guy living at the North Pole) imagainary? Sure. Do I obsess over that fact? No. I have an opinion about it, and I don't think about it that much. I only think about the fact that Santa Claus is imaginary when I am confronted with that statement on these boards. Believe it or not, most other communities have no need to dwell on that fact.

See, that’s the thing. You are changing your definition of “Santa Claus” for different purposes. Is he the guy in the fake beard at the department store, or is he the guy at the north pole? One of them is real and the other is imaginary, but they are not the same guy.

But I wouldn’t say we skeptics obsess over Santa or unicorns or other “imaginary” creatures. We use them as examples to show the characteristics of imaginary creatures so that one who does believe in imaginary beings can see how similar their beliefs are to Santa and unicorns.

Fair enough. I don't think you're an ubermensch.

I’m not that clear on the concept, so I wouldn’t be insulted even if you did.

With search for truth, I think you'd agree with me that the skeptical person considers him/herself to be continually searching for truth. It doesn't stop. The non-skeptical person, or assuredly religious person, thinks that he/she has found the truth, and there's no need to keep searching. That doesn't mean that a religious person won't search for the truth in other avenues of course (maybe he/she is a detective or an auditor as a profession).

I'm just pointing out that the skeptic actually does believe that they have found the truth, and the truth is that they should continually search for the truth. That is the truth, and they are as dogmatic about that particular truth as religious are dogmatic about their religious truths.

That's what I meant when I brought up need. This need fuels the dogmatic belief that it is good to continually search for the truth and have threshholds for accepting truth and all that. I'm not placing a value judgment on that. I'm just saying that it's a need.

I always say that each of us is part skeptic and part believer. I don’t think you would find many if any believers who would agree that they have stopped searching for truth. Every one I’ve ever heard says they are still learning.

So we both look for truth. Where we differ is in what we think is the best way to find truth. I hold that truth must be the same for everyone. If I read you correctly, you believe that truth can be personal.

As far as “need” goes, I’d agree that I need to find truth, but I wouldn’t call that “religious”. I’d say that the history of mankind has been defined by that need.

See, the religious think that truth is *unavoidable*. Searching for it...I won't say it's a waste of time...but we're gonna be smacked upside the head with it in the next one. The other aspect is that of faith, which is basically anathema to most here (nevermind that I can prove that there is such a think as a skeptical faith, if only because you need to have faith in the value of being a skeptic to be a skeptic). Not only do we believe that it's good to have faith, but we're also commanded to have faith. And again, that's not talking about *everything*, of course you can be skeptical in worldly matters and non-skeptical in religious matters, although some here are probably skeptical of *that* as well.

I find it frustrating that so many believers try to equate skepticism with faith when they are polar opposites. Skepticism says “no” to belief without evidence. Faith requires belief without evidence. “The faith of skepticism” is about as nonsensical a phrase as “The god of atheism”. Let’s not let that serpent bite its tail.

Right. Now, when the Christian says that he/she is bearing a cross, we understand that we share in the suffering of Christ when we do just that. I think you're lacking that particular understanding.

The phrase is used in various ways. I understand the religious symbolism, but surely you know that many writers, including Christians, use it to mean “that is my own personal burden.” I used it in that sense, and as what was obviously a very lame jest.

Depends how you define fruit, or fruitless?

As in “not achieving what you set out for”, such as going to heaven. If there is no heaven, then all the time you spent working towards improving your post-life scenario will have been fruitless. Of course, the good you do while on Earth will not be fruitless, but that is true whether you do it in Jesus’ name or not.

If religious people have a dozen kids out of a sense of religious obligation, I think it would be absurd to call that a fruitless pursuit of life. A lot of great books have been written by religious types, great music, even great science.

I think we live lives. When we live, we do things. Wasting time is an external judgment, a subjective estimation. Do dogs and cats waste their lives anymore than people do? How about plants?

Of course you have the right to judge a Christian as having lived a complete waste of a life, but that's best kept to yourself in my opinion. Just an opinion is as welcome as picketting a person's funeral telling the dead that they were this that and the other thing because their worldview failed to correspond to your own.

I’m not even vaguely suggesting that Christians have “completely” wasted their lives. I’m just saying that the time they spent planning for their afterlife was wasted if it turns out there is none. Each one of those accomplishments you mention has happened (or will happen) whether you are correct or not about God. The pyramids are still marvelous, even if Tut was wrong about his deity.

I can see this unfortunate choice of words rankles you a bit. I apologize.

Try this for an analogy, considering our earthly life only.

Suppose Jack spends years planning his retirement. He makes vacation plans, studies books about foreign lands, reserves nice lodging in scenic locales et. al. Then suppose Jack drops dead of a heart attack on the day he retires. Did Jack waste his time? No, not really. He probably got a lot of pleasure doing that planning, but would he have had such pleasure if he had strong evidence that he was not going to be able to fulfill those plans? I’m guessing not. But still, it wasn’t a waste of time because there was a good chance that he was going to do all those things after he retired. After all, he had seen many retirees and heard them talk about what fun they had in exotic places. There was a whole bunch of evidence that many people do retire and have fun.

But suppose Jack had never seen a retiree and in fact never heard from a single person ever again after they retired. In short, he had no evidence that life after retirement existed. Would it then have been a waste of time to plan his retirement? I think, based on the evidence, you could say so.

Have you personally heard from a single person who has “retired” to heaven?

Even though I disagree with you about everything, I don't think you're wasting your life. How could you be wasting your life? You're living it, and it's not my place to judge you, even if you were the world's biggest procrastinator, because even then you'd be living your life and not wasting it. I guess suicide would qualify as a waste of life, but even then, maybe suicide may bring others to certain levels they wouldn't otherwise reach, I dunno.

Again, I did not mean to suggest that you had wasted your life, only the time you spend planning for your afterlife when all you have ever seen is the brochure.

Exactly. That's my point. If I'm right, and you're wrong, we're still what we are, nothing has changed, my being right and you're being wrong doesn't change objective reality, and we'll both deal with the ramifications of the existence of God as best we can. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll both be nothing, and that's about the only perfect equalizer in existence.

Agreed, as long as you keep Pascal out of the debate.

I care in my own way, don't you think?

Certainly. You even care about objective truth… sometimes.

I think'll you'll get what you want eventually.

I’d be glad if there was a loving and caring God. But I wouldn’t be glad if God existed as He is described in the Bible.

And the religious believe that everything is evidence of God's work. I guess it's contingent on the individual, but that's also basic theology.

It’s pretty much a given. If you believe in a god that created everything, then you are going to think everything is evidence of that god. It doesn’t matter which god. Lightning is evidence of Zeus, right?

But before people had any conception of evidence (ummm...maybe just articulated conception?) they had a good handle on what was real and what wasn't. Also, I see no reason to be content with accepting things in a defined and confined reality, although I recognize that some can only be content with that. Again, it's up to the individual.

Yes. It is up to the individual... sort of. I could not sincerely believe in Christ even if I tried (which I did, long ago), and I’m guessing you couldn’t force yourself to disbelieve in God.

 

[Tricky]

I am told repeatedly that God (meaning the Christian God) wants us to know Him and His son. An omnipotent God could easily let us know Him, yet He chooses not to. (And I mean "know" as objective knowledge, not faith) This is strong evidence against the Christian concept of God.

God wants us to know him through FAITH. That is the Christian concept of God. You are asking for knowledge independent of faith. So your conclusion does not follow in the slightest.

You are equating faith with knowledge (which I clearly differentiated). I do not believe that you can "know" from faith. You can only "believe". Your dismissal of my conclusion is dismissed.

 

[RandFan]

The statement you made about God having the power to grant any prayer but choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does not seem to contradict any Christian belief that I've seen.

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of. Are your anecdotes somehow better than mine? I keep telling you that Christian belief isn't monolithic. There is a great diversity of belief.

They're all reasonable and logical. Any one of them could be true. Or there could be a reason that none of us knows about that could be true.

This is irrational thinking. That all things are possible is not a basis for believing in anything other than all things are possible.

So, I was right when I said that all beliefs are irrational by that definition.

No more than day = night. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. Rationality isn't an absolute. There is no reason to believe that there are absolute truths or absolutely rational arguments. All theories are held provisionally. This doesn't mean that every thing is both rational and irrational or equally rational and irrational.

To say that my logic leads to the conclusion that all beliefs are both rational and irrational is to say that all time is both day and night.

I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

Nor can you use induction or deduction to arrive at the conclusion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is true. You can only show that it is possible, not that it is true.

No, I can demonstrate that it is, to a degree, probable. That's the difference. The moon being made of green cheese is possible. It is not probable.

Exactly. And if I don't accept your premise of the probability of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, then the proposition that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is also false.

We can use induction to calculate the degree of probability. We can't for prayer.

If you reword it as "I have reason to believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this" then the word "reason" is definition #3.

No, it is (#1).

You can argue over how strong the reason (#1) is after the "because" but the word reason falls under definition #3.

If this were correct then the dictionary would, by your logic, be tautological. To you #1 = #3.

Oh, I didn't see that criteria in the definition #3. It simply said "an underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." All of the reasons (#1) listed after "because" are underlying facts that provide logical sense for the premise "prayer works," therefore the statements themselves are examples of definition #3.

No, not "logical" sense. If the moon were made of cheese it would be edible is logically valid. It is not REASON to think we could eat the moon. "Logical sense" isn't anything logical. If I believed that the moon were made of green cheese then I would have motivation to build a rocket to go to the moon to eat it. That would fit #1, it wouldn't fit #3 because it doesn't really make "logical sense".

IF prayer fits the definition THEN prayer is irrational.

Thank you.

su·per·sti·tion
n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

What you fail to understand is that the dictionary isn't simply listing what superstition is. By your logic the superstition is A.) An irrational belief AND an action not logically related to a course of events. This is not correct. If it were then the dictionary would be making the very error that you are accusing me of. It would simply be lumping it into an irrational belief.

This idea of your is wrong. The dictionary, being the dictionary, is explaining why it is an irrational belief.

A superstition isn't logically connected to the events that they are supposed to be connected to.

Now, what is meant by "logically connected"? Does it mean any imaginable connection? No, it means that the connection should be obvious via inference.

Supernatural events are supernatural precisely because they lack such logical connections.

I can logically deduce that Zeus causes lightning but there is no logical connection between Zeus and lightning.

Then please demonstrate it.

You can lead a horse to watter...

 

[RandFan]

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%.

Between 0 and 100 isn't 0.

I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason.

None that any reasonable person would accept.

Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation.

That's not true, there is reason. Lot's of reason.

What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence).

No, that is not correct. It is greater than zero and less that 100. Given the sheer number of galxies in our solar system it would be rather ignorant of what we actually do know about the universe to put it at Zero.

But not when there is little or no evidence.

There's lot's of evidence to reason the probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system. There is no evidence to reason the probability of prayer.

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

In Africa it is believed that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Fathers are raping their young daughters and infecting them (the daughters) in the vain hope that this act, with no evidence and no logical connection to curing any disease or any explanation of how it might work (mechanism), will actually cure AIDS. It's simply believed that the sex act with a virgin, is somehow magical.

All things are possible, right?
This could be true, right?
Now, is it rational?

Fool's Poker: Reasoning about Faith

If your car won't start and you pray about it, you are exhibiting faith. If you call a mechanic, you are applying reason. If you do both, you are straddling a fence.

But, then, how do you evaluate something? To evaluate is to judge. And to judge you need some standard of reference. The only legitimate standard is: reality. And what is man's means of grasping reality? Reason. Oh, and let us not forget about the "see if it makes logical sense" issue. What is "logical sense"? Logic, by definition, is the method of applying—you guessed it—reason.

Acts 17:11 – Faith
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

ETA: Sorry, one more question. Bri, if you would, define for me reasonable doubt?

 

[elliotfc]

I do believe that the New Testament is called a covenant, right? That's an agreement between two or more people, right? The agreement I made, once upon a time, was that I would worship and obey God, and in return, he would love me and help me.

The agreement that you made with God? Meaning, you made an agreement with God and you are certain he accepted the agreement?

Here is a specific definition of covenant as far as the Bible goes.
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/c/98

I kept my end. God didn't.

Right, but God makes the terms of covenants and not us.

I said once before that this left me with only two alternatives: God hates me, or God isn't there.

Right, I don't see why God has to be confined to this dichotomy. It isn't even a dichotomy because one option is God's non-existence. But I do agree that since you have to see this as a dichotomy, you've picked the better of the two choices. It's better to think that God does not exist, than to think God hates you. So you're doing as well as you can as far as I can tell here.

I stand by that, and by my choice to believe God isn't there.
If he is, all he has to do is say so. If he is, he's the most cruel and neglectful parent I've ever heard of, and I have no use for one more ounce of cruelty in my ravaged life, thanks.

Well, if he is, then use is irrelevant, but I don't think objective reality is the issue here, so my point is also irrelevant. Do the best you can I guess.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, our allotments of miracles decrease in size, content and quality as our sophistication increases. There is something at work here that merits our deep suspicion.

I think it's akin to how, as a child grows up, the parent interferes less and less in the child's life. So you are correct, since an increase in sophistication is what is also seen as children grow up.

So now it is my turn to be pedantic, yes? I don't believe in crediting unsubstantiated presuppositions with any reality other than as conjectures.

I don't have a problem with this statement from you.

The metaphysical (I hesitate to use that much-abused term) value here is that either we've established a particular limit to what can be achieved physically in this context, or our understanding thereof (i.e. of that physical reality) is faulty. Either option constitutes valuable knowledge, but note that the latter, if unequivocally observed, would in a sense be a bona fide miracle until such time as we have an improved model of reality.

Right. I don't think that happenstances are contingent on our models of reality. Calling something a miracle has more to do with us then what has happened. It follows from our models of reality. And our models of reality have changed continuously, evolved, etc. I can be content with a working model of reality, but I don't have to make it into a god or anything. Meaning, if an anecdote doesn't conform to a working model of reality, so what? It happened or it didn't happen, that's my main question.

Now, do I have use for working models of reality. Sure. I have use for it. That's all. It isn't my end all and be all, my everything.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You are equating faith with knowledge (which I clearly differentiated).

I don't know if I'm doing that or not...but could we leave that be for a wee bit.

Do we agree that, based on a general understanding of the Bible, that God wants us to know him through faith? That may or may not be a contradiction or a confusion of terms. We can get back to that. I'm just talking about a general conclusion/statement that can be made. We agree that most believers think that God wants us to know him by faith, right?

As for equating faith with knowledge...I think I'm not doing that. I think I'm making faith *greater* than knowledge...at least on this issue, the God issue. As in our knowledge of God follows from our faith in God, the faith coming first, the faith being superior.

I do not believe that you can "know" from faith. You can only "believe". Your dismissal of my conclusion is dismissed.

I can't prove you wrong at this moment in time, nor do I care to. If I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm not sure if even *that* could be proven to you. I, personally, would settle for verification of what I believe, that I know God through my faith. If that's verified, you can still maintain a contrary opinion, but it won't matter any more then, than it does now. We disagree is all. Knowledge, belief, faith, they're all really nice, really useful words. But if I can truly know by faith, it doesn't matter what a dictionary definition of knowledge is, nor does it matter if dictionarians beg to differ.

-Elliot

 

[Cuddles]

No probably about it, there are planets around other stars. So far we've discovered 184 planets (this only includes planets around main sequence stars) and 97 planetary systems.
http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm

None of these planets have been directly observed, their existence has been deduced from the motion or brightness variation of the star. While it seems extremely likely there are other planets there is no direct proof. Even if there were, the little data we have says very little about the abundance of planets since we can currently only detect very large planets close to their parent star. Until we can reliably detect planets of the order of Mercury at large distances from a star, and have surveyed a large proportion of stars in this galaxy we can make no sensible esstimate of the abundance of planets.

Demonstrably untrue.

Demonstate it then. Show me some evidence that would allow any of these probablities to be calculated rather than assumed.

Give me the equivalent of all of the galaxies in the universe and I would happily take that bet.

You would take a bet not knowing the probablity of winning and with no evidence that anyone has ever won?

Please do your homework properly before posting. It helps in minimising the incidence of fatuous statements such as the above.

'Luthon64

Please explain how this is fatuous. Temperature is defined by the kinetic energy of particles. At 0K they have 0 kinetic energy. To go any lower than this requires them to have imaginary velocity, which simply does not exist. With temperature, energy and velocity defined as they are today, my point stands.

 

[Tricky]

Do we agree that, based on a general understanding of the Bible, that God wants us to know him through faith? That may or may not be a contradiction or a confusion of terms. We can get back to that. I'm just talking about a general conclusion/statement that can be made. We agree that most believers think that God wants us to know him by faith, right?

No, I don't agree to that at all. In the Bible, God and Jesus were often performing miracles and God was speaking aloud (or it seems that way from how it is written.) I don't seem to recall anything about how after Jesus is dead, no more good evidence of his divinity would be presented. That seems to be an assumption that is tacked on by some believers. But I also don't agree that most believers think that faith is the only aspect needed for belief. Many (most?) also believe in demonstrable miracles. Of course, they will fall back on "faith" if you ask them how they knew it was God doing the miracle, but they obviously think that God is doing something tangible.

I can't prove you wrong at this moment in time, nor do I care to. If I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm not sure if even *that* could be proven to you. I, personally, would settle for verification of what I believe, that I know God through my faith.

LOL. What sort of verification are you looking for? Will you take it on faith?

We disagree is all. Knowledge, belief, faith, they're all really nice, really useful words. But if I can truly know by faith, it doesn't matter what a dictionary definition of knowledge is, nor does it matter if dictionarians beg to differ.

Yes, we disagree (politely though ). I cannot accept that two people can "know" things that are mutually contradictory, for example, a Christian can "know" that Jesus was the Messiah and a Muslim can "know" that Jesus was not the Messiah. Both are based on faith, yet they cannot both be factually correct. I do not see how such beliefs can be legitimately called "knowledge".

I acknowledge that some lexicographers include religious belief as one description of knowledge, but it would be a mistake to use that definition to conflate belief with factual knowledge.

 

[elliotfc]

Yes. But we still know what “working” means, even if we don’t know how, and we can show specific, objective outcomes which indicate working or not-working. With prayer, which at the minimum includes communication with God, you cannot tell if it is working because there is no specific, objective outcome that can be shown.

So people who say they can tell that prayer is working in their lives...they would be wrong then? Or, is right/wrong irrelevant? Is it more that it's *impossible* to tell whether or not prayer is working in their lives, or is it that people are *wrong* when they say that prayer is working in their lives?

If it's a question of possible/impossible, others can think you're full of it, because others can insist that they can tell that prayer works, and you don't know what you're talking about. Possible/impossible is dependant on what can be done, and maybe others can do something that you can't do. That says more about you than it does about them.

Or, if it's they're simply wrong, I agree they can be wrong as far as you say..."a specific, objective outcome"...but I think that's something added to confirm what you want, prayer being wrong. Forget about a specific objective outcome (I'm not sure if you can). Prayer has been said, for thousands of years, to result in unexpected outcomes. So basically, you're ditching the Christian understanding of prayer by inserting "specific, objective outcome". Fine. I agree that without the Christian understanding of prayer you're making a useful point. But I do have that understanding, so I don't have as much use for your point as you do.

Properly defined, irrationality can be demonstrated for everyone.

I guess so. Or, if I would/could understand your specific defintion of irrationality (though I may disagree with it) I'm sure the label would follow from the definition.

But we are going to get into semantics again if we pursue this. I strongly disagree with your concept of objective truth. I could say “the world is flat, but I don’t have to demonstrate it for it to be true.”

Sure you could say that. People say lots of things. Just saying something doesn't make it objectively true.

I’m aware that for many people, there is nothing that would expose God as a fake. Not the ineffectiveness of prayer, not theodicy, not anything.

I don't have enough faith to believe that statement.

Here's a scenario. Let's say you're a minister, and you're in church with your family setting up for a prayer service. All of a sudden the Jesus on the crucifix turns into flesh and blood and...let's say rapes the minister's whole family and then flays them and then dismembers them. Then the Jesus says that he is an evil spirit, there is no God, Jesus was all a hoax, then he grabs the Bible and he eats it, and then he says after we all die it's only oblivion, then he snaps his fingers and the church bursts into flames. And as the minister burns to death, I think it's quite likely that he could be thinking that God has just been exposed as a fake.

I said this to Bri, and I’ll say it again. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational. (IMO, as always). I do not agree that “rational” varies from person to person. If it did, there would be no insane asylums.

But they're not called irrational societies, are they?

No offense, but I'm bored with the rational/irrational thing so I'll leave it alone. Ending with...I don't need to label people as irrational. If they are, fine. I'm not interetsed in a pursuit of who is irrational, when they are irrational, in what matters are they irrational, etc.

I wouldn’t want to confuse those concepts. Right and wrong are most often thought of as moral judgments. You can be rational, but still wrong (by my moral standards).

Agreed. That's why I introduced this point, because I *don't* confuse the concepts.

Consequences? I think I may see how you are using the word “rational”. You could say, “It is rational to believe in God because I’ll feel better if I do, and I want to feel better.” I suppose I can’t dispute that such a situation can be described as “rational”.

Just to clarify, that's not what I meant, or what I was thinking. I think believers in God have excellent reasons to believe in God, not just that it makes them feel better.

Problem is, it makes everything rational. Substitute “kill my parents” for “believe in God” in the above sentence and it’s still rational, by that definition. I don’t think that is a particularly good way to define the word.

Right, I wouldn't submit rationality to feel-good stuff.

This is why I ask you if you have a definition of the phrase “imaginary being”. Start with the definition. See if God fits that definition. If He does, He is imaginary. If he doesn’t, try some other things like unicorns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters, and if they also come up as “not imaginary”, then your definition may need some work.

An imaginary being exists only in the imagination.

I don't believe that God fits that definition. If he does, you are right, he would be imaginary.

I think flying spaghetti monsters are imaginary. I think that some people have claimed to see unicorns, and maybe there have been horseys with a skull protuberance of some sort. As for fairies, I have mixed feelings.

I think that Christians reject imaginary beings all of the time by the way. For example, I'm continually rejecting imaginary conceptions of God.

See, that’s the thing. You are changing your definition of “Santa Claus” for different purposes. Is he the guy in the fake beard at the department store, or is he the guy at the north pole? One of them is real and the other is imaginary, but they are not the same guy.

OK.

We can go to the North Pole and look for Santa Claus. Maybe some people already have? I think that if you believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, you believe in an imaginary being.

But I wouldn’t say we skeptics obsess over Santa or unicorns or other “imaginary” creatures. We use them as examples to show the characteristics of imaginary creatures so that one who does believe in imaginary beings can see how similar their beliefs are to Santa and unicorns.

I agree that you need to think that God is as imaginary as Santa and unicorns. You can probably realize by now that the comparison does little to impress those who believe in God, and explain that one however you want.

So we both look for truth.

Yes.

Where we differ is in what we think is the best way to find truth.

Well, yeah, sort of. I'd say that we differ in that there can be *multiple* ways to find the truth, and some ways are better in some circumstances than in others. There is no singular way to find the truth.

I hold that truth must be the same for everyone. If I read you correctly, you believe that truth can be personal.

I think there is objective truth, and I also think that there is subjective truth. Of course I think objective truth is greater, but that doesn't mean subjective truth doesn't exist.

No, the truth doesn't *have* to be the same for everyone. Why? What's this *have to* about? People disagree about the truth all the time. They live lives, they die. How does *have to* come into play?

As far as “need” goes, I’d agree that I need to find truth, but I wouldn’t call that “religious”. I’d say that the history of mankind has been defined by that need.

You need to find the truth in a particular way is what I think I was meaning to say, or, you need the truth to conform to a chosen way of accepting truth.

I find it frustrating that so many believers try to equate skepticism with faith when they are polar opposites.

You need to have faith in skepticism to be a skeptic. Faith is greater than skepticism.

Skepticism says “no” to belief without evidence.

But you have faith in the value of that.

Faith requires belief without evidence.

I'd say it doesn't need overwhelming, rigorous evidence. I've said this before, the Bible *is* evidence. If there was no Bible, so much for the Christian faith. Of course I understand that you think it's either really bad evidence, or not evidence as far as scientific inquiry goes. But the believer can *always* point to something to back up their view, even if it's just words in a book, or anecdotal.

“The faith of skepticism” is about as nonsensical a phrase as “The god of atheism”. Let’s not let that serpent bite its tail.

Well it makes sense to me! I agree that there really is no god of atheism, but it has been and can be argued that atheism merely replaces worshipping of god. It fills that void. Thus the atheist is as dogmatic as the theist. Hell, the atheist would probably die for the atheistic belief just as a theist would. Or maybe not.

The phrase is used in various ways. I understand the religious symbolism, but surely you know that many writers, including Christians, use it to mean “that is my own personal burden.” I used it in that sense, and as what was obviously a very lame jest.

No, it wasn't lame, but we take the cross seriously in a sacred sense. Like if someone told me "yeah, I'm an drug addict, that's my cross to bear" but they use that to *enable* or *excuse* their behavior, I think that's pretty despicable. Why bring the cross into it? No, you didn't do anything like that. It's kind of like people (I've heard several) who say things like "I gave up church/religion for Lent" or something like that. Sure it's kind of funny I guess.

As in “not achieving what you set out for”, such as going to heaven. If there is no heaven, then all the time you spent working towards improving your post-life scenario will have been fruitless.

I see. At least in my case, I don't think of myself as trying to go to heaven. Of course millions and millions do. I'm not saying I'm better or worse than them for this difference. Let's say I'm worse. I just don't think about going to heaven. Mainly because I'm not sure what heaven is, and I have unconventional views of what comes next I think.

I think that all efforts bear fruit. Even if it isn't the *main* fruit, that doesn't mean you've wasted your time. Like lets say a scientist spends his life trying to discover a cure for cancer. He never does, but his research leads to other things. His life wasn't a waste just because he never achieved his main goal.

Of course, the good you do while on Earth will not be fruitless, but that is true whether you do it in Jesus’ name or not.

Agreed. And like the Bible says, even if we don't think we're doing something for Jesus, God has no problem telling us otherwise.

I’m not even vaguely suggesting that Christians have “completely” wasted their lives. I’m just saying that the time they spent planning for their afterlife was wasted if it turns out there is none.

OK, I think I see what you're saying now. Like, if someone is sitting in church kind of daydreaming on what heaven would be like. I guess that could/would be wasted time...but ya know...I think that even if there *is* a heaven, that activity would still be a waste of time. We have faith that God has made a special place for each of us. Leave that alone, and stop wasting your time dreaming about it.

But suppose Jack had never seen a retiree and in fact never heard from a single person ever again after they retired. In short, he had no evidence that life after retirement existed. Would it then have been a waste of time to plan his retirement? I think, based on the evidence, you could say so.

Sure, you could say so. It's his time, not mine. I think watching reality TV shows is a waste of time...but *my* time, not someone else's. Hey, if you think it's a waste of time to be religoius, then don't be religious. I don't walk around telling people they're wasting their time when they talk about American Idol, but I am cognizant of the fact that such things are a waste of *my* time. Other people ought to live their lives as they see fit, and I think my judgments...it isn't even that they would be unwelcome or unnecessary...I see the essential element is *myself*. I know what I think is a waste of time, and that's enough for me.

This isn't to say I don't identify time wasters. I've told many kids they're wasting their time when they come to piano/violin lessons. Because they get *nothing* out of it. It bears no fruit whatsoever. There isn't even a goal. It's something to do because your parents think it's neat to be able to tell their friends that their kid is learning an instrument.

Have you personally heard from a single person who has “retired” to heaven?

All the people I know who've died can't afford the postage.

Again, I did not mean to suggest that you had wasted your life, only the time you spend planning for your afterlife when all you have ever seen is the brochure.

If, when you say planning for your afterlife, you're talking about dreaming about what heaven is like, I agree that such a thing would be a waste of time for me. I also think that daydreaming in general is not the best way to use one's time. But daydreaming can also bear fruit, like it may give you ideas for poetry or a novel or something. I dunno.

Would I in general recommend that religious believers not spend time daydreaming about heaven? I think so, but I wouldn't be a doosh about it.

I’d be glad if there was a loving and caring God. But I wouldn’t be glad if God existed as He is described in the Bible.

He gets better as the book progresses, which I think is the point.

It’s pretty much a given. If you believe in a god that created everything, then you are going to think everything is evidence of that god. It doesn’t matter which god. Lightning is evidence of Zeus, right?

Right!

Yes. It is up to the individual... sort of. I could not sincerely believe in Christ even if I tried (which I did, long ago), and I’m guessing you couldn’t force yourself to disbelieve in God.

I'd be skeptical of those who did *force* themselves into a belief, or lack thereof. That doesn't mean you can't push youself in a certain direction, or consider many different things that you may be uncomfortable with, but that actual *click* just has to happen.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No, I don't agree to that at all. In the Bible, God and Jesus were often performing miracles and God was speaking aloud (or it seems that way from how it is written.) I don't seem to recall anything about how after Jesus is dead, no more good evidence of his divinity would be presented.

But that's how it has turned out (basically), no?

And I shouldn't have even said *that*. The point of Jesus wasn't to provide evidence! That he is evidence, or performed miracles, that's all fine and good, but no miracles after Christ can compare with what he won for us.

Again, the concept of "good evidence" misses the boat entirely. Which is why my point about faith is accurate. You keep talking about good evidence, and I keep talking about faith. I can show you the word faith in hundreds of passages no doubt. And where in the Bible does it talk about "good evidence"?

So I'll reitereate my point. God wants us to know him through faith, and not through "good evidence". If you can show me parts of the Bible where it talks about the value of good evidence, I'll retract this point.

That seems to be an assumption that is tacked on by some believers.

A good hunk of Christian belief has followed post-Christ.

But I also don't agree that most believers think that faith is the only aspect needed for belief.

Of course it wouldn't be the only one, but it has to be the greatest one, wouldn't you agree?

Many (most?) also believe in demonstrable miracles.

True.

Of course, they will fall back on "faith" if you ask them how they knew it was God doing the miracle, but they obviously think that God is doing something tangible.

Agreed. I also believe something like this.

LOL. What sort of verification are you looking for? Will you take it on faith?

Well, if God tells me directly in the next one, would you also call that taking it on faith? Maybe, and if so, then faith is always necessary, for eternity, and there's nothing wrong in thinking that for a Christian.

Yes, we disagree (politely though ). I cannot accept that two people can "know" things that are mutually contradictory, for example, a Christian can "know" that Jesus was the Messiah and a Muslim can "know" that Jesus was not the Messiah.

But that knowledge follows from things that are assumed/accepted. We can understand why those knowns are known. Knowledge follows from the individual, or, an individual/group of individuals.

Both are based on faith, yet they cannot both be factually correct. I do not see how such beliefs can be legitimately called "knowledge".

Agreed, but I guess I'm thinking that facts and knowledge aren't the same thing. You can have knowledge of facts and you can have knowledge or errors.

I acknowledge that some lexicographers include religious belief as one description of knowledge, but it would be a mistake to use that definition to conflate belief with factual knowledge.

But if the belief corresponds to fact (lets leave out factual knowledge), it's a mistake without value.

-Elliot

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I think it's akin to how, as a child grows up, the parent interferes less and less in the child's life. So you are correct, since an increase in sophistication is what is also seen as children grow up.

Taken somewhat further, the upshot seems to be that, at some stage in the future (à la de Chardin's "Omega Point"), we shall no longer have any need for or of god, though I doubt you would willingly subscribe to such a notion. Am I wrong?

I don't think that happenstances are contingent on our models of reality.

Nor am I proposing any such view. Instead, our models of reality, depending on their accuracy, provide the best available yardstick for gauging what is and what is not a miracle.

Calling something a miracle has more to do with us then what has happened. It follows from our models of reality. And our models of reality have changed continuously, evolved, etc. I can be content with a working model of reality, but I don't have to make it into a god or anything. Meaning, if an anecdote doesn't conform to a working model of reality, so what?

The kicker is in the meaning that attaches to "so what?" If, as I suspect, it connotes indifference then physical reality surely can no longer offer up any surprises to you. On the other hand, as an earnest question, it would (and should!) prompt much curiosity about why the anecdote in question violates our model, and thereby lead to improved understanding.

Now, do I have use for working models of reality. Sure. I have use for it. That's all. It isn't my end all and be all, my everything.

Yet it seems that you are loath to apply a similar utilitarian conception to god, i.e. viewing god as a working model of the total reality. Why is this?

'Luthon64

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Please explain how this is fatuous.

Because it totally misses the point of the argument. Of course we understand today the physical mechanisms at work in producing the emergent phenomenon called "temperature," and the reasons for there being a lower limit to it; moreover, such understanding (and the definitions it produced) has not been with us forever. And, additionally, none of this precludes the possibility of, say, a strange and unknown state of matter which would allow energy to be "borrowed" from the sample in such a way that it would manifest a sub-zero K temperature - a sort of "evaporative cooling" of matter, if you will, and ignoring the physical difficulties of measurement.

These things together were the point.

Now, please try to follow the argument instead of harping on about the palatability or otherwise of tangential details.

'Luthon64

 

[hammegk]

Then why is the phrase "whatever you ask for you shall receive" continually supplied?

What constitutes the prayer? The thoughts, words, or behaviors? And over what time-frame should those be considered to be prayer?