Prayer and power

[RandFan]

Let me try this.

You ask Pete if he wants a candy bar and he says that he doesn't care. He says you can leave it on the desk in which case he will eat it or you can take it with you in which case he won't.

Does Pete want or not want the candy bar? Remember, you can only choose one.

I was really hoping for a response.

 

[drkitten]

This is where you are making your mistake. "A or not A or null".

Er, Rand.... He's not making the mistake. You are. To be fair, he picked a bad metaphor with his candy bar example, because English doesn't handle modal verb negation well.

"I want a candy bar" means, conventionally, "I actively desire a candy bar."

The opposite of "I want a candy bar" is "I do not actively desire a candy bar." This includes both the situation where I actively desire the absence of a candy bar, and the case where I don't have an active desire at all.

A better example would be in reportage.

"John said that Mary was going to the store."

"No, that's not true!"

If, in fact, it's not true that John said that, then he might have said something different or he might have simply remained silent. The statement "It is not the case that John said that Mary was going to the store" is equivalent to "John did not say that Mary was going to the store," not "John said that Mary wasn't going to the store."

 

[RandFan]

Er, Rand.... He's not making the mistake. You are. To be fair, he picked a bad metaphor with his candy bar example, because English doesn't handle modal verb negation well.

"I want a candy bar" means, conventionally, "I actively desire a candy bar."

The opposite of "I want a candy bar" is "I do not actively desire a candy bar." This includes both the situation where I actively desire the absence of a candy bar, and the case where I don't have an active desire at all.

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

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

False choice

A typical false choice is the assertion "You are either with me or you are against me." The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment.

The problem is that desire is not an absolute. You may not absolutely, actively desire or not actively desire a candy bar.

A better example would be in reportage.

"John said that Mary was going to the store."

"No, that's not true!"

If, in fact, it's not true that John said that, then he might have said something different or he might have simply remained silent. The statement "It is not the case that John said that Mary was going to the store" is equivalent to "John did not say that Mary was going to the store," not "John said that Mary wasn't going to the store."

Seeing someone or not seeing someone is either true or not true. Desire is not an absolute.

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

Which is true?

 

[RandFan]

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

What does John want?

 

[I less than three logic]

John wants a clone.

 

[RandFan]

John wants a clone.

Me too.

 

[Bri]

No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

Actually, another poster mentioned Drake's equation, which was when we first began talking about the galaxy as opposed to the universe (Drake's equation doesn't take into account any other galaxies, probably for good reason).

Nonetheless, the discussion was about whether opinions for which there is little supporting evidence are necessarily irrational. I simply brought up the question of intelligent life elsewhere because it seems to contradict the notion that such beliefs are irrational. Unless you are saying that belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational, then they are both valid comparisons. So, do you think it is irrational to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? If not, then how is that belief different from a belief that prayer works?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No more than stating that the sun will rise tomorrow is overstating my case.

I also disagree with that. As I've mentioned, there is far more evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow than there is evidence that prayer never works. So, although technically they are both opinions, one is a straw man since we are talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence.

If you can read that quote and think that the physical laws that govern the sun are somehow different than the laws that govern everything else then you simply don't understand the laws of physics or you believe in faith or you simply don't understand the argument.

I don't recall saying that the difference between the two had anything to do with violations of the laws of physics. The sun not rising is a straw man because of the reason given above, not because they don't both violate the laws of physics (although the sun not rising wouldn't necessarily violate the laws of physics if one believed that some other catastrophic event were going to occur).

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Actually, another poster mentioned Drake's equation, which was when we first began talking about the galaxy as opposed to the universe (Drake's equation doesn't take into account any other galaxies, probably for good reason).

And what pray tell would that reason be? Whatever that reason is it most certainly cannot help your positions. In any event you were talking about life outside of our solar system. This meets that requirement to a small degree and further illustrates the increased likelihood of life as we add galaxies to the equations.

 

[Bri]

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID!!!It may very well have been what you meant but it is NOT WHAT YOU SAID!

It's both what I said and what I meant. I showed you in the paragraph where it clearly said "If God exists." If you misunderstood what I said, or if what I said wasn't clear enough, then I apologize. Now, please get over it!

Intellectual honesty would dictate that you acknowledge your error or in the least not argue as if you had not said what you clearly said regardless of your meaning. I don't know what you meant. I can't read your mind. I will take you at your word that you meant something else.

And yet you still argue about it even when I explained what I meant.

Now, if you did mean something else then have the decency to simply correct the record and then perhaps the courage to simply admit your mistake.

I've done so twice. Maybe more.

There is NO mistake about what you said. Lacking knowledge of A is evidence of B.

Correct, that is what I said. However, I did NOT say that lacking knowledge of "A" is evidence of "not A."

That is illogical. It was illogical yesterday, it is illogical today and it will be illogical tomorrow.

Wrong. Lacking knowledge of something can certainly be evidence of something else. For example, lacking knowledge of basic logic is evidence that you need to do more research into basic logic.

What I DIDN'T say was that lacking knowledge of God's existence was evidence that God doesn't exist or that God does exist or that prayer works or that prayer doesn't work.

What I DID say was that if an omnipotent God exists, the fact that we don't know for certain of his existence would indicate that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I also disagree with that. As I've mentioned, there is far more evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow than there is evidence that prayer never works. So, although technically they are both opinions, one is a straw man since we are talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence.

No, since there is no evidence that prayer works and lots of evidence that prayer doesn't work. I know you think your little distraction is effective but it is not.

The sun will rise tomorrow: Lot's of evidence that it will and no evidence that it wont.

Prayer does not work: Lot's of evidence that it does not work and no evidence that it does.

 

[RandFan]

It's both what I said and what I meant. I showed you in the paragraph where it clearly said "If God exists."

And I have shown you that "if" will not change anything. It is still illogical.

 

[Bri]

Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.

Sorry, but I have to call B.S. on you there. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of the opposite, but it can be evidence of something else. See my previous post for some examples.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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

Did I ever claim otherwise?

What I DID say was that either is a valid counter-example to the argument that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence for it UNLESS you are admitting that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational. Do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, but I have to call B.S. on you there. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of the opposite, but it can be evidence of something else. See my previous post for some examples.

Then I call B.S. right back on you. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge.

 

[RandFan]

Did I ever claim otherwise?

Actually, yes.

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

 

[I less than three logic]

And what pray tell would that reason be? Whatever that reason is it most certainly cannot help your positions. In any event you were talking about life outside of our solar system. This meets that requirement to a small degree and further illustrates the increased likelihood of life as we add galaxies to the equations.

As I've stated before, Bri doesn't have the slightest clue what the Drake equation is for.

There was a good reason they limited it to this galaxy in that equation. The equation was developed to show an estimate of the likelihood of there being intelligent lifeforms we may be able to detect and communicate with. This limits us to a very small area of the universe, even a very small area of just the Milky Way because of the time it takes the signals to travel. It wouldn't have made any sense for the equation to worry about other galaxies, the closest being 25,000 light years away, because at that range it would take too long for the signals to bounce back and forth for any hope of communication. Also, the inverse squares law limits the distance we could hope to communicate within.

 

[RandFan]

See my previous post for some examples.

I could only find one example.

For example, lacking knowledge of basic logic is evidence that you need to do more research into basic logic.

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

So, my point stands.

 

[RandFan]

As I've stated before, Bri doesn't have the slightest clue what the Drake equation is for.

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

Bri simply isn't willing to accept positions that are counter to her world view.

 

[Bri]

No, since there is no evidence that prayer works and lots of evidence that prayer doesn't work. I know you think your little distraction is effective but it is not.

I didn't say that there wasn't evidence that prayer doesn't work. Certainly there have been studies that have shown that prayer doesn't work in some instances. What I said was that there is no evidence that prayer never works. Christians generally acknowledge that prayer doesn't always work, therefore in order to refute their belief you would have to provide evidence that prayer never works. Can you?

The sun will rise tomorrow: Lot's of evidence that it will and no evidence that it wont.

Completely in agreement here. However, it's a straw man because there is lots of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and little or no evidence that that prayer never works.

-Bri