Prayer and power

[Bri]

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

We've already discussed the Biblical quotes on this thread. The quotes posted are irrelevant when discussing Christian belief. What is relevant is how Christians interpret the quotes in the context of the rest of the Bible. Perhaps ceo_esq can provide more insight into how they are interpreted by Christians, but I would be willing to bet that few require that all prayers are granted, and therefore that there must be evidence of prayer.

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

Oh, I thought we were discussing actual beliefs held by Christians today. If any Christian believes that all prayers are granted despite the evidence to the contrary, I readily admit that they hold an irrational belief. I'm not able to find a single reference of a Christian who believes that though.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Disproven by Galton himself over a century ago.

Please post a link. Until then I remain skeptical that Galton proved that prayer doesn't help anyone deal with illness.

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

Me too. And yet, it is just my opinion that their reasons aren't rational.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

And yet, it is just my opinion that their reasons aren't rational.

Only in the sense that it's just your opinion that a question-begging argument is a fallacy.

 

[Bri]

Disproven by Galton himself over a century ago.

Quite an overstatement there. From Wikipedia:

Galton hypothesized that if prayer was effective, members of the British Royal family would live longer, given that thousands prayed for their wellbeing every Sunday. He therefore compared longevity in the British Royal family with that of the general population, and found no difference[2]. While the experiment was probably intended to satirize, and suffered from a number of confounders, it set the precedent for a number of different studies, the results of which are contradictory.

Again, there is no reason to assume that evidence would be found for prayer using this sort of experiment, even if prayer works.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

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

I have conceded that the argument is logically valid. You can't materially prove an attribute of something that you don't know exists based on the ignorance (no evidence of) of that self same thing.

 

[Bri]

Only in the sense that it's just your opinion that a question-begging argument is a fallacy.

Until you post some references that actually back up your opinions, I'll assume that they are just opinions. Feel free to present actual evidence otherwise.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I have conceded that the argument is logically valid.

In your previous post you claimed that my argument was an example of begging the question. It's not.

You can't materially prove an attribute of something that you don't know exists based on the ignorance of that self same thing.

Again, I have posted several examples that seem to imply otherwise:

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

We don't know of the existence of any ET's that have the means to clearly communicate with us and know of our existence, and yet we can provide an attribute that such beings likely have if they do exist based on our ignorance of their existence, namely that they don't want to communicate with us.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

In your previous post you claimed that my argument was an example of begging the question. It's not.

My apologies. The argument is problematic because it relies on the lack of evidence of the existence of a thing to "prove" something about that thing.

Again, I have posted several examples that seem to imply otherwise:

"seem to imply"?

We don't know of the existence of any ET's that have the means to clearly communicate with us and know of our existence, and yet we can provide an attribute that such beings likely have if they do exist based on our ignorance of their existence, namely that they don't want to communicate with us.

You can't materially prove an attribute of something that you don't know exists based on the ignorance (no evidence of) of that self same thing.

 

[Bri]

"seem to imply"?

Yes.

You can't materially prove an attribute of something that you don't know exists based on the ignorance (no evidence of) of that self same thing.

The example seems to imply otherwise.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

The example seems to imply otherwise.

The purpose of a argument is to establish a definite proposition AKA the truth of a statement. A conditional statement can be logically true and still be false.

If I were a woman I could bear children. I'm not a woman so I can't bear children.

Your argument is fallacious because it relies on the inability to prove the first premise to establish the proposition. To prove the first premise would be to negate the proposition.

If the moon were made of green cheese it would be edible. That is a logically valid argument. However it doesn't prove that the moon is edible. Before we went to the moon the hypothetical was true only in the abstract as a hypothetical. We now know that it is false.

If I assume that the moon is made of green cheese I don't therefore prove to myself that the moon is edible anymore than those who assume that God exists prove to themselves that God does not want them to know he exists.

The difference between the moon is made of cheese argument and your "God does not want people to know he exists" argument is that your relies on the inability to prove the first premise in order to establish the proposition. For that reason it is materially fallacious.

ETA: I'm sounding too authoritative for my abilities again. I could very well be wrong. I'm going to bow out of this particular argument Bri untill and unless I can get some feedback from others.

 

[Bri]

If the moon were made of green cheese it would be edible. That is a logically valid argument. However it doesn't prove that the moon is edible.

Correct, the argument does not prove that the moon is edible. In order to prove the conclusion of any argument you must first prove (or accept without proof) the premises upon which it is based (in this case that the moon is made of green cheese and that green cheese is edible).

However, the statement "if the moon is made of green cheese and if green cheese is edible, then the moon is edible" is true. It just happens that at least one of the premises is untrue, therefore the argument doesn't prove that the moon is edible.

Likewise, my argument doesn't prove that an omnipotent God exists who doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence (nor have I claimed that it does). It does show that if the premises are true (if an omnipotent God exists), he doesn't actively want to to know for certain of his existence. In other words, if someone accepts the premises as true (as Christians likely do), they would likely also accept the conclusion as true.

Here's the argument stated in a more formal way (although I admit that I'm not particularly adept at formal proofs), which makes it more clear that I'm not drawing any invalid conclusions or basing my argument on any premises that you would likely disagree with:

1. If an omnipotent God exists and actively wants us to know for certain of his existence, we would know for certain of his existence.
2. We don't know for certain that an omnipotent God exists.
3. Either no omnipotent God exists, or an omnipotent God exists who doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence (from 1 and 2).
4. If an omnipotent God exists, then he doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence (restatement of 3).
5. Christians believe that an omnipotent God exists.
6. Christians probably believe that God doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence (from 4 and 5).

Looking only at lines 1 - 4 of the argument, line 4 does indeed seem to imply an attribute of a (possibly nonexistent) omnipotent God based on our ignorance of the omnipotent God's existence. However, it contains a conditional which must be true in order for the second half of the line to be true. The only actual conclusion that I drew from this argument is in line 6.

ETA: I'm sounding too authoritative for my abilities again. I could very well be wrong. I'm going to bow out of this particular argument Bri untill and unless I can get some feedback from others.

Not a problem. I didn't read your "ETA" before I responded, so I'm going to go ahead and submit my post (and maybe it will help), but I agree to shelve this particular argument for now unless others wish to comment on it.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

In other words, if someone accepts the premises as true (as Christians likely do)

Which is an irrational step without evidence to support the premises.

 

[Bri]

Which is an irrational step without evidence to support the premises.

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point and is a separate argument from the one I was making to which RandFan took exception.

My point was that Christians probably believe that God doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore Christians would have no reason to expect evidence of prayer working even if it does work as they believe. In other words, a lack of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Correct, the argument does not prove that the moon is edible. In order to prove the conclusion of any argument you must first prove (or accept without proof) the premises upon which it is based (in this case that the moon is made of green cheese and that green cheese is edible).

One quick point. If you accept without proof the premises of your "if God existed argument" then you have to accept that nothing has been proven, only assumed.

 

[SezMe]

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

I disagree. We have the ability to commuicate (send signals) to an amoeba but we don't bother because we figure they are too dumb to answer. ETs might have the same relationship to us.

 

[Bri]

I disagree. We have the ability to commuicate (send signals) to an amoeba but we don't bother because we figure they are too dumb to answer. ETs might have the same relationship to us.

That seems to qualify as not wanting to communicate to me. If you disagree, it is also easily resolved by adding another premise, such as "ET's know that we can communicate." Either way, my point still stands. It is possible to draw conditional conclusions about (possibly nonexistent) beings based on lack of knowledge about them.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

One quick point. If you accept without proof the premises of your "if God existed argument" then you have to accept that nothing has been proven, only assumed.

The only thing that has been "proven" is that Christians probably believe that God doesn't actively want us to know for certain of his existence (the only actual conclusion I drew from the argument). This conclusion isn't based on an assumption that an omnipotent God exists -- it is only based on the assumption that Christians believe that an omnipotent God exists (a premise that you hopefully agree with).

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

This conclusion isn't based on an assumption that an omnipotent God exists -- it is only based on the assumption that Christians believe that an omnipotent God exists (a premise that you hopefully agree with).

LOL. Yeah, you got us there. If you first start with assuming an irrational belief (e.g. an omnipotent God), then anything further that you add underneath will not seem irrational.

Yes, Bri, if your assumptions are outrageous enough, anything can be logical.

 

[Beth]

Hmmm. The assumption that Christians believe that on omnipotent God exists seems a reasonable one to me. Given that the belief is quite prevalent in our culture, it doesn't seem any more irrational a belief to me than the commonly held belief that the sun circled the earth would have been irrational prior to that bit of geometry being better worked out a few centuries ago. My point is that just because a belief is incorrect doesn't make it irrational. So regardless of whether or not an omnipotent God actually exists, it's hardly irrational for people in our society to believe in one.

 

[Bri]

LOL. Yeah, you got us there. If you first start with assuming an irrational belief (e.g. an omnipotent God), then anything further that you add underneath will not seem irrational.

Yes, Bri, if your assumptions are outrageous enough, anything can be logical.

Again, I didn't assume an omnipotent God. I only assumed that Christians believe in an omnipotent God (a premise which I hope you agree with). Please re-read the "proof" and tell me which line you disagree with.

-Bri