Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Exactly how does this thing you refer to as god contact you with all of the info you keep telling us he, she or it does?

Post, email, facebook?

You've really got it bad Alan.

ippy

My contact with God is through prayer, as the other 2.3 billion Christians will testify.

So like this imaginary belief of yours you're imagining some sort of contact between yourself and something there is no credible evdience that would support whatever it is, if it even existed, for your sake I hope these contacts you say you have, isn't in the form of voices.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

You may not like what science is telling us about the sub-conscious controlling our actions but that doesn't mean it isn't the case. It is early days regarding that area of scientific research though but the indications are that that is how things work. You might just need to learn how to deal with that.

I am aware of the discovery that specific brain activity occurs seconds before we make apparently conscious decisions, but  the scientific deduction that sub conscious brain activity alone controls our apparently free will decisions is blatently incorrect.  Participants of major sports such as F1 racing, football, boxing, tennis etc all have to make instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness.  If brain activity needs to be induced seconds prior to implementing a conscious decision, there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it.

[Outrider]

I am aware of the discovery that specific brain activity occurs seconds before we make apparently conscious decisions, but  the scientific deduction that sub conscious brain activity alone controls our apparently free will decisions is blatently incorrect.  Participants of major sports such as F1 racing, football, boxing, tennis etc all have to make instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness.  If brain activity needs to be induced seconds prior to implementing a conscious decision, there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it.

Brain activity precedes both the conscious awareness of that activity, and the physiological responses to it, but not always in the realm of seconds. Indeed, the physiological responses occur within milliseconds, and even then the responses of top sportsmen are not whole and entire in the first instance.

Awareness might be up to a few seconds after the brain activity, but:
a) physiological responses occur orders of magnitude faster; and
b) physiological responses are often primed in advance, and start before they are needed in order to be ready at the correct time.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am aware of the discovery that specific brain activity occurs seconds before we make apparently conscious decisions, but  the scientific deduction that sub conscious brain activity alone controls our apparently free will decisions is blatently incorrect.  Participants of major sports such as F1 racing, football, boxing, tennis etc all have to make instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness.  If brain activity needs to be induced seconds prior to implementing a conscious decision, there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it.

To your credit I've never once seen you here post the sort of bile and resentment that some of your fellow christians seem to wallow in, but that doesn't mean that your child-like reasoning holds water. Are you familiar at least with the idea of a logical fallacy - an incorrect argument which undermines the force of the attempted point?

Your posts consist almost entirely of logical fallacies of both the formal and informal type - your latest for example contains (at least) three of them (argument by assertion, non sequitur etc). I don't doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, but do you not think that it would help you at least to understand what logical fallacies are so you can try to avoid them in future? For all I know you might have a valid point to make, but the moment I start to read your posts I have no choice but to dismiss them because your reasoning is so obviously hopeless.

[Gordon]

You may not like what science is telling us about the sub-conscious controlling our actions but that doesn't mean it isn't the case. It is early days regarding that area of scientific research though but the indications are that that is how things work. You might just need to learn how to deal with that.

I am aware of the discovery that specific brain activity occurs seconds before we make apparently conscious decisions, but  the scientific deduction that sub conscious brain activity alone controls our apparently free will decisions is blatently incorrect.  Participants of major sports such as F1 racing, football, boxing, tennis etc all have to make instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness.  If brain activity needs to be induced seconds prior to implementing a conscious decision, there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it.

So, Alan, if you are driving (assuming you do) and you approach, say, traffic lights or a blind bend do you will anticipate various options based on both previous experience and the presenting situation: the lights may be due to change, there could be something hidden around the bend etc etc?

You will subconsciously anticipate some possibilities from experience and then there are the actual circumstances that you encounter, and your biology seems quite capable of processing and reacting (or not) to these various options and even then there is always the possibility that you make a mistake. 

It is just applied biology, Alan: nothing more than that, and your underlying assumption that 'there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it' is getting in the way of your thinking even in respect of how people navigate their way through everyday situations.   

[torridon]

You may not like what science is telling us about the sub-conscious controlling our actions but that doesn't mean it isn't the case. It is early days regarding that area of scientific research though but the indications are that that is how things work. You might just need to learn how to deal with that.

I am aware of the discovery that specific brain activity occurs seconds before we make apparently conscious decisions, but  the scientific deduction that sub conscious brain activity alone controls our apparently free will decisions is blatently incorrect.  Participants of major sports such as F1 racing, football, boxing, tennis etc all have to make instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness.  If brain activity needs to be induced seconds prior to implementing a conscious decision, there must me something outside the deterministic rules of science which induces it.

The participants do not make 'instant decisions based upon real time conscious awareness' though.  Consciousness is never in real time, it is subject to consciousness lag.  By the time the boxer let fly a stinging right hook he had already subconsciously made that decision moments earlier, that decision itself prompted by subconscious perception of the opportunity.  Your conscious mind is the last guy in the chain to get to know what is going on.  Two boxers in a ring are not aware of the lag because it is the same for both of them, indeed the same will be true for all large brained animals; conscious experience is an expensive and sophisticated phenomenon, it takes time to procure it, it cannot happen instantaneously.

[Alan Burns]

Exactly how does this thing you refer to as god contact you with all of the info you keep telling us he, she or it does?

Post, email, facebook?

You've really got it bad Alan.

ippy

My contact with God is through prayer, as the other 2.3 billion Christians will testify.

What has 2.3 billion Christians got to do with anything? Just because a lot of people believe something less than credible to be true doesn't mean it is!

I am not saying that numbers are an indication of truth.  It was just a response to ippy's post which seemed to be implying that I am an oddball for having belief in prayer.

[BeRational]

Exactly how does this thing you refer to as god contact you with all of the info you keep telling us he, she or it does?

Post, email, facebook?

You've really got it bad Alan.

ippy

My contact with God is through prayer, as the other 2.3 billion Christians will testify.

What has 2.3 billion Christians got to do with anything? Just because a lot of people believe something less than credible to be true doesn't mean it is!

I am not saying that numbers are an indication of truth.  It was just a response to ippy's post which seemed to be implying that I am an oddball for having belief in prayer.

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

[Nearly Sane]

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

No, it hasn't - those doing the prayer studies are not even doing science - given that science is methodologically naturalistic, using it to examine supernatural claims is entirely worthless. That's not to say that there is any validity in the claims, you would need a supernatural methodology to establish that - we don't appear to have one, therefore the claims are unfalsifiable

[BeRational]

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

No, it hasn't - those doing the prayer studies are not even doing science - given that science is methodologically naturalistic, using it to examine supernatural claims is entirely worthless. That's not to say that there is any validity in the claims, you would need a supernatural methodology to establish that - we don't appear to have one, therefore the claims are unfalsifiable

Tests have been done to see if there was an effect.

These, as you say did not find the effect.

[Nearly Sane]

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

No, it hasn't - those doing the prayer studies are not even doing science - given that science is methodologically naturalistic, using it to examine supernatural claims is entirely worthless. That's not to say that there is any validity in the claims, you would need a supernatural methodology to establish that - we don't appear to have one, therefore the claims are unfalsifiable

Tests have been done to see if there was an effect.

These, as you say did not find the effect.

But the tests are based on effect as defined by a naturalistic methdology. the idea of the supernatural breaks the concept of cause and effect that that methodology is based on - the tests are not a supernaturalist method so in that case are entirely worthless. The whole approach was pointless and not science

[Outrider]

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

No, it hasn't - those doing the prayer studies are not even doing science - given that science is methodologically naturalistic, using it to examine supernatural claims is entirely worthless. That's not to say that there is any validity in the claims, you would need a supernatural methodology to establish that - we don't appear to have one, therefore the claims are unfalsifiable

Tests have been done to see if there was an effect.

These, as you say did not find the effect.

But the tests are based on effect as defined by a naturalistic methdology. the idea of teh sueprnatural breaks the concept of cause and effect that that methodology is based on - the tests are not a supernaturalist method so in that case are entirely worthless. The whole approach was pointless and not science

Yes... and no. Prayer, in the classic interventionist sense, is a supernatural activity. However, claims were being made that it 'worked', which implies that whilst the mechanics might have been supernatural, that it could be shown to have material, measurable effects.

These experiments didn't disprove prayer, which a failed experiment might normally be considered to do, but simply demonstrated that the claim 'prayer works' is not ALWAYS true. In the absence of a naturalistic mechanism, the lack of effect cannot be deduced to have any particular meaning.

O.

[BeRational]

It's odd, because it has been shown by experiment to be false.

To continue to believe something known to be false is odd.

No, it hasn't - those doing the prayer studies are not even doing science - given that science is methodologically naturalistic, using it to examine supernatural claims is entirely worthless. That's not to say that there is any validity in the claims, you would need a supernatural methodology to establish that - we don't appear to have one, therefore the claims are unfalsifiable

Tests have been done to see if there was an effect.

These, as you say did not find the effect.

But the tests are based on effect as defined by a naturalistic methdology. the idea of teh sueprnatural breaks the concept of cause and effect that that methodology is based on - the tests are not a supernaturalist method so in that case are entirely worthless. The whole approach was pointless and not science

But the effect would have been measurable in the real world.

We may not have known what caused it but it would have sparked further investigation.
As it was, there was no effect so nothing to investigate.

It all looked like you would expect if prayer had no effect.

[Nearly Sane]

[Yes... and no. Prayer, in the classic interventionist sense, is a supernatural activity. However, claims were being made that it 'worked', which implies that whilst the mechanics might have been supernatural, that it could be shown to have material, measurable effects.

These experiments didn't disprove prayer, which a failed experiment might normally be considered to do, but simply demonstrated that the claim 'prayer works' is not ALWAYS true. In the absence of a naturalistic mechanism, the lack of effect cannot be deduced to have any particular meaning.

O.

But the idea of 'prayer works' is then defined naturalistically which is pointless in terms of the claim - there is no 'yes' here, it's simply that the people carrying out the experiments should no understanding of the philosophy of science as a method

[Nearly Sane]

But the effect would have been measurable in the real world.

We may not have known what caused it but it would have sparked further investigation.
As it was, there was no effect so nothing to investigate.

It all looked like you would expect if prayer had no effect.

No, because effect is a naturalistic term in terms of science. The experiments were not science, showed an ignorance of both science, the philosophy it is based on and followed the rather poor thinking often shown be miracle touters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But the tests are based on effect as defined by a naturalistic methdology. the idea of the supernatural breaks the concept of cause and effect that that methodology is based on - the tests are not a supernaturalist method so in that case are entirely worthless. The whole approach was pointless and not science

But isn't the point rather that those who claim the efficacy of prayer do so by reference to naturalistic phenomena - "if we pray hard enough, little Timmy will get better" kind of thing?

Claims of naturalistic phenomena are investigable with naturalistic means - and double blind trials and the like consistently show that prayer makes no difference whatever to outcomes (or in one case seems to make the outcomes worse because the patients prayed for reasoned that their illnesses must be more serious than they realised if they needed to be prayed for). 

Cause and effect is always problematic when claims of the supernatural are involved - I'm not sure I even know what "supernatural" means when the religious use it - but the total absence of a relationship between prayer and outcomes should at least give pause for thought I think. (Unless you're Alan Burns, and thus indifferent to facts.)

[Nearly Sane]

Note it's the same issue the Randi challenge follows which posists that if it cannot be found to be natural, it must be supernatural - which is truely atrocious science since it assumes that the controls can be designed to avoid being trumped in some completely naturalistic way - see Arthur C Clarke and his sufficently advanced species.

It acts as if science is perfect and as if the claims made are naturalistic.

[Nearly Sane]

But isn't the point rather that those who claim the efficacy of prayer do so by reference to naturalistic phenomena - "if we pray hard enough, little Timmy will get better" kind of thing?

Claims of naturalistic phenomena are investigable with naturalistic means - and double blind trials and the like consistently show that prayer makes no difference whatever to outcomes (or in one case seems to make the outcomes worse because the patients prayed for reasoned that their illnesses must be more serious than they realised if they needed to be prayed for). 

Cause and effect is always problematic when claims of the supernatural are involved - I'm not sure I even know what "supernatural" means when the religious use it - but the total absence of a relationship between prayer and outcomes should at least give pause for thought I think. (Unless you're Alan Burns, and thus indifferent to facts.)

But that's really the point - that the religious who make claims that are not sensible in terms of a method, does not mean that applying an entirely inappropriate method tells you anything about them. The challenge to the muracle claims is not that by using a wrong method, nothing appears to happen, because as previoulsy  discussed everything may be done by pixies, but that the claim has no method to substantiate it. The lack of 'effect' in the prayer experiment is of no weight when arguing with someone who knows beneficial effects happend from some god thing without a method. Carrying out these experiments was completely meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Note it's the same issue the Randi challenge follows which posists that if it cannot be found to be natural, it must be supernatural - which is truely atrocious science since it assumes that the controls can be designed to avoid being trumped in some completely naturalistic way - see Arthur C Clarke and his sufficently advanced species.

It acts as if science is perfect and as if the claims made are naturalistic.

I agree with the sentiment - how would we distinguish "supernatural" from "natural that we just haven't figure out yet" but those who make naturalistic claims about a causal relationship between prayer and outcomes can have those claims tested by naturalistic means. Only when they also claim supernatural outcomes it seems it me do they exclude themselves entirely from enquiry.   

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with the sentiment - how would we distinguish "supernatural" from "natural that we just haven't figure out yet" but those who make naturalistic claims about a causal relationship between prayer and outcomes can have those claims tested by naturalistic means. Only when they also claim supernatural outcomes it seems it me do they exclude themselves entirely from enquiry.

No, they are excluded from enquiry because in the light of having no method, their claims are meaningless. Applying the wrong method to them shows nothing in terms of the science or their belief. If you don't know what supernatural means, as you stated, then the investigation of it is just hand waving - it's not even wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But that's really the point - that the religious who make claims that are not sensible in terms of a method, does not mean that applying an entirely inappropriate method tells you anything about them. The challenge to the muracle claims is not that by using a wrong method, nothing appears to happen, because as previoulsy  discussed everything may be done by pixies, but that the claim has no method to substantiate it. The lack of 'effect' in the prayer experiment is of no weight when arguing with someone who knows beneficial effects happend from some god thing without a method. Carrying out these experiments was completely meaningless.

Maybe the problem is one of overreaching. Even if we ratchet back from claims of causality, at least claims of corroboration should be investigable. Take a large enough sample of folks with the same illness, pray for one half and not for the other and find that there's not even a correlative relationship between outcomes and that tells you something at least. 

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe the problem is one of overreaching. Even if we ratchet back from claims of causality, at least claims of corroboration should be investigable. Take a large enough sample of folks with the same illness, pray for one half and not for the other and find that there's not even a correlative relationship between outcomes and that tells you something at least.

No, it tells you nothing about the claim - because in the terms of the investigation the claim is meaningless. The point is that the original claim has no back up by any method and even if you found that the prayed for group got better it would tell you precisely nothing about the claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, they are excluded from enquiry because in the light of having no method, their claims are meaningless. Applying the wrong method to them shows nothing in terms of the science or their belief. If you don't know what supernatural means, as you stated, then the investigation of it is just hand waving - it's not even wrong.

Why would they need a method? Even if they confined themselves to, "we've no idea what we mean by "supernatural", and we have no idea how it works but we have solid data to show a correlation between prayer and outcomes" then at least there'd be something to investigate. That's not to say for a moment that there could never be a naturalistic explanation that we hadn't figured out yet, but it is to say that there'd at least be something to address concerning the more modest claim of correlation.

As you note though, given that they usually don't confine themselves to such modest claims then we're in "not even wrong" territory.

[Nearly Sane]

Why would they need a method? Even if they confined themselves to, "we've no idea what we mean by "supernatural", and we have no idea how it works but we have solid data to show a correlation between prayer and outcome" then at least there'd be something to investigate. That's not to say for a moment that there could never be a naturalistic explanation that we hadn't figured out yet, but it is to say that there'd at least be something to address concerning the more modest claim of correlation.

As you note though, given that they usually don't confine themselves to such modest claims then we're in "not even wrong" territory.
[/quote] Except the not even wrong is being applied here to the prayer experiments. The point is that the claim of the supernatural breaks any idea of correlation in the sense science looks at it,

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except the not even wrong is being applied here to the prayer experiments. The point is that the claim of the supernatural breaks any idea of correlation in the sense science looks at it,

But if, say, a religious group could show that they prayed for all 50 patients in Ward A and for none of the 50 patients in Ward B and the Ward A patients had better outcomes, that claim at least would be testable by naturalistic means: it's demonstrably either true or false. Now if it were to be true (which it never is, but hey) then I agree with you that naturalistic methods and the religionists' attribution of cause would have nothing to say to each other. I see no problem though with testing their correlative claim by naturalistic means.